-backed has reportedly shut down operations, according to an by Protocol’s Biz Carson.

Subscribe to the Crunchbase Daily

Brandless, a direct-to-consumer startup focused on food, beauty and personal care products, had announced it had raised a total of $292.5 million since its inception in 2016, according to .

led its last funding round, , which valued the company at $500 million, according to Crunchbase. At that time, our former editor-in-chief Alex Wilhelm pointed out the fact that it was “a huge check at a large cost in equity terms.” But it turns out that SoftBank had only provided��about $100 million upfront with a commitment to “fund around another $120 million if certain milestones were met. That final tranche never came,” according to Axios.

led its $35 million Series B in July 2017, a round that also included participation from NBA player , , and , among others.

Back in 2017, Crunchbase News sat down with ��, co-founder and CEO of ��to talk about how the company wanted to eliminate the inefficiency of the brand tax while changing the way people shop and live.

Background

It was bound to happen eventually. With all its misteps over the past couple of years, SoftBank was bound to have a portfolio company shut down.

The news that Brandless has shuttered is not entirely shocking, considering that last June, it got a new CEO amidst “turmoil” within the company, according to .

Looks like Brandless’ vision of $3 home goods just couldn’t keep up with the steep competition from rivals like . In fact, soon after it got that big cash infusion from SoftBank, the startup’s strategy seemed to change. According to TechCrunch’s Connie Laizos, in January 2019, the “company added baby and pet products to its stable of offerings, some of them at a ”

In a statement to , Brandless blamed a “fiercely competitive” retail market that was “unsustainable” for its business.

The news is the latest in a string of bad publicity for SoftBank. In January, we reported on how SoftBank-backed Colombian delivery unicorn had been hit with a trade secrets lawsuit. Also in January, we covered how two SoftBank-funded startups were in the news for either confirmed or rumored layoffs: Rappi had , according to Axios. And published an article that discount lodging provider reportedly was “firing thousands of staff across China and India.”

That followed pizza-making robot startup , also backed by SoftBank, laying off�� 53 percent of its employees.

SoftBank, a Japanese investment conglomerate, has been accused of overinflating valuations with its fat checks, and it’s not ending well for many companies. But the practice of investing too much, perhaps too soon, may be catching up with SoftBank. Earlier this year, that SoftBank is cutting its ties with startup investments, even after signing term sheets.

In fact, SoftBank’s heavy-handed check-writing is leading investors and startups alike to rethink sky-high valuations in favor of a��path to profitability.

Illustration:

Subscribe to the Crunchbase Daily

As (WeWork) stumbles towards an IPO at a price far under its final private valuation, its leading investor is considering working to remove its CEO. The possible reduction in the internal authority of , prior media darling and now international business pariah, is the biggest news of the weekend.

But there’s more going on at , a key WeWork backer, that I wanted to highlight. More precisely, it seems that the investment group has made some mispriced bets in recent years. Let’s talk valuations for a minute.

Down

The , observing that several SoftBank Vision Fund investments were either giving up gains or, in fact, losing money for their famous investor.

It appears that SoftBank CEO is underwater on his bet, and his various wagers into are losing altitude as well. The Journal goes on to note that the Vision Fund’s investment into has lost value as well, “potentially requiring [the deal] to be marked down.”

It’s not hard, therefore, to look at the most valuable Vision Fund deals and spy weakness. I want to extend the point today by reminding ourselves of a few other deals that the Vision Fund took part in that I reckon are also underwater.

To jog your memory, three Vision Fund deals quickly came to mind this morning when I tried to recall what felt like the group’s least conservative bets:

• $300 million from the Vision Fund. Wag provides pet walking services in urban environments.
• $375 million from the Vision Fund. Zume makes food on the go through robotic methods.
• $240 million led by the Vision Fund. Brandless offers low-cost goods at a flat price point through its own digital store.

Since then, , , and I never had much hope that was going to wind up being the near-term future.

Naturally, these are just a handful of deals from a huge investment bucket. There will be winners in the Vision Fund 1 — , , , perhaps — to offset other losses. But there are also some investments like WeWork and Zume that are more head-scratchers than wagers we understand.

What appears clear, however, is that a good chunk of the first Vision Fund’s deal makeup was either mispriced, fed too much capital, or both. That is not a recipe for success. But don’t trust your friendly local tech blogger. Listen to investor earlier this year:

I think the mentality of throwing money at companies and making them successful just doesn’t work. I’ve never seen real examples of just, you take money and you crown a winner. That’s the philosophy, which I don’t believe that works. I think that’s the whole history of Silicon Valley, is that these upstarts with very limited resources and a bunch of misfits have rearranged every single industry, and they’ve done it over and over again.

Capping it all off, the Vision Fund is a “Valuations Director.” 2019.

Illustration:��.