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

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …