A certain Harvard MBA who is friends with the folks at Rappler has a rebuttal to my carinderia investment analogy (Galit sa Gulay – A Case Study, Feb 3., 2017). Normally, I would leave it at that; I mean obviously the man feels like he is standing up for his friends and business connections. Fair enough. What irks me though is that he adopts the same tone that underlies most all social media arguments nowadays…anybody who disagrees with me is a troll. Worse, there is the barely disguised arrogance among his set (the Pinoy Harvard Venture Capitalist set) that they have the sole franchise on financial literacy in the Philippines.
Lo and behold, the man has a blog. There he explains the reason why people might invest in a losing company. His main argument is that Rappler is not really a media company, but can be viewed as a “tech company”. As is common with tech startup investing, you are buying the future potential earnings of the company, not the current losses.
Just for fun, I have composed the below reply:
“So your argument is that Rappler is not a media company but rather a tech company, and should be valued as such. And as a tech company we can supposedly be free and loose with valuations because, hey it’s a GROWTH company. Reminds me of the crazy heydey times during the tech bubble of 2000.
Did you seriously just compare Rappler to Amazon? I’m sure such “vision” comes in handy when talking to potential investors. So as a tech company, Rappler’s value is in its mood-meter? Its big data analytics? The same big data that predicted a Hillary Clinton win?
No, thanks. I will invest in the carinderia.”
Charles Englund, Feb 7, 2017