Eventbrite has gotten close to profitable which I assume made them feel comfortable stepping back up the investment into growth (which achieved 61% 1H17 to 1H18). Probably will be awhile before it makes its way into indexes so I wouldn't worry about that now.
Hyman Minsky argues that "hot messes of unprofitability" tend to be a common phenomenon after long periods of economic success. Stability breeds instability. Tech didn't introduce this behavior.
> In particular, over a protracted period of good times, capitalist economies tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance units to a structure in which there is large weight to units engaged in speculative and Ponzi finance. Furthermore, if an economy with a sizeable body of speculative
financial units is in an inflationary state, and the authorities attempt to exorcise inflation by monetary constraint, then speculative units will become Ponzi units and the net worth of previously Ponzi units will quickly evaporate. Consequently, units with cash flow shortfalls will be forced to try to make position by selling out position. This is likely to lead to a collapse of asset values.
> For Ponzi units, the cash flows from operations are not sufficient to fulfill either the repayment of principle or the interest due on outstanding debts by their cash flows from operations. Such units can sell assets or borrow. Borrowing to pay interest or selling assets to pay interest (and even dividends) on common stock lowers the equity of a unit, even as it increases liabilities and the prior commitment of future incomes. A unit that Ponzi finances lowers the margin of safety that it offers the holders of its debts.
Hedge units, in contrast:
> Hedge financing units are those which can fulfill all of their contractual payment obligations by their cash flows: the greater the weight of equity financing in the liability structure, the greater the likelihood that the unit is a hedge financing unit. Speculative finance units are units that can meet their payment commitments on "income account" on their liabilities, even as they cannot repay the principle out of income cash flows. Such units need to "roll over" their liabilities: (e.g. issue new debt to meet commitments on maturing debt). Governments with floating debts, corporations with floating issues of commercial paper, and banks are typically hedge units.
I think that really just means that the market has changed and you're no longer for this market, rather than that new companies are not for public market.
Market is literally made up of the companies and people that participate in it.
You really should do both.
A small amount of your funds should go in to high growth.
One of my gambling portfolios is full of high growth semi-conductor stocks like AMD and MU, and SaaS stocks like CRM and HUBS. I have triple digit returns for the past couple years.
Most individual investors, including younger, should have little or no money in individual stocks but instead in something like a Vanguard diversified portfolio of cheap index funds/ETFs. If you want to take 5% or 10% of your worth to the stock casino, sure (after paying off all your credit cards and maxing your 401k/IRA).
I do both. I have about 20% of my net worth in individual stocks, the rest in low cost index funds/ETFs.
The biggest gains and losses, of course, obviously come from individual stocks (and options, if you're feeling brave.) You're not going to see triple digit yearly returns with a mutual fund. You might find it on the next SaaS growth stock.
When you're young, you should absolutely take on some risk. (That includes working at startups!)
> You really should do both. A small amount of your funds should go in to high growth.
Projecting your subjective investing preferences, risk vs return, onto someone else doesn't work. If someone is only comfortable investing in very low risk assets that will always produce a low return, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It strictly comes down to what you personally want out of the total equation.
Spot on. Everyone's investing goals and risk tolerance levels are different. It'd be criminal to put my 87 year old grandmother in high growth, unprofitable equities.
FWIW, that would have had your index fund missing AMZN and NFLX runs that have been pretty incredible. Zero interest rate policy has created a new, confusing market environment.
Right, but don't most people use index funds exactly because of their assured stability? Assured in the "5 decades" sense of the word? i.e. the retirees in the above thread?
So I wouldn't want AMZN or NFLX in my index funds. NFLX just dropped dramatically in price, yea? So I bought it outright. I still have the bulk of my investment in index funds, though.
That's a different definition of 'general public'.
Most of the public you're referring to are not pouring their savings into these IPOs.
Even so, the SEC shouldn't require companies to be profitable in order to be publicly traded - could you imagine if we took every non-profitable company private because the public needed to be protected?
>300k income joint, >200k income single, or >1m excl. primary residence in any event.
Paraphrasing an attorney from years ago: The risk of lying to invest in something only open to accredited investors is colossal both to the entity raising funds as well as to the investor, and it can/does get caught during diligence, so it's not so much an honor system as it is something that inevitably gets audited/managed either down the road or especially when something goes wrong.
This may have changed and my recollection may not be accurate. Lastly, this isn't legal advice given that I'm not a lawyer.
VCs are for gambling, public markets are for profitable businesses.