"valued at" may be the metric, but I think the bigger point here is they're unprofitable and have not much path to either fix that or continue 'growing'. So by monopoly money rules yes they're a valuable unicorn, but realistically it's more like time to pay the piper.
Yes. Whenever I hear that a company (or a person) is "valued at" something, I know that number that follows is not likely to bear any relationship with reality.
Even if, non-liquid worth is like voltage on a battery - it drops fast once load is applied. Except for batteries we're usually talking about maybe 30% drop. In finance, once you try to convert your large "worth" to cash, it's going to be more like 90% drop, simply from the market responding to what you're doing - that's on top of any bullshit involved in calculating the "worth" in the first place.
Unrelated but shouldn’t we adjust the unicorn definition? Everything is increasing thanks to inflation so we should make the unicorn title more expensive.
I’m half joking obviously but the 1B valuation doesn’t seem all that rare anymore.
Wework was valued at 50 billion. Tesla is valued at more than the 10 top automotive firms combined. Surely we don't believe in the infinite wisdom of stock markets or anything of the sort right?