I think you can look at holding companies like IAC and Liberty Media for an example model for what John is proposing -- i.e., companies that have treated consumer Internet growth as partly an exercise in R&D, but with SG&A-based growth playing a major role. Interestingly, many of the consumer Internet companies that have operated in this way are headquartered outside Silicon Valley (MTCH - Dallas, Booking - Amsterdam, IAC - New York, etc.). They have had to take a different approach to capital because they operated outside the Silicon Valley VC ethos.
I was going to mention IAC/Liberty - a lot of this happened to the computer hardware and game console industry in the 70s/80s/90s. Look at Commodore, Atari, etc, they used many different financial tools to continue existing.
This is a great call out. Even to this day, gaming is a capital intensive business, but has operated outside of what most VCs are willing to invest in. Tencent was able to build a massive equity portfolio in gaming by adapting its investment model to better match the hit-driven dynamics of the industry -- an opportunity missed by VCs and game publishers.
Most founders have very little experience in dealing with investment banks on structuring unique financial structures for their companies. As much as I despised working in the "crypto" world, I learned a lot about all of the different financing options, tax optimizations, and how much support/leverage a good banker can give a company. All of these tools have been available for most large industries with historical data backing them up. I don't know if we are there yet for the internet right after covid - but getting close - Vista, ThomaBravo, and KKR's new tech fund are pretty much paving the road for this and I kind of agree with one of the comments that GS is in a position to really dominate here. I feel like the VCs are not as well equipped compared to what GS offers: global govt connections, unique non-equity financing, and a history of offering these products. It would be really nice to see a VC or fintech in the valley pioneer this.
One of the differences might be the sourcing & risk-appetite of non-bank lenders. If there is a secular rise in the market of lending to software, no doubt GS will take its share. But non-bank lenders have fewer regulations than public banks and can underwrite pieces that GS will abstain from.
Great article thank you. Among other things I think it makes an eloquent argument for deep tech as a key area of evolution/growth for startup founders/investors. Only so many hours we can fill on a screen as you say! But so many amazing frontiers for software interfacing with the physical world - biology, chemistry, physics.
Great points especially about headcount being causal of growth rather than resultative. Keeping tab on the CAC to LTV spend in public enterprise companies will surely result in interesting insights.
I am not sure whether there will be a centralized/public lender (Sand Hill Sachs) in lending to software companies. There have been structural shifts in public and private markets where there has been an increase in non-bank private lending (see whitepaper by Ares) mainly because a) banks have shifted focus to larger companies/borrowers and b) private debt is better positioned to sustain the risk associated with lending to smaller companies. I see this structural shift to extend to the private debt market for software companies.
Why? Unlike deposit-funded commercial banks, non-bank lenders generally operate through closed-end funds and lower leverage, allowing them to bear more risk and sustain riskier debt loans. Also distributed lending through multiple private entities allows for a distribution of the systemic risk rather than accumulating in one entity (which, if gone wrong, would lead to collapse of the tech lending market).
As an econ major, many might argue that CS is more highly valued as a holistic skill. But with more innovation happening in atoms, isn't it likely that STEM will see the bulk of the growth (CS + bio) and not econ, which people feel they can learn on the side?
Ideally, it's time for a breakout where a new trend is expected to emerge to capitalise the market. It's like getting done with horse chariots and getting started with cars.
I did not read past your first graph showing growth trends. Growth is not infinite and the price of a stock is based on growth. It's the mindset that a company's value is it's stock price that is flawed. There are plenty of unlisted steady state companies providing value to our nation. It's the lottery feaver of the stock market that needs to change.
Great article, and I think it generally fits with Carlota Perez’s lifecycle of technological revolutions, as we move past the turning point and into the deployment period.
On your point about expecting a shift in educational backgrounds - I’d also add that you might predict those with more of a “traditional” business background (MBAs, management consultants, etc.) to become more and more valuable at tech companies. Something we are already seeing at the top of the tech giants.
I think you can look at holding companies like IAC and Liberty Media for an example model for what John is proposing -- i.e., companies that have treated consumer Internet growth as partly an exercise in R&D, but with SG&A-based growth playing a major role. Interestingly, many of the consumer Internet companies that have operated in this way are headquartered outside Silicon Valley (MTCH - Dallas, Booking - Amsterdam, IAC - New York, etc.). They have had to take a different approach to capital because they operated outside the Silicon Valley VC ethos.
I was going to mention IAC/Liberty - a lot of this happened to the computer hardware and game console industry in the 70s/80s/90s. Look at Commodore, Atari, etc, they used many different financial tools to continue existing.
This is a great call out. Even to this day, gaming is a capital intensive business, but has operated outside of what most VCs are willing to invest in. Tencent was able to build a massive equity portfolio in gaming by adapting its investment model to better match the hit-driven dynamics of the industry -- an opportunity missed by VCs and game publishers.
Most founders have very little experience in dealing with investment banks on structuring unique financial structures for their companies. As much as I despised working in the "crypto" world, I learned a lot about all of the different financing options, tax optimizations, and how much support/leverage a good banker can give a company. All of these tools have been available for most large industries with historical data backing them up. I don't know if we are there yet for the internet right after covid - but getting close - Vista, ThomaBravo, and KKR's new tech fund are pretty much paving the road for this and I kind of agree with one of the comments that GS is in a position to really dominate here. I feel like the VCs are not as well equipped compared to what GS offers: global govt connections, unique non-equity financing, and a history of offering these products. It would be really nice to see a VC or fintech in the valley pioneer this.
One of the differences might be the sourcing & risk-appetite of non-bank lenders. If there is a secular rise in the market of lending to software, no doubt GS will take its share. But non-bank lenders have fewer regulations than public banks and can underwrite pieces that GS will abstain from.
This is huge. Great perspective.
Great article thank you. Among other things I think it makes an eloquent argument for deep tech as a key area of evolution/growth for startup founders/investors. Only so many hours we can fill on a screen as you say! But so many amazing frontiers for software interfacing with the physical world - biology, chemistry, physics.
Meanwhile, China is outspending us 4:1 on R&D, PPP, and has taken the lead in most sciences as a result.
Great points especially about headcount being causal of growth rather than resultative. Keeping tab on the CAC to LTV spend in public enterprise companies will surely result in interesting insights.
I am not sure whether there will be a centralized/public lender (Sand Hill Sachs) in lending to software companies. There have been structural shifts in public and private markets where there has been an increase in non-bank private lending (see whitepaper by Ares) mainly because a) banks have shifted focus to larger companies/borrowers and b) private debt is better positioned to sustain the risk associated with lending to smaller companies. I see this structural shift to extend to the private debt market for software companies.
Why? Unlike deposit-funded commercial banks, non-bank lenders generally operate through closed-end funds and lower leverage, allowing them to bear more risk and sustain riskier debt loans. Also distributed lending through multiple private entities allows for a distribution of the systemic risk rather than accumulating in one entity (which, if gone wrong, would lead to collapse of the tech lending market).
As an econ major, many might argue that CS is more highly valued as a holistic skill. But with more innovation happening in atoms, isn't it likely that STEM will see the bulk of the growth (CS + bio) and not econ, which people feel they can learn on the side?
How BTS Redefined Global Music and Culture
https://tinyurl.com/2tnb9mp5
Ideally, it's time for a breakout where a new trend is expected to emerge to capitalise the market. It's like getting done with horse chariots and getting started with cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GsaHt9HnA4
I did not read past your first graph showing growth trends. Growth is not infinite and the price of a stock is based on growth. It's the mindset that a company's value is it's stock price that is flawed. There are plenty of unlisted steady state companies providing value to our nation. It's the lottery feaver of the stock market that needs to change.
Lets solve a math quiz here and win a mobile load and much more gifts
https://shorturl.at/1Juxl
Great article, and I think it generally fits with Carlota Perez’s lifecycle of technological revolutions, as we move past the turning point and into the deployment period.
On your point about expecting a shift in educational backgrounds - I’d also add that you might predict those with more of a “traditional” business background (MBAs, management consultants, etc.) to become more and more valuable at tech companies. Something we are already seeing at the top of the tech giants.
Fantastic read. Would love an updated version for 2024/25!
What is the source of the data for the graphs "annual growth rates across tech categories" and "incremental internet speed distribution"?
Great article!