Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Bubble_Pop_22 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Bubble_Pop_22

> When they say "founder", they are talking about building BILLION+ dollar companies

Last time I checked the most successful companies in American corporate history are:

1) Standard Oil

2) IBM

3) Microsoft

All 3 of them managed outcompete any other company in their field and were only stopped by the U.S. Federal Government

None of them ever needed VC capital. VCs are like sirens, they are bankers in disguise.

Given all that you might as well do like the 3 aforementioned GOATs and just go to a banker if you need money.

There is nothing wrong with debt. When you have to add a liability to the balance sheet you might as well add a liability that looks and feels like a liability instead of falling for the sirens who promise to make that liability into an asset. It ain't.

View on HN

Umm... that's because "VC" as an asset class has only existed for a few decades, and didn't come out of the fringes until around the dot-com bubble. So pointing at companies started decades earlier with massive first mover advantages as a call against VC is a bit silly.

Perhaps instead talk about the % of VC funded decacorns over the last 10-15 years?

> Umm... that's because "VC" as an asset class has only existed for a few decades, and didn't come out of the fringes until around the dot-com bubble

Rockefeller and Gates wouldn't have wanted VCs on the cap table anyways, even if they were around back then.

That's because they knew they had the means to repay the 27%something interest rate loan that a newborn Standard Oil or Microsoft commanded.

People resort to VCs because they don't have the entrepreneurial arrogance to believe that the thing that they'll build is gonna be a hit.

Actually given that any movement is a bottom-up movement...VCs exists solely because entrepreneurs have lost their entrepreneurial arrogance.

Oh come on, you don't know what Rockefeller or Gates would have done if VCs were in vogue at the time of founding their companies. It's entirely possible they would have taken VC money. The advantage of getting a huge boon of cash to grow the company may have seemed worth it for the reduction in risk.

Times have changed from when Rockefeller or Gates founded their companies. It's far riskier and harder today to build successful companies. Competition is fierce due to globalization. Increased standards means a longer road before people will pay you. The population has the same distribution of "entrepreneurial arrogance" by nature, but there's less viable options to exercise it.

Instead, people turn to VCs for a multitude of practical reasons:

  - Capital to get the idea off the ground
  - Networking
  - Guidance of experienced people

Someone who is absolutely sure their jump to conclusions mat company is going to be a hit isn't arrogant, they're just stupid. On the other hand, an arrogant but smart person with an idea on how to design a better wind turbine recognizes the practical problems that building wind turbines is expensive.

Gates chose to put a VC (Technology Venture Investors) on the cap table even when flush with cash.

He picked him, like he picked Ballmer. Not because of the cash but because he wanted that particular person on board and they were particularly adamant about joining in that particular fashion.

Interesting argument, just a minor comment/question here...are you aware of the history of the Silicon Valley come and modern VC? Would you say that your argument already accounts for that history?

Silicon Valley is the last 10ft effort at the end of a 5000 years long race made possible thanks to debt.

I also don't buy the hype of Silicon Valley , from a social standpoint it seems a place full of arseholes. Zeros and ones in the bank account, however many won't compensate having to live in such environemnt

Being one of the many "millionaires next door", that is what the American dream has always been about.

How are those the most successful companies in corporate history? By what metric? Apple took dilutive investment, as did Amazon, as did Google and famously Intel did also. Even the formation of general electric involved financing from jp morgan, who financed a lot of the early giants.

Apple is the most successful company in American, and well, human history

Reply on news.ycombinator.com