Source
The Twenty Minute VC (20VC): Venture Capital | Startup Funding | The Pitch — 20VC: Trillion or Bust: The New VC Game | Coreweave Sell-Off Creates Panic | Town at $1B, Anduril at $90B: Revenue Multiples Out of Control | General Atlantic Eyes IPO & Modal Raises $750M at $15.75B (October 22, 2026) ·
at 38:40 ▸
When this applies
when judging whether a high revenue multiple on a private company is justified versus merely being disconnected from eventual public comps
The takeaway
Before accepting a rich multiple, explicitly construct the growth path (specific doubling steps over specific years) that would make the price rational, and assess how much of that path depends on things outside the company's control (e.g., policy, market share).
Why it works
A high multiple can be justified only if you can construct a believable multi-year compounding path (e.g., doubling revenue repeatedly with a credible moat like long-term government contracts) that converges toward a valuation consistent with the multiple paid; absent that, the multiple is pricing in hope rather than a modelable path.
One level up
Valuations detached from a specific, falsifiable growth path are bets on narrative continuation, not analysis — they can be fine, but should be recognized as such.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when public market comps for the sector don't converge upward as hoped — the hosts explicitly warn that broad market multiple expansion is unlikely to bail out overpriced private rounds.
Detail
approach: Compare a company's implied forward path (e.g., revenue doubling for 5 years: 2,4,8,20) against what would be required to justify its multiple, and compare against public market comps in adjacent categories.
signals:- public SaaS comps trading at 2-3x revenue even with 20%+ growth
- private rounds pricing at 40x revenue based on growth-rate narrative alone
- public market multiple expansion is unlikely to rescue over-priced private rounds
rationale: If you're a mature defense contractor at $2B revenue you're worth ~$8B; only a credible doubling trajectory with locked-in demand (e.g., government contracts) can justify going to $20B+.
In their words
If you're a mature defense contractor doing $2 billion in revenue, you're worth $8 billion best case. If you're a $2 billion revenue defense contractor and you've doubled for the last couple of years and you think you've got a line to the administration for the next five