Connect with us

Uncategorized

Remembering the startups we lost in 2022

It’s been a year. This roundup is never a particularly fun one to write. No one wants to see startups fail, but we’re all keenly aware that most ultimately…

Published

on

It’s been a year. This roundup is never a particularly fun one to write. No one wants to see startups fail, but we’re all keenly aware that most ultimately do. A commonly cited figure suggest that 90% of these companies will ultimately fail. But even with that in mind, 2022 just hit different.

The previous two years were unprecedented in startup land, of course. Some startups blossomed and others struggled amid shutdowns and job losses. Then came the rise and fall of the SPAC wave and global supply issues. Now it’s the economy, stupid. According to figures from Crunchbase, Q3 venture capital dropped a mind-boggling 33% from last quarter and 53% from the same time last year.

The days of the $20 million seed round appear to be over — at least for now. It is, frankly, a bad time to be raising and, by extension, a bad time to be running an early-stage startup. Accordingly, this year saw a lot of startups pumping the brakes or pulling the plug. As such, this is by no means a comprehensive list. And with the continued spiral of the crypto firm, it seems we’re not out of the woods yet.

With all of that in mind, let’s take a look at some of the startups that didn’t make it.

Airlift

Airlift, once one of Pakistan’s most richly valued and funded startups, shut down in July due to lack of capital and an unsuccessful attempt to close a funding round. Before that, the commerce service platform raised $85 million in the country’s largest Series B funding, at a valuation of $275 million. The fall from those heights, thus, didn’t just impact employees and investors, but also general enthusiasm about the Pakistani tech ecosystem.

Argo AI

Image Credits: Argo AI

It wasn’t from lack of interest — or money. Argo AI had the support of two of the world’s largest carmakers: Volkswagen and Ford. Founded in 2016 by Google and Uber vets, the Pittsburgh-based firm managed to drum up $1 billion in funding over its half-dozen-year existence. Back in October, however, management dropped a bombshell during an all-hands: Argo was shutting down.

The technology and some employees would be absorbed into either Ford or VW, and the rest of its 2,000+ employees would be getting severance. Ultimately, it seems, the company failed to bring on new investors and drum up additional funds from existing backers. The dream of autonomous driving certainly isn’t going away any time soon, and both automakers want to get there, whether via in-house development or third-party acquisition. Unfortunately, however, Argo won’t be around to play a part.

Fast

Fast, a startup that provided online checkout products, announced in early April that it would shut down after days of chatter that its future was in doubt. Apparently, its 2021 revenue growth was modest — just six figures — and its cash burn was high, with no fundraising prospects in sight.

The company — founded by Domm Holland and Allison Barr Allen — was one of those that had plenty of hype around it, so its demise (especially after raising $124.5 million in three years) caused quite a ripple in the startup world. Notably, as it imploded, the company described itself as a “trailblazer,” saying that not all such parties make it to “the mountain top,” claiming that while it failed, the startup managed to “forever” change the world of online commerce. While the debacle paled in comparison to what would come later in the year when it came to overly confident leaders (ahem, see below), it was perhaps one of the earliest signs that all was not as rosy as it appeared in fintech land.

FTX

Sam Bankman-Fried, founder and CEO of FTX, testifies during the House Financial Services Committee hearing titled Digital Assets and the Future of Finance: Understanding the Challenges and Benefits of Financial Innovation in the United States, in Rayburn Building on Wednesday, December 8, 2021

Image Credits: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc / Getty Images

We debated on whether to include cryptocurrency exchange FTX as it technically has not shut down. But as one staffer pointed out, “We certainly lost it as the company it was.” The once-third-largest crypto exchange FTX on November 11 filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and announced that CEO and founder Sam Bankman-Fried had resigned from his role. That news came days after a week-long collapse of the FTX empire as the company attempted to keep itself afloat, seeking acquisitions and fresh capital from market players. By December 12, Bankman-Fried had been arrested in the Bahamas. The next day, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had officially charged Bankman-Fried with defrauding investors.

The demise of the once-high-flying startup, which had raised nearly $2 billion in funding and once appeared to be flush with cash, no doubt marked a very low point for the crypto space. For now, Enron turnaround veteran John J. Ray III is serving as FTX’s new CEO, reportedly making $1,300 an hour.

Other crypto companies that also filed for bankruptcy this year but also technically did not shut down include Celsius and BlockFi.

Haus

Image Credits: Haus

Haus, a direct-to-consumer aperitif business backed by the likes of Casey Neistat, Homebrew Ventures and Coatue, shuttered earlier this year. What was surprising was that Haus announced this shift after it crossed the $10 million in revenue threshold and announced that it would be hitting national distribution with Winebow — two markers of growth.

Instead, the company’s eventual demise was triggered by an investor kerfuffle. Haus CEO and co-founder Helena Hambrecht said that Constellation committed to leading the startup’s $10 million Series A, and even offered to advance the startup money as runway began to dwindle. Then, last minute, Constellation backed out of the deal without any specific reasoning other than “timing,” she says.

The co-founder said “there’s no villain” in the shutdown story, yet Constellation’s dropout shows another example of how difficult it is to be a venture-backed, direct-to-consumer company.

Insteon

Proving that home automation can be a tough nut to crack, Insteon abruptly shut down in mid-April 2022, turning off its cloud servers without giving customers any warning. Launched by startup SmartLabs in 2005, Insteon at one point had an agreement with Microsoft to sell its kits at Microsoft Store locations and was one of the two launch partners for Apple’s HomeKit platform, with the HomeKit-enabled Insteon Hub Pro.

Insteon for the first few days didn’t respond to questions about the shutdown and its CEO, Rob Lilleness, deleted his LinkedIn account. Subsequently, however, the company updated its website with a statement that blamed the sudden liquidation on pandemic and supply chain problems. Apparently — if the unattributed statement is to be believed, at least — the goal was to find a parent for Insteon. But while a sale was expected in March, the plans ultimately fell through.

Insteon’s proprietary protocol likely didn’t do it any favors. More widely compatible technologies like Zigbee, Z-Wave and Matter are licensable and widely adopted, giving Insteon little in the way of leverage.

Kite

Image Credits: Kite

Kite, a startup developing an AI-powered coding assistant, shut down in November despite securing tens of millions of dollars in venture capital backing. Kite struggled to pay the bills, founder Adam Smith revealed in a postmortem blog post, running into engineering headwinds that made finding a product-market fit essentially impossible.

“We failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e., the tech is not ready yet,” Smith said. “Our product did not monetize, and it took too long to figure that out.”

Kite’s failure doesn’t necessarily bode well for the other companies pursuing — and attempting to commercialize — generative AI for coding. Smith estimated that it could cost over $100 million to build a “production-quality” tool capable of synthesizing code reliably. That said, Kite’s rivals, including GitHub, Tabnine and DeepCode, believe it’s premature to become bearish on the market.

Kitty Hawk

Sebastian Thrun at TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2017. Image Credits: TechCrunch

Kitty Hawk had understandably high hopes when it launched in 2010. Founded by and piloted by self-driving car pioneer Sebastian Thrun, the eVTOL maker had some prominent backers, including, most notably, Google co-founder, Larry Page. In September, the startup announced its closure courtesy of a curt tweet, noting, “We have made the decision to wind down Kittyhawk. We’re still working on the details of what’s next.”

What comes next still isn’t entirely clear. Plenty of folks remain bullish on the eVTOL category, but Kitty Hawk couldn’t stick the landing. After flying 111 of its crafts a total of 25,000 flights, the firm shuttered that specific program, ultimately resulting in 70 layoffs. Further progress was made, “by 2022, however, the mission was less clear,” as Kirsten notes in her news report. A  commercial air taxi was apparently still in the works by the time the company began winding down operations in September.

Modsy

drawing of empty office chair

Image Credits: Bryce Durbin / TechCrunch

In late June, Modsy, on online interior design services startup, abruptly ceased offering design services, laid off its designers and left customers with unfinished renovations and project orders in process. By July, Modsy had shut down entirely — a surprising turn of events for a startup that raised $72.7 million from investors including Comcast Ventures and NBCUniversal. So what went wrong?

Modsy took a major bottom-line hit on the logistics side during the pandemic as global supply chains ground to a halt. Amanda Kwan-Rosenbush, the former senior director of finance and accounting at Modsy, described shipping as a “significant cost” and said that Modsy’s furniture and décor partners often struggled with long delays.

But the e-design platform space is a tough nut to crack. Rivals like Laurel & Wolf and Homepolish shuttered in 2019, while Décor Aid, a smaller company, closed up shop in 2021.

Modsy made a series of aggressive cuts two years prior to its shutdown, slashing designer pay and reducing both salaried employees and its network of designers. Business of Home’s reporting revealed that the startup — in addition to piloting its own furniture line — at one point experimented with outsourcing design work to the Philippines and Bulgaria as a way to reduce operating expenses. But the pivots weren’t enough in the end to prevent Modsy’s demise. 

NopeaRide

NopeaRide, Kenya’s first fully electric vehicle service, shut down in November after scaling to 70 vehicles and building a charging network all across Nairobi. It closed after parent company EkoRent Oy was unable to raise additional funding.

The closure came after the startup raised an undisclosed amount of funding since its 2018 launch. It was seeking to build more solar charging hubs in Nairobi and expand the radius in which it operated within.

Onward Mobility

blackberry grave

Image Credits: Bryce Durbin / TechCrunch

Some startup failures are unexpected from the outside. Others you can see coming from a mile away. In spite of once sharing a blog post titled, “Contrary to popular belief, we are not dead,” Onward Mobility wasn’t fooling anyone. The Austin-based firm entered the mobile scene with an already risky proposition: bringing the BlackBerry back once again. The titular firm behind the original line struggled for years and TCL’s revival didn’t last particularly long.

Onward promised things would be different this time. It announced its intentions to the world, fell completely silent for some time and less than two years later, admitted that rumors of its death were no longer greatly exaggerated. That news arrived approximately one month after the company was publicly insisting otherwise. It’s frankly extremely hard to launch a brand new company even when there isn’t a global pandemic. And it seems like a fairly safe bet that, 15 years after the first iPhone turned the market upside down, there just isn’t enough of an appetite in the U.S. to serve as the foundation of a brand new phone maker.

Reali

Real estate fintech startup Reali began its shutdown in August in a surprise move, considering it had just raised $100 million one year prior. After a boom in home buying, the real estate tech sector found itself struggling as inflation and mortgage interest rates climbed, leading to a major slowdown in the housing market.

Even as it was winding down, Reali described itself as “one of the pioneering companies to offer the ‘buy before you sell’ and ‘cash offer’ programs to homeowners.” It seems that even being a pioneer doesn’t guarantee success and the news left us — and our readers — wondering how companies can burn through so much cash, so fast.

ShopX

store clerk assisting customer

Image Credits: Halfpoint Images / Getty Images

India-based ShopX filed for bankruptcy in August after failing to generate enough cash flow and running into challenges raising capital. The startup, which provided software to connect brands, retailers and in-person shoppers, had raised over $66 million in funding from Fung Group, NB Ventures and others, and was last valued at about $175 million. 

ShopX competed mainly with business-to-business vendors such as 1K Kirana Bazaar and SuperK but ventured into the business-to-consumer space in 2021, offering incentives — including cash back and cash-saving offers — to customers while they browsed their neighborhood kirana shops. (In India, “kirana” are small independently owned shops that make up a major part of India’s physical retail economy.) ShopX also rewarded purchases on select bike and car-related services, salon visits, grocery, medicines and more.

Udayy

Graduation cap as a part of laptop; edtech investor survey 2022

Image Credits: Boris Zhitkov (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Edtech has had a rough year. That rings especially true for Udayy, which shut down after raising millions from investors, reported the Economic Times. The Indian edtech sold live learning courses to kids, a use case that isn’t as bright as it used to be. As Natasha has said in the past, we now know that the startups that most enjoyed a pandemic-era boom are now the same startups facing difficult questions about how to navigate a not-so-looming downturn. The same venture capital rounds that allowed companies to expand their idea of what a total addressable market could look like, are the same tranches that may have forced an overspending and overhiring spree that now requires a correction.

Remembering the startups we lost in 2022 by Brian Heater originally published on TechCrunch

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending