Profit is a closer abstraction to cash flows (i.e. to the investor) than revenue, but it's still an abstraction. Investors looking at revenues and unit economics can sometimes--often--predict future profits and discount backwards, in the same way that a value investor can look at a company's profits and sometimes--less often, frankly--predict future cash flows from dividends or M&A and then discount backwards.
How can you have a successful business that spends more money than you make?
The term profit covers a number of metrics. All of them are abstractions. The number of assumptions that go into a GAAP profit figure is uncountable. Profit on a cash basis is less wiggly, but it's still--for valuation purposes--useful only inasmuch as it is an estimate of actual cash returns on the investment.
> you bring in more money than you spend, it means that you don’t have to worry about a “runway”, nor do you have to worry about outside funding
Lots of ways for cash-flow positive businesses to be running themselves into the ground. Garden variety is off balance sheet liabilities, though people certainly
> How can you have a successful business that spends more money than you make?
Nobody argued this, not for the long term. But there are loads of situations in which losing money in the short term is the long-term savvy move. (This literally describes all investing. You send cash out when you invest.) Valuation involves estimating the value of those future earnings today.
Recognize that, simplistically, Profit = Revenue - Expenses, and that expenses is a dial which can be turned somewhat arbitrarily.
I wouldn't like to guess what the success rate of this game is though.
Today or tomorrow?
If a company has to spend more than they make today in order to build something they can sell for profit tomorrow, that's investing in the future.
Just looking at revenue or profit is too simplistic. It's also too simplistic to only look at a single point in time.
That doesn’t help now that the public market doesn’t have an appetite for companies that aren’t profitable.
So if retail investors aren’t interested in non profitable companies, there is no profit it in it for investment bankers to flip the stock at IPO to take advantage of a “pop” meaning that VCs are less interested in throwing good money after bad.
How have the former “unicorns” focused on “growth” fared in the last few years?
For instance DoorDash couldn’t make a profit during a worldwide pandemic when everyone was ordering takeout.
If you service has complexity and needs lots of hand-holding and is expensive to generate the sales, then it's harder to say what to do with sales numbers.
