Expenses are like spending equity
david.weebly.com
david.weebly.com
To me, a buck is a buck. Spend it all "wisely."
To put it in terms of an individual rather than a company, the decision to take out a mortgage to buy a house is connected but somewhat different than the decision of where to spend or invest your salary dollars. The mortgage is a loan that comes at a cost (the annual interest), yet it enables you to do something (buy a house)that you could not have done out of your earnings. So, many people choose that the return on owning a home (whether financial or otherwise) justifies the decision to seek out a source of capital beyond their earnings, even though that capital comes at a cost.
I believe the analogy is most appropriate when a company hasn't yet discovered a solid, profitable business model. When you're in the early, exploratory days of your business, spending cash on non-critical items is literally like spending equity because non-critical purchases (especially extravagant ones) cut down your runway and do not raise the valuation.
Besides, this analogy is pointless. Saying a $20K couch - or a $20K breakroom/kitchen refit (more realistic) is 'equivalent' to 0.2% is meaningless. If you just turned profitable then you can afford it and you have to decide if the $20K is worth spending (vs. saving, or handing out as cash to the employees, or buying something else). If not, you have to decide whether $20K is worth shortening your run-way by however many days/weeks it will shorten your runway.
Knowing that it was 0.2% of a historical figure (amount of money you raised) doesn't tell you anything. If you've made $10M of revenue since, you'd look at a $20K expenditure quite differently than if you've made $0.
This might all make more sense if you're building a company to make noise on Hacker News for a while, then exit (perhaps a 'talent acquisition'), without any real plans to make revenue in the meantime.
Apparently, some people do. But it's more of a symbol for frivolous expenses than anything else.
This thought was meant for the "we just raised money" phase of a startup. It's certainly very applicable to the money you just raised, since by definition it was a trade of equity-for-money.
It's not just about being able to "afford it" (which is obviously better than not being able to afford it). Even if you are generating a ton of revenue, blowing it all in non-helpful ways is still not justified.
We've built a company that generates very significant revenue, and it remains even more important to have anchors to keep the value of money in perspective.
$10k/mo for the next 5 years is a lot less painful for a seed stage startup than $200k up-front, if you're going to be increasing in valuation as fast as a successful venture-funded startup.
Reducing risk also needs to be part of the psychological model; sometimes it is worth spending 5% to get to a milestone with less risk, because owning 10% of a $50mm exit is a lot more valuable than 15% of $10mm.
The biggest trick I've found with startups is to just delay and defer anything not on the path; it's a lot easier to say "we'll buy a nicer couch later" vs. "no, a nice couch isn't a reasonable thing to spend money on". The other thing is to find people with a much better time value of money than you, and use their money to pay for things -- landlords doing upgrades for you (cash upfront) in exchange for higher rent, deferring getting an office entirely, etc. Basically, converting potential capex into opex.
This is just a quick brain hack that helps us place value on what seems like a small expense once it all becomes "numbers".
It's always kind of crazy to see finance people bitch about buying dinner or espressos for the team when they're working late.
But sometimes the company ends up with a tightass CFO like that after the founder buys a $20k couch, so there we go!
I always look to IKEAs founder Ingvar Kamprad for inspiration in these matters. He still buys schampoo in discount stores even though he is one of the richest people in the world (he doesn't show up in a lot of lists since his wealth is in funds and not in his name).
This is the startup equivalent of reminding a 2 pack a day smoker that their habit could pay 1/3 of their rent or buy dinner for a month.
If you look at your expenses like capital investments and you employ a good strategy of weighing alternatives against alternatives then that .1% may dilute to .001% with a future higher valuation.
The investors money is in place to cover the expenses that allow you to build the startup company's infrastructure. Try not to look at it so painstakingly.