A Quote by Marc Andreessen

I have yet to take capital losses on any company. Then again, it's still early. — © Marc Andreessen
I have yet to take capital losses on any company. Then again, it's still early.
I would argue that no financial instrument counted as regulatory capital should be allowed to receive any protection from losses.
Nominally, I stated a company. Practically, it's a venture capital firm that allows me to be an investor in early stage companies.
For every company that sees the value of their capital go up, there's another company that has been disrupted, and the value of their capital gets marked down because it's not going to compete in the same way.
Generally, you want to raise capital either when you have to or when it's really easy. If the company desperately needs money, and they can't figure out any other way, then they need to raise money. Or if someone's offering you easy money on good terms, you should take it because you can use it for good things.
If you're an investor who wants a little bit more from the capital-appreciation side of things, but still likes this concept of getting 'paid by the company,' then we would tell that investor to pursue shareholder yield.
No company that I ever hacked into reported any damages, which they were required to do for significant losses.
Mortgage insurance stocks remained depressed through the end of 2012 amid lingering uncertainty as to whether they had sufficient capital to absorb losses on delinquent loans originated before the crisis. However, as house prices began to recover, losses started to decline.
If, for example, each of us had the same share of capital in the national total capital, then if the share of capital goes up it's not a problem, because you get as much as I do. The problem is that capital in capitalist countries is very heavily concentrated, especially financial capital. So then if the share of income from that source goes up, that actually exacerbates inequality.
Some people take defeat and losses a certain way. You see how some fighters take losses.
Back when the Bible was written, then edited, then rewritten, then rewritten, then re-edited, then translated from dead languages, then re-translated, then edited, then rewritten, then given to kings for them to take their favorite parts, then rewritten, then re-rewritten, then translated again, then given to the pope for him to approve, then rewritten, then edited again, the re-re-re-re-rewritten again...all based on stories that were told orally 30 to 90 years AFTER they happened.. to people who didnt know how to write... so...
You have to minimize your losses and try to preserve capital for those very few instances where you can make a lot in a very short period of time. What you can't afford to do is throw away your capital on suboptimal trades.
I've never written anything that I haven't wanted to write again. I want to, and still am, writing 'A Few Good Men' again. I didn't know what I was doing then, and I'm still trying to get it right. I would write 'The Social Network' again if they would let me, I'd write 'Moneyball' again. I would write 'The West Wing' again.
I tend to go to bed really early on New Year's Eve. Then I wake up early, drive up while it's still dark, and hike out somewhere beautiful to watch the sunrise. I just take a couple hours and have a post-mortem of the year.
Any company has got to reinvent itself again and again.
In my experience, there are only two valid reasons to take a company public: access to growth capital and investor fatigue.
To see how much a company is truly earning on the capital it deploys in its businesses, look beyond EPS to Return on Invested Capital (ROIC).
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!