24/ I'm seeing lots of takes that this is like 1999 (the infamous dot com bubble)
This is a quick attention-grabbing take which is likely great for clicks but belies a lack of understanding of 1999 vs now
First, yes there are some things that seem similar
Like what?
25/ Similarities
* lots of $ piling into startups
* everyone (not just VCs) wanted a piece of tech
* tech was top of my mind for media
* some 'silly' companies were getting funded at lofty valuations
26/ Differences
* a lot more enterprise tech/SaaS today vs heavy consumer. It's not eyeball monetization and other nonsense. It's ARR, churn, etc.
* the $ today are going to building product and getting to product-market fit and not racks of servers, colocation facilities, etc
27/ More differences
* The money is increasingly going to perceived winners vs speculative early stage cos. Look at the decline in early-stage in this quarter. It's at a 5 year low.
28/ 5% of total rounds are mega-rounds ($100M+) but they account for 58% of $
So when folks do these facile comparisons of 1999 $ to 2021 $, it's like comparing an apple to a lawn mower
29/ Venture is more global than ever
It's also a lot less incestuous than '99 when recycling of investor $ among ad tech, ecommerce, hosting cos was the norm
One toppled and we watched the dominoes fall
There was no Asia, LatAm, Europe VC scene then. Now they're huge!
30/ Finally, this doesn't mean that there aren't excesses in venture today
Price discipline gone ✔️
Some silly ideas getting $ ✔️
New investor (family offices, HFs/MFs, corps) may be taken for a ride ✔️
All good critiques but let's pls stop with the "It's like 1999" nonsense
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So it's public peers are 4x to 5x larger in terms terms of revenue
And they're growing 2.5x to 4.5x faster
Add in a further discount for illiquidity given Airtable is private, the valuation is prob south of $991 million
Asana has the lowest price/revenue multiple of the bunch at 6.61x which is how we arrive at the $991M
Asana is also growing at almost 3x the rate of Airtable off revenue that is 4x larger
It's not hard to imagine that this brings down the multiple of Airtable to 3 to 5x which would equate to a valation of
$450M to $750M
That'd be a discount of 93-96% vs that Dec 2021 valuation
The company is cutting costs and repositioning for profitability which makes sense in this market but given the current likely valuation, all investors after the March 2018 Series B are likely underwater
They're also talking about a future IPO but getting back to anywhere close to that $11.7B valuation would require reigniting massive growth and making that price:revenue to growth ratio look more appealing
As always, if you believe any of my assumptions in the above are incorrect, please comment and I'll update the analysis if the additional context dramatically changes the results
If you want to go deep on the space, we analyzed @airtable & peers as well as products in the space in Jan 2023
The numbers have evolved a bit but the storyline remains the same.
The massive Airtable equity funding tally was something that caught our eye then as well
If you're a fan of math, you might also like this analysis of Flexport's valuation
Bragging about headcount was 1 of the most corrosive trends in startup land over the last many years
I was guilty of it too
Somehow larger growing headcount became a positive signal of success for companies
When in reality, it may more often than not be a negative signal
If you look at articles about unicorns, you'd rarely see revenue figures but you'd see founders/CEOs bragging about taking the team to 800 by year-end
Fundraising and headcount became 2 false proxies for success
But what are the real negatives of more headcount?
It may be symptomatic of or lead to ("may" is important here)
- indicate lack of focus
- belief that scale comes from ppl not systems
- a lack of focus on culture
- a non-performance driven culture
- execs motivated by empire-building
- excess complexity & slower velocity