Skip to content →

Tag: startup

How Tesla is like a Startup in a Bad Way

TSLAs 2019 Stock Price (YTD) (Source: Yahoo Finance)

The word “startup” is usually associated with innovation and speed. But, from a financial perspective, the thing that most distinguishes a startup from other types of businesses is that startups are dependent on investors for cash to fund growth.

A common misconception here is that startups need investors because they are unprofitable. While many startups are indeed unprofitable (in many cases, rationally so), profitability does not shield a business from the need to invest capital (to build a factory, to build up inventory, to order raw materials for production in advance of sales, etc.) to grow. In the case of a rapidly growing, cash strapped startup, this problem is particularly acute as there are no certain past or future cash flows with which to finance growth and so startups have to turn to pitching investors.

By that definition, electric vehicle maker Tesla is a startup operating on an unprecedented scale. While it may have a valuation (over $40 billion market cap as of this writing) and revenues (over $20 billion in 2018) that look like a “grown up” company, as with virtually all startups, it is completely dependent on investors to finance its growth. Since Tesla went public in 2010, the company has raised over $15 billion of debt and equity (net of paying out dividends and repaying loans), over 2/3 of which has gone into funding the extensive capital expenditures (CAPEX: investments in tooling, equipment, factories, land, etc) they’ve needed to grow.

Note: the numbers / figures presented in this post are based on publicly available data provided by Tesla on its deliveries and financials. As Tesla has a penchant for revising old figures, some of these may be based on slightly outdated figures, but I have tried to use the most recent versions I could find. Tesla does not break out much detail by segment or, for automotive, by car model, and as a result most of the figures here are aggregate level. For revenues and gross profitability, I’ve used GAAP numbers from their automotive segment (inclusive of leasing) but for capital expenditures, operating expenditures, depreciation, and cash flows I’m using the entire entity. This is done both because Tesla does not provide breakouts by segment but also because burdening these costs on Tesla’s automotive business is likely both realistic (due to the fact that Tesla’s automotive segment is responsible for the vast majority of revenue and expenditure both today and in the past) and presents a more favorable view of the business (due to Tesla’s automotive segment consistently being more profitable than the others). Refer to this Google Sheet for additional information.

This has fueled an astonishing 76.4% compounded annual growth in revenue from 2009-2018, which is especially impressive considering that Tesla vehicles sell at a premium relative to the rest of the market.

However, because the company continues to require injections of investor cash (having raised $1.5B in the first two quarters of 2019, after burning $323M of cash in that same time), the key question for any current or prospective investor into Tesla is will all of this cash burn ever pay off?

This is a question that VCs are used to asking with the startups they pour money into, but it’s one that is a lot trickier for Tesla shareholders to answer. A small software startup looking for $10M in venture capital can find many patient sources of capital who are willing to bet that the company either turns profitable (because most of the cost lies in initial development and sales) or gets sold at an attractive valuation.

But, Tesla, with a valuation in the $10’s of billions (pricing out most buyers) and needing to raise $100’s of millions (if not more) each year from investors demanding near-term results (i.e. public market investors, large corporate debt holders and their rating agencies), will likely have to prove that it can generate real profits.

But, that isn’t happening today. While Tesla proudly boasts about record deliveries as a sign of healthy demand, the numbers show this is a direct result of Tesla’s choice to shift away from selling more profitable Model S/X vehicles to selling lower price, less profitable Model 3s. This has exacerbated a multi-year trend of declining per vehicle profitability:

Lower gross profits per vehicle are not the end of the world, provided that Tesla can sell enough Model 3s to make up for the lower unit profit and start covering their other costs. But that also isn’t happening. At a fundamental level, Tesla is just not getting any real operating leverage. While booming sales volumes have boosted Tesla’s gross profits, the company’s operating expenditures (OPEX; or spending on sales, administrative overhead, and research & development) have more than kept pace. Rational watchers can choose to interpret this as either an inability to maintain growth without spending huge amounts on R&D and SG&A or as smart, long-term bets on future technologies, but the data is clear that Tesla has a long way to go before proving it can fund its own growth just by selling more cars.

The chart below shows another way of looking at this — it graphs the number of vehicles Tesla needed to deliver to cover its OPEX in a given year against the number of vehicles Tesla actually delivered that year. What is astonishing is that the number of vehicles needed to cover OPEX has gone up dramatically each year. Only in one year since 2014 did Tesla close that gap — 2018 after two amazing quarters — and from the available data for the first half of 2019, it looks like, barring a dramatic shift in pricing or profitability, Tesla will need to hit its guidance of 360,000-400,000 cars to just breakeven.

*Multiplied 2019 H1 vehicles deliveries & deliveries to break-even by 2 to compare directly with data from past years

If Tesla is not clearly demonstrating improving profitability, then for the startup investment story to work, it needs to at least demonstrate improved capital efficiency (how effectively it spends investor cash on production). While one can point to Tesla’s more moderate CAPEX spend since 2017 as evidence for this, it is more relevant to understand how Tesla is progressing in its ability to turn CAPEX investments into profit.

While its difficult to calculate precise figures around capital efficiency in the absence of specific data on the cost to build a factory and how the factories are utilized, a ratio of Tesla’s annual automotive gross profits (adjusted to remove depreciation) to its annual depreciation (a way of measuring how current and past capital expenditures are utilized in a given year, albeit one which also factors in CAPEX from Tesla’s non-automotive businesses because Tesla does not break those out separately) can be instructive. The chart below shows that, where Tesla once generated nearly $5 in profit per $1 of depreciation in 2015, it generated only $2.69 in the first half of 2019 (over 40% less). In other words, if Tesla is improving its capital efficiency and utilization as it ramps production and learns from its past mistakes, its not apparent in the numbers.

Adj. Automotive Gross Profits are GAAP Automotive Gross Profits, Less Total TSLA Depreciation

All of this is not to say that Tesla is doomed — the company’s sales, despite missteps (happy one year anniversary of “funding secured”), continues to grow, and the company has clearly captured the American public’s imagination and mind-share as it pertains to electric vehicles, and equity/debt investors continue to extend Tesla more capital even at its current valuation and debt load.

But, in terms of capital requirements, Tesla is running the largest startup experiment of all time. Earlier this year, Bird raised $300M to invest in (what are currently) money-losing electric scooters. In a sense, Tesla is doing the same thing with the Model 3 but at a far greater scale, all the while trying to develop autonomous driving technology and financing the massive liabilities of its SolarCity business. As a result, Tesla needs to continue to sell the dream both to the public and to investors, and to continue to maintain the vision of future profitability and capital efficiency as a misstep here could cause things to rapidly unravel.

Special thanks Andrew Garvin and Derek Yang for reading an earlier version of this and sharing helpful comments!

Leave a Comment

The Four Types of M&A

I’m oftentimes asked what determines the prices that companies get bought for: after all, why does one app company get bought for $19 billion and a similar app get bought at a discount to the amount of investor capital that was raised?

While specific transaction values depend a lot on the specific acquirer (i.e. how much cash on hand they have, how big they are, etc.), I’m going to share a framework that has been very helpful to me in thinking about acquisition valuations and how startups can position themselves to get more attractive offers. The key is understanding that, all things being equal, why you’re being acquired determines the buyer’s willingness to pay. These motivations fall on a spectrum dividing acquisitions into four types:

four

  • Talent Acquisitions: These are commonly referred to in the tech press as “acquihires”. In these acquisitions, the buyer has determined that it makes more sense to buy a team than to spend the money, time, and effort needed to recruit a comparable one. In these acquisitions, the size and caliber of the team determine the purchase price.
  • Asset / Capability Acquisitions: In these acquisitions, the buyer is in need of a particular asset or capability of the target: it could be a portfolio of patents, a particular customer relationship, a particular facility, or even a particular product or technology that helps complete the buyer’s product portfolio. In these acquisitions, the uniqueness and potential business value of the assets determine the purchase price.
  • Business Acquisitions: These are acquisitions where the buyer values the target for the success of its business and for the possible synergies that could come about from merging the two. In these acquisitions, the financials of the target (revenues, profitability, growth rate) as well as the benefits that the investment bankers and buyer’s corporate development teams estimate from combining the two businesses (cost savings, ability to easily cross-sell, new business won because of a more complete offering, etc) determine the purchase price.
  • Strategic Gamechangers: These are acquisitions where the buyer believes the target gives them an ability to transform their business and is also a critical threat if acquired by a competitor. These tend to be acquisitions which are priced by the buyer’s full ability to pay as they represent bets on a future.

What’s useful about this framework is that it gives guidance to companies who are contemplating acquisitions as exit opportunities:

  • If your company is being considered for a talent acquisition, then it is your job to convince the acquirer that you have built assets and capabilities above and beyond what your team alone is worth. Emphasize patents, communities, developer ecosystems, corporate relationships, how your product fills a distinct gap in their product portfolio, a sexy domain name, anything that might be valuable beyond just the team that has attracted their interest.
  • If a company is being considered for an asset / capability acquisition, then the key is to emphasize the potential financial trajectory of the business and the synergies that can be realized after a merger. Emphasize how current revenues and contracts will grow and develop, how a combined sales and marketing effort will be more effective than the sum of the parts, and how the current businesses are complementary in a real way that impacts the bottom line, and not just as an interesting “thing” to buy.
  • If a company is being evaluated as a business acquisition, then the key is to emphasize how pivotal a role it can play in defining the future of the acquirer in a way that goes beyond just what the numbers say about the business. This is what drives valuations like GM’s acquisition of Cruise (which was a leader in driverless vehicle technology) for up to $1B, or Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp (messenger app with over 600 million users when it was acquired, many in strategic regions for Facebook) for $19B, or Walmart’s acquisition of Jet.com (an innovator in eCommerce that Walmart needs to help in its war for retail marketshare with Amazon.com).

The framework works for two reasons: (1) companies are bought, not sold, and the price is usually determined by the party that is most willing to walk away from a deal (that’s usually the buyer) and (2) it generally reflects how most startups tend to create value over time: they start by hiring a great team, who proceed to build compelling capabilities / assets, which materialize as interesting businesses, which can represent the future direction of an industry.

Hopefully, this framework helps any tech industry onlooker wondering why acquisition valuations end up at a certain level or any startup evaluating how best to court an acquisition offer.

Leave a Comment

What Happens After the Tech Bubble Pops

In recent years, it’s been the opposite of controversial to say that the tech industry is in a bubble. The terrible recent stock market performance of once high-flying startups across virtually every industry (see table below) and the turmoil in the stock market stemming from low oil prices and concerns about the economies of countries like China and Brazil have raised fears that the bubble is beginning to pop.

Company Ticker Industry Stock Price Change Since IPO (Feb 5)
GoPro NASDAQ:GPRO Consumer Hardware -72%
FitBit NYSE:FIT Wearable -47%
Hortonworks NASDAQ:HDP Big Data -68%
Teladoc NYSE:TDOC Telemedicine -50%
Evolent Health NYSE:EVH Healthcare -46%
Square NYSE:SQ Payment & POS -34%
Box NYSE:BOX Cloud Storage -42%
Etsy NASDAQ:ETSY eCommerce -77%
Lending Club NYSE:LC Lending Platform -72%

While history will judge when this bubble “officially” bursts, the purpose of this post is to try to make some predictions about what will happen during/after this “correction” and pull together some advice for people in / wanting to get into the tech industry. Starting with the immediate consequences, one can reasonably expect that:

  • Exit pipeline will dry up: When startup valuations are higher than what the company could reasonably get in the stock market, management teams (who need to keep their investors and employees happy) become less willing to go public. And, if public markets are less excited about startups, the price acquirers need to pay to convince a management team to sell goes down. The result is fewer exits and less cash back to investors and employees for the exits that do happen.
  • VCs become less willing to invest: VCs invest in startups on the promise that future IPOs and acquisitions will make them even more money. When the exit pipeline dries up, VCs get cold feet because the ability to get a nice exit seems to fade away. The result is that VCs become a lot more price-sensitive when it comes to investing in later stage companies (where the dried up exit pipeline hurts the most).
  • Later stage companies start cutting costs: Companies in an environment where they can’t sell themselves or easily raise money have no choice but to cut costs. Since the vast majority of later-stage startups run at a loss to increase growth, they will find themselves in the uncomfortable position of slowing down hiring and potentially laying employees off, cutting back on perks, and focusing a lot more on getting their financials in order.

The result of all of this will be interesting for folks used to a tech industry (and a Bay Area) flush with cash and boundlessly optimistic:

  1. Job hopping should slow: “Easy money” to help companies figure out what works or to get an “acquihire” as a soft landing will be harder to get in a challenged financing and exit environment. The result is that the rapid job hopping endemic in the tech industry should slow as potential founders find it harder to raise money for their ideas and as it becomes harder for new startups to get the capital they need to pay top dollar.
  2. Strong companies are here to stay: While there is broad agreement that there are too many startups with higher valuations than reasonable, what’s also become clear is there are a number of mature tech companies that are doing exceptionally well (i.e. Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google) and a number of “hotshots” which have demonstrated enough growth and strong enough unit economics and market position to survive a challenged environment (i.e. Uber, Airbnb). This will let them continue to hire and invest in ways that weaker peers will be unable to match.
  3. Tech “luxury money” will slow but not disappear: Anyone who lives in the Bay Area has a story of the ridiculousness of “tech money” (sky-high rents, gourmet toast, “its like Uber but for X”, etc). This has been fueled by cash from the startup world as well as free flowing VC money subsidizing many of these new services . However, in a world where companies need to cut costs, where exits are harder to come by, and where VCs are less willing to subsidize random on-demand services, a lot of this will diminish. That some of these services are fundamentally better than what came before (i.e. Uber) and that stronger companies will continue to pay top dollar for top talent will prevent all of this from collapsing (and lets not forget San Francisco’s irrational housing supply policies). As a result, people expecting a reversal of gentrification and the excesses of tech wealth will likely be disappointed, but its reasonable to expect a dramatic rationalization of the price and quantity of many “luxuries” that Bay Area inhabitants have become accustomed to soon.

So, what to do if you’re in / trying to get in to / wanting to invest in the tech industry?

  • Understand the business before you get in: Its a shame that market sentiment drives fundraising and exits, because good financial performance is generally a pretty good indicator of the long-term prospects of a business. In an environment where its harder to exit and raise cash, its absolutely critical to make sure there is a solid business footing so the company can keep going or raise money / exit on good terms.
  • Be concerned about companies which have a lot of startup exposure: Even if a company has solid financial performance, if much of that comes from selling to startups (especially services around accounting, recruiting, or sales), then they’re dependent on VCs opening up their own wallets to make money.
  • Have a much higher bar for large, later-stage companies: The companies that will feel the most “pain” the earliest will be those with with high valuations and high costs. Raising money at unicorn valuations can make a sexy press release but it doesn’t amount to anything if you can’t exit or raise money at an even higher valuation.
  • Rationalize exposure to “luxury”: Don’t expect that “Uber but for X” service that you love to stick around (at least not at current prices)…
  • Early stage companies can still be attractive: Companies that are several years from an exit & raising large amounts of cash will be insulated in the near-term from the pain in the later stage, especially if they are committed to staying frugal and building a disruptive business. Since they are already relatively low in valuation and since investors know they are discounting off a valuation in the future (potentially after any current market softness), the downward pressures on valuation are potentially lighter as well.
One Comment

Crowdfunding: Hardware Startups Beware

Hardware startups are one area I spend a fair amount of time with in my life as a VC, and while I love working with hardware companies, it should go without saying that hardware startups are incredibly difficult to do. They require knowhow across multiple disciplines — software, electrical engineering, industrial design, manufacturing, channel, etc. – and, as a result, have challenges and upfront capital needs that most software/web companies lack. This has led many angels and VCs to be wary of investments involving building hardware so its no small wonder, then, that many hardware entrepreneurs have turned to crowdfunding websites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo to try to raise funds for development.

While crowdfunding can be a great fit for certain projects, I think early stage hardware startups should beware. Yes, crowdfunding sites can generate upfront capital that can fund development, but unlike traditional equity/debt investments (like the kind an angel or VC or bank will give you), “crowdfunding capital” has a particularly onerous type of “string attached”: it’s a presale.

Obviously, the entrepreneurs trying to raise crowdfunding capital want to push their projects towards real sales – so why might a presale be a bad thing? For hardware companies:

  • Raw production costs are a major percentage of sales – so even if you raised $1 million, you probably are going to be able to keep max $500,000 after the cost of materials/manufacturing
  • These pre-sales are oftentimes discounted – so you are generating lower margins on each unit making these particularly painful sales to make
  • Except in a few instances, the number of presales tends to not be high enough to meaningfully change the cost of manufacturing (i.e. upfront tooling costs or supply procurement) – which further eats into the amount of capital you have left to deploy on development since you probably have to pay the low volume price
  • It means you need to keep to some level of deadline. There is a risk that you won’t make your own deadline and there’s also risk that the time pressure might lead to tradeoffs (leave out a certain feature or asset, run fewer tests, etc.) which could hurt your reputation since the public will be getting its first impressions of your company based on that initial launch.
  • It publicly commits you to a particular product even if you learn that your initial idea is wrong or needs tweaking.
  • It tips off the market and potential competition earlier since you likely are doing this at a point before your product is ready and need to provide a fair amount of detail to get supporters.

In the end this “capital” ends up being a very real “liability”, and is a big part of why serious hardware startups that do crowdfunding almost all go back to the traditional VC/Angel community – it is simply not practical to scale up a meaningful hardware business on crowdfunded capital alone.

That said, there are definitely cases where it makes sense for hardware companies to use crowdfunding – and they are cases where the above problems are irrelevant:

  • If your cost of production is tiny relative to the price (think pharmaceuticals, software, music, movie, etc. – trivial cost of production per unit sold)
  • If you’ve already completed the vast majority of development or managed to get capital from another source and are simply using crowdfunding to either gauge customer interest or raise publicity
  • If your intention is to raise money from a VC/angel using a crowdfunding success story (that you’re positive you will get) to show that a large market exists for your product
  • You couldn’t raise money from VCs period and have no other choice

In the first case, a very low cost of production means that more dollars raised can actually go into development, irrespective of volume of production and discounts. In the second case, the pre-sale becomes a good thing: a market signal or a heavily publicized pre-sale for a product which is/is almost done. The third is very risky – because I would maintain its nigh impossible to know if a crowdfunding attempt will “go viral” and even if it does, you are still left with the liability of these presales that you need to fulfill. The last is self-explanatory :-).

If you are an aspiring hardware entrepreneur, in almost all cases your best bet will be to go with traditional equity/debt financing first. Obviously, I am in part biased by my current choice of profession but while VCs and angels can be annoying to deal with and raise money from, the lack of the pre-sale liability and their potential for connecting you with potential hires and partners makes them a much better fit.

Got any questions? Disagree? I want to hear from you!

2 Comments

That’s Fab!

Companies rarely change successfully. I’ve blogged before about some of the cultural reasons this is true for larger companies – but much of the same holds true for smaller ones as well. But, every now and then, you do get a change which does seem to work for the better.

Take the rapidly growing flash sales site Fab.com. They started as a social networking service focused on the gay population. But, when that did not work as well as they had hoped, they then attempted to reposition themselves as a review/check-in service also focused on the gay population.

Actually, it would be far more illustrative to use their words (see slide from Fab.com presentation below): they started as “Gay Facebook”, then tried to become a “Gay Yelp”, then shifted businesses to become a “Gay Foursquare” (after the popular social and location-based check-in service), and then tried to pivot again towards being a “Gay Groupon”.

fab2011timeline-111228104652-phpapp02-slide-9-768

But before they could try (and potentially falter again at) becoming the gay versions of the other major internet companies out there (Quora, Zynga, LinkedIn, Google, Pandora maybe?), they stumbled on something which really fit with their passions and interests – and that is the birth of the Fab.com that we see today.

So, successful changes can happen. Ideally, they wouldn’t need to take as many steps as Fab.com did, and we’re still a long way from ultimately calling Fab.com a success, but under the right reasons and with the right strategic thinking and operational chops, they can happen.

(Slideshare link)

Leave a Comment

Goodbye consulting, hello venture capital

image A little over three years ago, I entered the world of management consulting. Yesterday was my last day. In true consultant fashion, I sent the office a slide-as-farewell-email and enjoyed a few glasses of wine and a few bottles of beer with my “war-buddy” colleagues and other well-wishers at a local bar in the early evening. It was a great way to go.

What’s next? I now move from the world of advising large companies on big business issues to advising and, now also, investing in small, early-stage startups as someone in the venture capital space. This move won’t surprise many of my friends who have, for years, known me as someone with a lot of interest in startups and new technologies and who has dabbled on and off with my own little projects like Xhibitr. For me, a stint in VC was a great opportunity to get a chance to do many things, including:

  • Learn more about what makes new business ideas/technologies succeed: Working at a VC gives you a unique chance to truly take in numerous business plans and ideas at all stages in the startup lifecycle and see what helps drive success and failure.
  • Build an interesting network of thinkers and do-ers: While Dilbert is probably an over-exaggeration of corporate life, there is something to be said about large companies being less able to respond to disruptive innovations and business models. By immersing myself in a world of startups, I’m hoping to get to meet and converse with some of the thinkers behind the big ideas which will change the world.
  • See a different side of the business world: Consulting is a great introduction to understanding how businesses think and work, but it operates mainly at the big business level, where gameboarding and strategy matter a great deal more than boldness and execution. I didn’t feel comfortable making a commitment to a particular industry or specialty (or to a MBA/masters/PhD/other degree) without seeing this other side as well.

I’m very excited and am looking forward to the next chapter of my professional life!

(Image credit)

9 Comments

I know enough to get myself in trouble

One of the dangers of a consultant looking at tech is that he can get lost in jargon. A few weeks ago, I did a little research on some of the most cutting-edge software startups in the cloud computing space (the idea that you can use a computer feature/service without actually knowing anything about what sort of technology infrastructure was used to provide you with that feature/service – i.e., Gmail and Yahoo Mail on the consumer side, services like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure on the business side). As a result, I’ve looked at the product offerings from guys like Nimbula, Cloudera, Clustrix, Appistry, Elastra, and MaxiScale, to name a few. And, while I know enough about cloud computing to understand, at a high level, what these companies do, the use of unclear terminology sometimes makes it very difficult to pierce the “fog of marketing” and really get a good understanding of the various product strengths and weaknesses.

Is it any wonder that, at times, I feel like this Dilbert cartoon?:

image

Yes, its all about that “integration layer” …

My take? A great product should not need to hide behind jargon.

(Link: Dilbert cartoon)

3 Comments

Stuck between a big company and a startup place

imageI sometimes feel like I’m caught between two worlds.

On the one hand, I feel a strong tug towards the “Silicon Valley dream” of entrepreneurship. Friends of mine like Charles Ju, Founder and CEO of PlayMesh, the maker of one of the top iPhone games out there (iMafia) are living that dream – driven by one’s passions and one’s desire to engineer a product/service/technology to change the world – and heck, maybe get wealthy while you’re at it. It’s that drive which has pushed me to work with my buddies on projects like Xhibitr and Benchside.

On the other hand, I also feel a strong pull towards the corporate strategy world which I currently am involved in at my day job. The work is more stable (in the sense that I’m usually not dependent on the next round of funding for my livelihood), and the issues one explores are more strategic. It’s not desperately asking “will someone PLEASE buy my product?” or “how do I improve my product without spending any money because I’m out of cash?”. It’s literally answering “how do I shape an industry?” and “how do I change our business processes to be more responsive to customer needs?”

What makes the soul-searching all the more difficult is how different the two things are, and how different the people who work in each are. It makes it hard to just take the advice of friends like Charles or Serena who tell me to jump ship and head for startup-infested waters.

image For starters, I’ve noticed that there are very different skills involved in the two groups. Big corporate strategy guys are more likely to value things like analysis (e.g., do the models support the proposed strategy? do we have the right numbers? what does that do to our cash and margin position?) and gameboarding (e.g., how will Microsoft or Google or Intel or Cisco react? how do the tech trends affect us/get shaped by us? who are the strategic partners/enemies who will care most about this?). I’ve found startup guys to more value execution over strategy (e.g., can we ship on time? can we get it done?) and boldness over analysis (e.g. is our product cool enough? will people care?)

This is not to say that big business guys don’t value execution or boldness, or that startup guys have no sense for analysis or gameboarding. And this is not even to say that either side is unreasonable. After all, startups need to execute before they worry about a perfect strategy, and big companies need to defend their sizable profit pool before they bet on a new one.

But that dynamic oftentimes frustrates me. When I’m doing the corporate strategy stuff, I grow frustrated at the conservatism and lack of boldness and progress. I am bothered by the bureaucracy and the lack of value placed on my scientific/technical knowledge.

And yet, when I talk with startup guys, I am troubled by what I see as a lack of emphasis on analysis and strategic thinking. I’m concerned that the heavy focus on execution and boldness traps them into bad decision cycles. I see an almost callous disregard of things which all big companies do as a matter-of-practice (e.g. legal, business development, and HR issues). And, to be perfectly honest, the lack of resources to fund anything (let alone the pretty decent salary I’ve come to expect) is not an exciting proposition either.

And so here I am. Stuck between a big company and a startup place, and not quite sure how much longer before I get crushed.

(Image credit) (Image Credit)

One Comment