Slashdot Mirror


Startups Struggle For Survival As Investors Turn 'Picky' (gerbsmanpartners.com)

An anonymous reader quotes The Wall Street Journal: Eighteen months ago, Beepi Inc. was rapidly expanding its online used-car business to 16 U.S. cities where people could buy cut-rate vehicles adorned with giant shiny bows. Beepi doesn't exist anymore. After burning through more than $120 million in capital, the startup failed to raise more cash and shut down in February. Its roughly 270 employees cleared out of the cavernous Mountain View, California headquarters, leaving behind the ping-pong table and putting green.

Beepi's rapid demise offers a glimpse into the changing fortunes of Silicon Valley startups, many of which have struggled to adjust since a two-year investment frenzy came to an end. In 2014 and 2015, mutual funds, hedge funds and other investors pumped billions into companies that they now see as overvalued, and unlikely to pull off an initial public offering. As venture capitalists became more discerning, investment in U.S. tech startups plummeted by 30% in dollar terms last year from a year earlier.

The article also points out that "much of the money still being invested is pouring into the upper echelon of highly valued start-ups like Airbnb and WeWork or younger ones with clear paths to profit," leaving "scores" of previously well-funded startups now struggling to survive.

17 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. The main problem by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't take 120 people and $120 million to sell cars online. What were those 120 people doing?

    1. Re: The main problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Playing ping pong and golf from the sounds of it.

    2. Re:The main problem by fnj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More precisely, exactly what were those people doing with ALL THAT LOOT??? Where did it go?

    3. Re:The main problem by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Much of the money goes the people who rented them the real estate.

    4. Re:The main problem by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Informative

      FTA:

      Venture capital poured in, and its valuation surged from $US12m in early 2014 to $US525m by mid-2015. Beepi moved out of its cramped office and into a glassie building where the chief executive zipped around on his own Segway. Staffers enjoyed quinoa salad and turkey meatball lunches and dinners when they often stayed late, and unwound with ping-pong or Nerf guns.

    5. Re:The main problem by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, a big part of the problem is that in the 1970s, California enacted a property tax scheme that is perfectly designed to limit homeowners' ability to move. By making property taxes be based solely on the purchase price instead of on the actual value of the home, people would pay dramatically more in property taxes every year if they sell one house and buy a second one even if they break even on the deal.

      Prop 13 drastically skews the proportion of renters to owners by forcing people to rent out their old place so they can afford the rent on a new place instead of selling and buying. It also discourages new people from entering the market by making them pay the bulk of the cost of goods and services while folks who have been there for a few years pay proportionally less. The result is one of the most screwed up real estate markets anywhere in the world.

      (BTW, Sunnyvale mobile home parks are only ~$1k per month and only maybe $50–75k to buy an old house and move it out of the way, plus the cost of whatever you move in. That extra $1,500 per month + $75k is the Google tax you pay for living five minutes closer to work.)

      Another part of the problem is that the Bay Area lacks a proper region-wide planning commission with authority to regulate zoning across the various cities. So you have places like Menlo Park, where the only housing is private estates for the rich C*Os, with lots of businesses out near the shore where land is cheap (because it smells of rotting fish), and you have Gilroy and Morgan Hill that are almost entirely housing, with few businesses.

      IMO, what we really need is to have some government entity that slowly converts business-use land in the South Bay to residential use and says "No" whenever big companies say that they want to expand their presence in the South Bay, encouraging them to build satellite offices farther south instead. And offer tax incentives to locate new businesses outside the SF/Peninsula/South Bay area. Adding more businesses farther south would increase the reverse commute traffic and reduce the primary commute proportionally, and opening up more farmland to development would go a long way towards reducing the cost of housing as well.

      Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen unless there's a single management agency that has some authority across all the different administrative districts. Right now, each city wants to get its share of the tax revenue from new businesses, and they mostly don't care about the clustering problems that result from it. Nobody is taking a bird's eye view of the problem, or if they are, they don't have the authority to do anything about it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:The main problem by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      In Mountain View, CA? Rent.

      How much of Mountain View doesn't Google own?

      Google and LinkedIn did a land swap last year to get out of each other's way since Mountain View wasn't big enough for the both of them.

      http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/07/12/google-linkedin-strike-stunning-grand-bargain-for.html

  2. Due Diligence by vlad30 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you mean that investors are finally doing due diligence before investing had to happen sooner or later

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    1. Re:Due Diligence by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

      you mean that investors are finally doing due diligence before investing had to happen sooner or later

      Yup - and, incidentally, this is exactly how the original dot-com bubble burst.

      Ah, Kozmo.com, I still miss you...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  3. Re:buble by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

    Anybody stupid enough to invest in Beepi deserved to lose their money.

  4. US Capital Reinvestment Problem by zifn4b · · Score: 3, Interesting

    US Capital Reinvestment is a problem in general. Large corporations and investment firms with $2.5 trillion is in off-shore bank accounts citing that 39.6% corporate tax rate as the reason why they refuse to repatriate the money. We're also still on the tail end of the one of the most abysmal job markets since The Great Depression. Companies and investment firms are still squeezing every last whiplash they can get out of the poor labor market conditions to get more value of existing offerings and employees.

    TL;DR there is a lack of incentive for anyone to invest in the US job market and policy makers haven't really done anything to address the problem other than offshoring jobs and hiring H-1B visa's that work twice as hard for half the pay but are also twice as incompetent. Great situation we have in the job market. It's pure insanity.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  5. One man's picky is another man's prudent by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone surprised at this wasn't around for the last Dotcom Bubble, or wasn't paying attention. This is exactly what happened in early 2000, when you started to hear the first few whispers that the peak had finally been hit. Investors are just coming to their senses. I don't entirely blame them this time -- the last bubble was about some people having access to the Internet, and this one is about having absolutely everyone worldwide accessing the Internet over a phone, which is with them 24/7 and can generate tons of marketing data.

    I'm just glad that there aren't too many individual investors who are losing out with crappy IPOs of companies that will never make a profit. I remember people losing a ton of money speculating on pets.com or VA Linux or theglobe.com -- all companies with almost no hope of doing well in the long run. What I am seeing this time is the fact that there are just _so many_ startups, and how many copycats there are. The barrier to entry is low, the cloud runs their software, they use social media to advertise, and there seem to be 20 different clothing subscription services, food delivery services, etc. I think the sales pitch for VCs this time is "disruption" more than "eyeballs" but it's still the same result.

    Just like the last one, I'm sitting out on the sidelines in a traditional IT/engineering job and watching everything fall in on itself again. When I started reading stories about new edgy web startups popping up in California again, all I could feel was deja vu... There's only so much ping pong, foosball, hipster open office spaces, catered meals, and brogramming that VC money will buy, and I think we're about to see that come to an end. Since these startups can just run in the cloud, they definitely have longer to live, but I don't know how much.

    1. Re:One man's picky is another man's prudent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I blame them for creating bubbles in the first place. It is literally investors being irrational and wasting retirement funds money that makes bubbles exist. $120 millions goings to inexperienced start up with no feasible long term business except ability to spend a lot of money short term kills distorts the market.

  6. Re:there's no more substance. by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is survivor bias. It seems to you that the companies founded in the 1950ies and 1960ies were solid ones because you only know the names of the companies that managed to stay afloat for some time and leave an impression. No one remembers the dozens of companies that didn't survive long enough, and all of them failed.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  7. In 2003 by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    I was working at a local ISP and was pretty much burnt out as there was only 3 of use running an ISP with 4000+ customers and me having do to web design, support and sales. When I finally gave my walking papers in the two weeks before my departure where were 80+ resumes sent it with a big part of them being guys who not a year earlier were running "multi millions worth internet companies" in Yale Town Vancouver which were now defunct. My old employer was like this guy was the ceo of this and that and etc.. He never hired any of them as all they wanted was to get their foot into the door with another internet company.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  8. Rationality? by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "much of the money still being invested is pouring into the upper echelon of highly valued start-ups like Airbnb and WeWork or younger ones with clear paths to profit," leaving "scores" of previously well-funded startups now struggling to survive."

    If they're not a highly-valued (ie speculative) startup, or one with a CLEAR PATH TO PROFIT, why the fuck would/should anyone be investing in them?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Rationality? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they're not a highly-valued (ie speculative) startup, or one with a CLEAR PATH TO PROFIT, why the fuck would/should anyone be investing in them?

      It is called the "the greater fool theory". It is investing in a venture even after knowing it has no real prospects, investing in ponzi schemes knowing well it is a ponzi scheme etc. Basic idea is, "yes it is a scam. I know it is a scam. I might be a fool to invest in this thing, but, I will flip the investment to some greater fool before the whole thing comes crashing down."

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact