[Alex3917]

Startups generally have only very limited (if any) access to money anyway, so making money more expensive for established companies is probably a net positive for folks who are legitimately trying to start real software businesses.

[JamesBarney]

Not really. The money a startup is going to make is farther in the future than an established company.

If you look at discounted future cashflow, a startup as an investment opportunity is much more influenced by the interest rate than an established company because a larger % of the value is coming from money farther in the future.

Basically 20% of net present value of Microsoft comes from the money it'll make next year and 5% from the money it'll generate 5 yrs from now.

But a startup is the opposite where 0% of the value of the startup comes from the profit it'll make next year, and 20% from the profit it'll make in 5.

And when interest rates change it reduces the present value of the profits in 5 years by far more than it reduces the profits next year. Reducing the value of the startup relative to Microsoft, reducing the startups ability to get funded more than Microsofts.

[Alex3917]

> reducing the startups ability to get funded more than Microsofts.

So for 99% of startups (who don't raise venture capital anyway) there is no difference. But for Microsoft there is a huge difference, which is why the big tech companies are doing layoffs. Whereas we're not seeing many Indiehackers posts about people working out of their parents' basements who are laying themselves off.