It's like asking someone playing roulette to value "13 black", after they bet on it.
There valuations are always based on expectations of huge growth, not current value. Growth predictions with an extremely low confidence level. VCs make up for it by making a lot of bets.
The companies NEVER have current profits (The actual measure of value) that would justify their valuation.
So, it's comparing gambling payouts to corporate valuations, aka "apples to oranges", which are not related.
When the predicted growth doesn't occur, the companies valuation becomes based on its actual value (profits).
Lol. "Profits" is old person talk. Nobody needs profits. The most valuable company in the world hasnt shown a dime in profit. That doesnt mean everyone cannot get rich. You just have to know the right people. That is all that matters these days. Having profits also means paying taxes... a fools game. Profits are just a sign of a weak expansion strategy and so will generally reduce valuations!
NVidia is quite profitable (it may not be enough to justify its current market cap), so is Aramco. Which is the most valuable in the world is up to you.
I don't want to make a little bit of money every day. I wanna make a fuck ton of money all at once.
When I was a kid, the valuation of a company was based on the amount of profit that it did taking into account the cost of getting it.
The day that the USA abandoned capitalism for speculative-finance was a bad day for the world economy.
That has of course largely fallen apart in practice.
And I’d argue that valuation based on NPV of future profits hasn’t fallen apart at all, it’s just become harder to estimate future profits, and the discount rate has changed.
all valuations are based on expectations of the future, that's what the stock market is. Except VC valuations which are based on how much money was invested, extended to cover all the equity rather than just what was purchased. However, the amount of money invested was calculated based on expectations for the future.
the definition of the term "asset" is "something expected to have a value in the future"
https://accountinguide.com/difference-between-assets-and-exp...
"Assets are the resources that have future economic value and they are belong and under the control of the company. They are expected to provide future economic benefits to the company. Assets are presented on the balance sheet which can be current assets and noncurrent assets."
also
https://quickbooks.intuit.com/learn-support/en-us/help-artic...
"Assets are things your business owns that have long-term value, like property or equipment. Their cost is spread out over time. Expenses are costs of daily operations that are used up quickly, such as rent or utilities, and are fully deducted when they occur."
https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/finance/assets-vs-expenses
"To be considered an asset, the item must maintain its worth for at least one year after acquisition."
Where the whole thing starts looking like gambling is when companies get huge rounds based on essentially no proof whatsoever that the thing will ever grow or have revenue. And when the idea is basically "we'll pay famous people to send greetings to people" we're in obviously stupid money territory. That was never going to have the revenues to back up the inflated valuation. And somebody still sank a few tens of millions in that to find that out the hard way. That company had a paper valuation of a billion. But it doesn't necessarily mean all those tens of millions were spent and lost. Investors might commit the money but it's usually conditional on growth targets and milestones. When shit goes south, they'll pull the brakes and the money stops flowing. Good investors wouldn't wait until all the money is gone to do that.
The reason these investments happen is that VCs mostly aren't investing their own cash. They are being paid to make investments and to inflate their portfolios. By the time the shit hits the fan, they'll have gotten their payoff. It all looks great until it doesn't. And inflated valuations make them look shit hot even when they are clearly not. This attracts more capital for them to invest.
Of course at some point the shit does hit the fan and the money evaporates. That's when you get acqui-hires and other constructions that are usually portrayed as a successful exit that, again, makes the VCs look like they know what they are doing. This is all about damage control that is about both financials and reputations. Never mind that it's effectively a fire sale at that point. But investors get to swap their bad shares for good shares, and founders get to work in somebody else's company for stock options. And the "buying" company gets some nice people and they stay best buddies with the investors they just bailed out who might typically also be investors in those companies. In the end the madness gets written off against the overall fund performance. It only takes a few good gambles to work out for everybody to come out smelling like roses.
They're primarily a function of fund size. Everything else that can be fudged is fudged in order to make it look sane.
Funds make their money by taking a cut of AUM. Thus, they're incentivized to make bigger funds. They also can't spread out their portfolio over hundreds of tiny investments without losing control, so they need to write big checks. When you write a big check, the founders need a big post-money number to maintain a reasonable percentage of the cap table. It doesn't hurt that big valuations make everyone look better.
As money flooded into VC, the funds got bigger, the checks got larger, and the number of unicorns shot up in direct proportion to the number of large funds competing for their equity. The revenue projections used to justify this charade were never really important, and couldn't be proven in any case.
Even worse, because you don't get better odds or payouts by persuading others to bet on 13 black, but you do when they invest in the company you've backed.
It’s like coin collecting, without the currency part - just hoping someone one day sees it, and wants to put them on their coin on their shelf. I can’t make sense of it, maybe that’s the point. I miss when VCs cared about helping people change the world, better or worse (ideally better).
That's...not how value works at all. If it was, all of these rapidly growing companies that haven't made a profit yet would be worth zero. Would you pay $1 for any of the big AI labs? I sure as fuck would.
Value is more about the present value of future cashflows. And it turns out that estimating future cashflows of extremely fast growing companies is really hard.
VC invest is same as buying a house. Someone has valued your house is worth x, thats why it is valued at x. There were people willing to invest at 1B valuation now they are not. Market has moved. Imagine, if the area where you bought the house, suddenly is not desirable or theres no one willing to pay for it, then value of your house will go down, in some scenarios to zero. It is as simple as that.
Let it ride !
