Skip to main content

Shark Tank: A Thought

Image result for shark tank

I enjoy the television show SHARK TANK and for my birthday's blog post I'll indulge myself in a simple comment thereon.

The rules of the 'tank' provide that the entrepreneurs must get at least the amount of cash they ask for. When they come in and make their pitch, they may ask for, say, $100,000. If they do, then they may accept an offer from one of the sharks for that amount, or (if they're fortunate enough that the sharks end up bidding against one another) for more than that. But they cannot lower their offer to, say, $75,000. They either get their $100,000 or they leave empty handed.

This may seem unrealistic. Why can the entrepreneurs not adjust to unexpected skepticism by lowering their own expectations on the fly?

In a sense, though, they can: and the way in which they can do so is by lowering their implicit company valuation.

When an entrepreneur walks into the "tank" to make his pitch, he might indeed ask for $100,000. But he'll also be specific about the amount of equity in his business that will buy, implicitly valuing the whole entity in the process.

For example, he will say that he is offering the $100,000 in return for 10% of his company's equity. That values the company at $1 million. Any increase in the equity figure is a lowering of expectations. So, he might respond to unexpected skepticism by acknowledging that the $100,000 will buy a shark 20%, or 25%, instead of the originally contemplated 10%. That would change the valuation for the whole to $500,000 or $400,0000, respectively. Lowering his expectations on the fly is perfectly possible and happens on every program.

And this is quite realistic as to how the private equity market interacts with entrepreneurs.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…