You weren’t around in 2000 or 2008 were you? Your startup is only in “better shape” as long as VCs are willing to keep funding you. VCs are only willing to keep funding you if they have confidence that you will have a profitable exit.
A friend’s medical practice will implode April 30... their business is down 90% and they won’t be able to pay rent or the employees. They are only staying open in hope for some sort of aid or debt jubilee. The partners will lose pretty much everything.
People with cash aren’t going to keep plowing money into startups, they are going to buy depressed assets. Every leveraged real estate company will be broke in 90 days or less.
I wouldn't imagine they are a GP? This crisis would increase their traffic. Cosmetic surgery?
But honestly I think it's too complex to attempt. Perhaps some form of managed debt jubilee will work "no rent for six months" or something. but the unintended consequences will be huge.
Good luck to your friend
Edit: we should probably focus on the areas that can be easier made whole - finding landlords with extant contracts and just paying them for the contract will be easier than getting their tenants paid, finding businesses with employment contracts easier than paying individuals...
In 2001, VCs actually pulled back investments from startups. People think that once cash is in the bank it's theirs.
That’s not a negative despite what the tech bro’s think. I hate the idea of success for a company seems to be “we got another round of funding while losing money”.
- Mark Cuban
Otherwise, "just" spending less than you make and trying to make it on their own only makes them bootstrapped, don't you think?
By contrast early generation SV companies took relatively small amounts of funding if at all. Intel for example took the equivalent of $18.4M US in 2019 dollars prior to IPO. [1]
At least that is how lifestyle business is slung here. No one in my local business association would scoff at businesses growing at a healthy pace and no debt. Also nice if no VC gives me another round, I don’t have to shut down tomorrow.
We're lucky to have a customer base that spans many industries. We've lost some chunks of income.. chains of malls closing, restaurants, lobbies, DMV offices, customers getting live sports info.. but it's all temporary and we're well in the black. Instead of worrying if we'll make it we're looking for opportunities and how we can best take advantage of our strong position.
If there is a profitable decision I could take, like investment / partners / whatever, I prioritise the fact that I want to keep running this company myself without interference over profit. I prioritise my job satisfaction.
Maybe I could hire a more competent CEO, but that's not what I am trying to do here. I could get a mentor thou.
This business could be funded by debt, or investment, though not normally.
Now I might make a lot of money and grow the firm to 10k people, or I might take long holidays and go bankrupt - that's a different problem entirely.
Arguably with current rates we are going to have cheapest money ever possible. On top of that a lot of traditional investment vehicles are contracting.
On the other hand large funds like SoftBank are clearly under-performing. Cracks in that model were already appearing prior to Covid-19. So yes, interest rates are low, and equities should benefit in general. However it does not follow that VC investment funds are overall a good bet. To make that argument you would have to trade off against alternatives like real estate, more traditional industries, on-shoring of supply chains, etc.
And with all the stories coming out of Berlin's scene, and to a lesser degree Munich's, I came to the conclusion: "lifestyle businesses" businesses without external funding are hard. They are traditional small companies, the have to rely on positive cash flow, profitability and banks to keep running. Quite tough, especially if the founder and employees have to actually live from the profits.
Startups on the other hand, they life of VC money. As long as the founding team can sell their vision to VCs to get more VC money, they run just fine. So the founders can live the startup life with other people's money. Sounds more like lifestyle businesses to me.
And I imagine some of those clients may have money problems resulting from the crisis too, directly or indirectly. Nobody is totally isolated.
That sort of startup probably also counts as a “traditional small businesses.”
Startup = Growth
Companies large enough to serve multiple different organizations may be able to re-balance their services.
One might argue that the signal indicated lower risk, but this runs at odds with the mission to find potentially large payoffs. That is, derisk enough, and you de-reward. Add to that, that there is no "sure thing", or ultimate de-risk. There are no silver bullets in this process, and signals you think may indicate one thing, actually indicate something entirely different.
The markets present an even more compelling opportunity for high risk return at the moment.
I'd argue that VCs (being opportunists at heart) are very likely to redirect funds and shun startups for a while e.g. likely as long as post tech bubble timeframe.
“By our very nature, we need months of runway just to keep running. We're designed to weather this kind of storm because "zero revenue" is the default state.”