financedfuture

Does YC take Jason and other early-stage investors as direct competitors?

In 2014, Google's Total Operating Expense was 49.5B.

I'm not convinced going out of the Valley would be vital for them.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GOOG&fstype=ii

Although hated, this comment raises interesting points.

Indeed, kids are given much more freedom and are less "disciplined" than ever before.

At the same time, there's never been so much pressure and coerciveness than right now. You "don't have to take the meds", but you most likely will do that.

Sort of a hidden, more hurtful, authoritarianism.

>For most firms this is a pause, a reset —not a meltdown

Well, isn't that just a nicer way to put this?

These are just anecdotal examples. Hundreds of unmentioned public companies have faced hurtful consequences that unicorns didn't have to worry about.

In the end, what's urgent isn't regulation on their specific industries, but on their practices and obligations as private companies with a massive market capitalization.

Sure, valuations are "tricky", but you could still impose regulations on the amount of invested capital (e.g. only regulate after >U$200M is invested).

Also, stating that `U$1B companies are extreme expert investors` is certainly an overstatement. What often happens is not even reliant on expertise or due diligence, but networks and insider "games".

Regarding unicorns (> U$1 billion valuation), the U.S should implement certain regulations.

These startups have market caps that are larger than thousands of public companies that go through several laws and openly disclosure their financial information.

Not only does this lack information hurt shareholders that are not "part of the club", but also stakeholders that rely on the company in other matters.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2674420

"Regulation of unicorns should recognize that outsized power."

>We aren’t a bank yet, but we are applying to the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for authorisation to become one.

I don't want to be negative, but this is a huge consideration.

After 2008, unfortunately, regulations have made it much more difficult to incorporate a bank and comply with the law. Is a million enough for that?

Instead of using an ignorant sarcasm, take a look at facts and formulate an argument:

http://etfdb.com/etfdb-category/technology-equities/

http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/18/there-are-now-229-unicorn-...

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/sectorandindustry/industri...

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/sectorandindustry/industri...

Sure.

That's why $FB stock is -5% down.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=FB+Interactive#{"lineColo...

This isn't surprising. I'm gonna generalize:

Without VC money, startups are led by "culture" (i.e. collective personality and desires of each member of the team). It has amazing results in the long-term.

With VC money, startups replace their culture (seen as irrelevant) by short-term expectations. Pressure , competition and hierarchy are built. Good for short/medium-term valuation. Terrible for long-term commitment.

No.

That's about recognizing there would be no mean reversion, a great indicative of the existence of crony monopolies and, therefore, lack of capitalism.

No.

Little guys compete with each other to start a niche SaaS app for passive income.

Only CEOs of huge corporations are able to build electric cars and smartphones or process financial transactions.

>We are always wary of guiding for mean reversion. But, if we are wrong and high margins manage to endure for the next few years (particularly when global demand growth is below trend), there are broader questions to be asked about the efficacy of capitalism.

This isn't a criticism of capitalism.

This is an acknowledgment our current "capitalist" financial system isn't able to produce "capitalism" itself.

Allocate part of your wealth in riskier assets. If you think you're able to do it on your own, play around with some ETFs.

Alternatively, ask around for a good hedge fund.

I have never lived in OKC and simply used to make a point, as did the parent comment.

Take Iowa, South Dakota, Utah, Texas then. If you are a senior software engineer with a family, SF or NYC wouldn't be your top choice.

> would you rather invest in a tech startup in Oklahoma City or Boston?

If I'm smart, Oklahoma. Lower valuation, rent, salaries and less competition.

True that the team wouldn't be competitive young engineers that only live in cities like NYC or SF, but that's probably a good thing.

You raised a fair point, but filled it with unnecessary rage and derogation.

Anyone in finance that is not ignorant or malicious can see how problematic this is.

American, SV and NYC "entrepreneurship" are mislead by the idea of American exceptionalism.

These are a consequence of EXTREME centralization of global investable capital in select networks. Had it been deployed evenly, you'd see unimaginably terrific ventures across the world.