Can a $310M startup avoid due diligence?(svgossip.substack.com)
svgossip.substack.com
Can a $310M startup avoid due diligence?
https://svgossip.substack.com/p/can-a-310m-startup-avoid-due-diligence
219 comments
It always seemed a bit nonsensical to me that you can't invest in companies (in the USA) when you can spend your money freely in nearly every other respect. You can waste thousands on gambling, food, clothing, elective surgery, penny stocks, and all sorts of other activities without anyone batting an eyelid. If the goal is to stop idiots from pissing their money away, regulators have seriously underestimated the creativity of fools.
It also protects against the opposite effect: in an environment full of scams, you get run out of business for being honest because you have a hard time competing with the scammers.
My experience in China is a mirror opposite of that, when people know that 90% of business is, at least, shaddy, it gives extreme incentives to keep ones reputation superclean.
Gold supplier/Audited supplier badges on Alibaba were sold for 6 digit sums, and bribes to get out of blacklist were going even higher.
Gold supplier/Audited supplier badges on Alibaba were sold for 6 digit sums, and bribes to get out of blacklist were going even higher.
> in an environment full of scams, you get run out of business for being honest because you have a hard time competing with the scammers.
This effect was really well illustrated for me Golden Sun (Red Rising saga book #2) by Pierce Brown. The protagonist is telling an older general about how he isn't worried about a scheming snake oil politician type and is corrected about why they are dangerous. Because "Liars make the best promises."
> “Pliny is a leech,” I say. “A liar as much as you’re an honest man.” “And that makes him dangerous. Liars make the best promises.”
This effect was really well illustrated for me Golden Sun (Red Rising saga book #2) by Pierce Brown. The protagonist is telling an older general about how he isn't worried about a scheming snake oil politician type and is corrected about why they are dangerous. Because "Liars make the best promises."
> “Pliny is a leech,” I say. “A liar as much as you’re an honest man.” “And that makes him dangerous. Liars make the best promises.”
Interestingly enough, as of 2016ish you technically can invest - but only in companies with active Reg CF (https://www.sec.gov/smallbusiness/exemptofferings/regcrowdfu...) offerings. Think sites like StartEngine and Wefunder.
Of course, Reg CF has a host of its own challenges for founders (which I can attest to firsthand..). Also most accredited investors aren't necessarily onboard with it (they prefer private financing where they get more say in the terms). Still, it's a step in the right direction because it gives normal people the opportunity to invest, while also requiring companies to provide actual due diligence documents and comply with SEC laws before accepting money.
Of course, Reg CF has a host of its own challenges for founders (which I can attest to firsthand..). Also most accredited investors aren't necessarily onboard with it (they prefer private financing where they get more say in the terms). Still, it's a step in the right direction because it gives normal people the opportunity to invest, while also requiring companies to provide actual due diligence documents and comply with SEC laws before accepting money.
Most of the companies I've seen on crowd funding sites were not good investments.
Their valuations seemed high, they made crazy promises and and then investors were pretty upset.
Companies with 100k in revenue, 800k in debt raising at a 9 mil valuation cap.
Their valuations seemed high, they made crazy promises and and then investors were pretty upset.
Companies with 100k in revenue, 800k in debt raising at a 9 mil valuation cap.
Yeah, it varies pretty wildly. Most early startups that have good options for VC or angels don't really benefit from Reg CF, since they don't necessarily have a "crowd" to invest from in the first place. So you end up seeing struggling companies with at least some fan base doing it as a last ditch attempt, which doesn't always work out. However, I do know some of the platforms are lot more selective than others for exactly that reason. But all said, at least the opportunity is there and the financials are legally vetted.
You can't enter the gambling, surgery and stock markets with naught but a Keynote deck.
I wasn't talking about starting a casino or surgery center. I was talking about playing roulette or turning yourself into a human cat hybrid.
I understand. But there are strong feedback mechanisms in place so that a casino will actually pay your (unlikely) winnings and a surgeon will actually cat your face, which have to do with scrutiny, penalties for bad behavior, and the cost of entering a highly regulated market requiring lots of customers to recoup. They provide the service they claim.
The story is about companies whose business model is simply to take investment money. They do not try to provide the service they claim.
The story is about companies whose business model is simply to take investment money. They do not try to provide the service they claim.
That's what the story about, but non-accredited investors aren't only prevented from investing in those particular companies. They're prevented from investing in the good ones, too. You say that the casino will pay your unlikely winnings, but the thing about casinos is that unless you actually have an edge, the more you gamble, the more you lose. The vast majority of games have odds that result in the house making a profit over time. And yet we're allowed to spend our money freely in casinos.
There are all sorts of penalties for bad behavior on behalf of companies. Of course, that doesn't guarantee they'll make money, but I think it's a very valid point that we're allowed to waste our money on all sorts of dumb bullshit, but not on something like investing in startups, which at least has a possibility, however remote, of resulting in some sort of return.
There are all sorts of penalties for bad behavior on behalf of companies. Of course, that doesn't guarantee they'll make money, but I think it's a very valid point that we're allowed to waste our money on all sorts of dumb bullshit, but not on something like investing in startups, which at least has a possibility, however remote, of resulting in some sort of return.
> They're prevented from investing in the good ones, too. You say that the casino will pay your unlikely winnings, but the thing about casinos is that unless you actually have an edge, the more you gamble, the more you lose. The vast majority of games have odds that result in the house making a profit over time.
What do you think is the expected return of investing in a private company? I don't have data to back this up, but I'd bet it's negative — especially if you hold common stock, or whatever non-preferred equity retail investors would get.
And if, on top of that, we relaxed the guard rails preventing people from being scammed? I think the odds would be much worse than you'd find in a casino.
What do you think is the expected return of investing in a private company? I don't have data to back this up, but I'd bet it's negative — especially if you hold common stock, or whatever non-preferred equity retail investors would get.
And if, on top of that, we relaxed the guard rails preventing people from being scammed? I think the odds would be much worse than you'd find in a casino.
I personally find it less morally repugnant to let people make bad bets on companies than to let people lose their money at slot machines all day.
Sure, you're entitled to that. I find it less morally repugnant to do whatever keeps people from getting scammed.
I'd also be fine with making casinos illegal, if that's what you're proposing.
Rereading my last comment, it sounds more combative than I meant it to. Sorry about that — didn’t mean to sound as though I was casting judgment on your opinion.
Anyway, I’m not proposing anything. I’m fine with the current status quo.
Anyway, I’m not proposing anything. I’m fine with the current status quo.
I really appreciate you saying that, in this day and age of internet discourse, I admire making an effort toward civility.
> we're allowed to waste our money on all sorts of dumb bullshit, but not on something like investing in startups, which at least has a possibility, however remote, of resulting in some sort of return
A lower possibility than the casinos or lotteries, if we're talking retail investment in early stage startup pitches you have no affiliation with. The reluctance of everybody to acknowledge this is the reason the law exist. Most people walk out of casinos having lost some of their money. Most retail investors in random business propositions will never see any of that money again.
A lower possibility than the casinos or lotteries, if we're talking retail investment in early stage startup pitches you have no affiliation with. The reluctance of everybody to acknowledge this is the reason the law exist. Most people walk out of casinos having lost some of their money. Most retail investors in random business propositions will never see any of that money again.
It really depends on what you're investing in, doesn't it? We let people spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in casinos over the course of their lives. When you go to a casino, you're paying for the thrill of gambling, and I think random business propositions offer the same thrill at worst.
Well yeah, depends which number you bet on roulette or whether you're the best poker player in the room too! Perhaps we could regulate startups like gambling and allow them to welcome anyone but only allow them to market the "thrill of gambling" like casinos instead of delivering very confident financial projections about how much they're going to make. But I'm not sure investment would be forthcoming then, because actually I think people want to put their savings into startups to get rich.
When gambling is restricted, gamblers generally don't argue it's a conspiracy to prevent them getting rich. The delusion that retail startup investment isn't the bigger gamble with worse odds (unless you're in the leagues where you can personally prod the founders on a daily basis) is why accredited investor rules exists. It'd be a lot easier to believe arguments relaxing them were sound if the people making them were arguing it was depriving them of fun rather than depriving them of the opportunity to get rich.
When gambling is restricted, gamblers generally don't argue it's a conspiracy to prevent them getting rich. The delusion that retail startup investment isn't the bigger gamble with worse odds (unless you're in the leagues where you can personally prod the founders on a daily basis) is why accredited investor rules exists. It'd be a lot easier to believe arguments relaxing them were sound if the people making them were arguing it was depriving them of fun rather than depriving them of the opportunity to get rich.
I'm all for people's freedom of action.
Why do you think we have these rules, since a free-for-all is the default? Is this a barrier to entry that protects the rich, or a barrier to getting ripped off that protects the less rich? Or both?
Chesterton's fence and all that.
You are allowed to throw all your money away if you want.
These rules are (at least partly) protecting you from having someone take your money under false pretenses.
Why do you think we have these rules, since a free-for-all is the default? Is this a barrier to entry that protects the rich, or a barrier to getting ripped off that protects the less rich? Or both?
Chesterton's fence and all that.
You are allowed to throw all your money away if you want.
These rules are (at least partly) protecting you from having someone take your money under false pretenses.
I think they're absolutely there under the pretense of protecting people, and they do protect people from scams, at the cost of preventing average people from participating in one of the biggest wealth creation events in modern history. I think they're hypocritical, specifically because people are allowed to do all sorts of (in my opinion) far dumber things with their money. I think the world would be a much better place if gambling were illegal and all the people who currently waste their money at slot machines spent all that time thinking about how companies work.
You're correct that I'm allowed to throw my money away if I want, so why am I not allowed to do this?
You're correct that I'm allowed to throw my money away if I want, so why am I not allowed to do this?
Because if you got scammed, you threw your money away but you didn't want to. An important difference, no?
Do you think most of the people who go to casinos think they're going to lose money? I think an unfortunate percentage do not realize at all that the odds are stacked against them. Their misunderstanding of statistics means they are quite literally getting scammed. And for the remainder that are doing it for entertainment, that's quite literally what I'm proposing be the standard for investing in companies.
> Do you think most of the people who go to casinos think they're going to lose money?
Yes. Everyone I know going to a casino can be asked how much they plan on losing a day. Almost all will respond with reasonable (for their finances) answer. The others still have an answer that I may think is unreasonable, but that's just a greater percentage of disposable income going to gambling than I think makes sense.
I don't even think most gambling addicts think they are going to make money, any more than most smokers don't think they're immune to cancer. There are some areas (poker, sports betting) where a lot of people think they will make money, but that's because they're games of skill and some people can make money there. And people overestimage their own skill.
Yes. Everyone I know going to a casino can be asked how much they plan on losing a day. Almost all will respond with reasonable (for their finances) answer. The others still have an answer that I may think is unreasonable, but that's just a greater percentage of disposable income going to gambling than I think makes sense.
I don't even think most gambling addicts think they are going to make money, any more than most smokers don't think they're immune to cancer. There are some areas (poker, sports betting) where a lot of people think they will make money, but that's because they're games of skill and some people can make money there. And people overestimage their own skill.
I’m an entrepreneur, an accredited investor, and a recreational gambler and from my perspective everything you’ve said is completely true.
Casino gambling is only a financial strategy in the most unlikely scenarios, like the infamous MIT blackjack team.
By and large it’s a recreational activity. There’s the dopamine hit from the risk and another dopamine hit from your host paying for everything because you’re willing to spend 6-8 hours at the tables on your vacation. The slots are definitely a worse value proposition even with the higher comp rate.
The simple fact is that recreational gambling is less about strategy and edge and more about proper risk management. If your bankroll lets you Kelly bet at a level the marketing execs want to see then you will have a good time with predictable max losses.
I can’t imagine being entertained by slots, but if someone is and the house edge isn’t completely obscene, which sadly the gaming board permits, then even there there’s a reasonably priced vacation to be had with a Kelly betting strategy.
Casino gambling is only a financial strategy in the most unlikely scenarios, like the infamous MIT blackjack team.
By and large it’s a recreational activity. There’s the dopamine hit from the risk and another dopamine hit from your host paying for everything because you’re willing to spend 6-8 hours at the tables on your vacation. The slots are definitely a worse value proposition even with the higher comp rate.
The simple fact is that recreational gambling is less about strategy and edge and more about proper risk management. If your bankroll lets you Kelly bet at a level the marketing execs want to see then you will have a good time with predictable max losses.
I can’t imagine being entertained by slots, but if someone is and the house edge isn’t completely obscene, which sadly the gaming board permits, then even there there’s a reasonably priced vacation to be had with a Kelly betting strategy.
> since a free-for-all is the default?
Only for the very first round. For every subsequent round it’s a game of consolidation. That’s a very ugly game.
Only for the very first round. For every subsequent round it’s a game of consolidation. That’s a very ugly game.
> That's what the story about, but non-accredited investors aren't only prevented from investing in those particular companies. They're prevented from investing in the good ones, too. You say that the casino will pay your unlikely winnings, but the thing about casinos is that unless you actually have an edge, the more you gamble, the more you lose. The vast majority of games have odds that result in the house making a profit over time. And yet we're allowed to spend our money freely in casinos.
Casinos have to be licensed and follow particular requirements about e.g. payout rate. Companies can solicit investment from the public, they just have to register and follow particular reporting requirements; a company with $310M can certainly afford to be public (there was a time when IPOs were much smaller than that).
Casinos have to be licensed and follow particular requirements about e.g. payout rate. Companies can solicit investment from the public, they just have to register and follow particular reporting requirements; a company with $310M can certainly afford to be public (there was a time when IPOs were much smaller than that).
> And yet we're allowed to spend our money freely in casinos.
That actually isn't true. In the US, almost all states have restrictions on gambling.[1] These are generally enforced by criminalizing or requiring government oversight of those offering gambling services.
[1] https://www.letsgambleusa.com/laws/
That actually isn't true. In the US, almost all states have restrictions on gambling.[1] These are generally enforced by criminalizing or requiring government oversight of those offering gambling services.
[1] https://www.letsgambleusa.com/laws/
Those other economic activities generally have a regulator standing by, a gambling commission, the FDA, SEC, and FTC. Most of them aren’t anywhere near funded or have necessary powers or maybe susceptible to regulatory capture. But at least there is someone. In the world of private angel investing, there is truly no one but you and your legal team to go after crooks.
Well I suppose that's the upside of cryptocurrency.. allows fools to piss their money away on pie in the sky "investments"
> The accredited investor rules in USA seem draconian
I don't know about that - it hardly seems draconian, it's a trust-based system, entirely reliant on self reporting. Most of the time you just have to check a box that says you are an "accredited investor". Sometimes they want you to upload a few bank statements.
I don't know about that - it hardly seems draconian, it's a trust-based system, entirely reliant on self reporting. Most of the time you just have to check a box that says you are an "accredited investor". Sometimes they want you to upload a few bank statements.
If you check that box, then others run diligence and discover you've lied it's called fraud. Attitude like yours is why many early companies are obligating their investors to prove net-worth. So many people want to be investors they'd lie to get there - number one sign you're a bad investors. Don't cheat!
I didn't see the OP saying you should lie, only that the system relies on self-reporting. If anything, I'd guess they agree that the system is open to abuse, but they're not saying people should therefore abuse it.
Perhaps I'm just bitter
I've been part of a non-zero amount of deals where there was one, or more, parties who've made that false claim. In an open group I participate in there are some early Angels and want-to-be investors. I've observed folks attempting this shortcut. And every time it's fucked over multiple people. So, yea, it's trust based - and truth will out.
I've been part of a non-zero amount of deals where there was one, or more, parties who've made that false claim. In an open group I participate in there are some early Angels and want-to-be investors. I've observed folks attempting this shortcut. And every time it's fucked over multiple people. So, yea, it's trust based - and truth will out.
For the uninitiated, what happens in this scenario? Does the deal fall through, do the other investors need to cover for the missing party,...?
Mostly the deal falls apart, the company seeking investment can't get it (timely) - and may have to start all over (6mo process).
Another outcome was that the folk buying in had to buy out the non-RegD parties - and crushed them on the price so those investors got a better price, the fraudulent actors didn't see the gains they thought, the company now has more % owned by new investor group than originally thought (which changes the control balance) and the founders are grumpy and distracted and mad at folk they thought were cool (and all that has a down-pressure on productivity while everyone involved gossips for a few weeks)
Edit: of you're getting your FFF round, it's all private, that group can be unqualified and you mark the deal as a Loan, so when you raise your Angel round you'll pay them back, or start the payback - and let the Angels know that's happening. Part of the investment to service debt.
Another outcome was that the folk buying in had to buy out the non-RegD parties - and crushed them on the price so those investors got a better price, the fraudulent actors didn't see the gains they thought, the company now has more % owned by new investor group than originally thought (which changes the control balance) and the founders are grumpy and distracted and mad at folk they thought were cool (and all that has a down-pressure on productivity while everyone involved gossips for a few weeks)
Edit: of you're getting your FFF round, it's all private, that group can be unqualified and you mark the deal as a Loan, so when you raise your Angel round you'll pay them back, or start the payback - and let the Angels know that's happening. Part of the investment to service debt.
Sorry to hear that, that sucks!
OP was saying the system is flawed, not that they are exploiting the flaws in the system. Those aren’t the same thing.
> Attitude like yours is why many early companies are obligating their investors to prove net-worth.
I didn't express any attitude about the current rules around "accredited investors", I merely expressed what the current status quo appears to be, i.e. the system is largely based on self reporting. Obviously, there are all sorts of problems with that.
For what it's worth, I don't particularly like the current rules around "accredited investors", they seem pretty arbitrary, and at the same time too lax (self reporting) and too restrictive (obviously, these rules give rich people access to a lot of opportunities not available to others).
I didn't express any attitude about the current rules around "accredited investors", I merely expressed what the current status quo appears to be, i.e. the system is largely based on self reporting. Obviously, there are all sorts of problems with that.
For what it's worth, I don't particularly like the current rules around "accredited investors", they seem pretty arbitrary, and at the same time too lax (self reporting) and too restrictive (obviously, these rules give rich people access to a lot of opportunities not available to others).
From what I can see, check stubs would work as well, you could have no money in the bank...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/startups-and-cr...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/startups-and-cr...
"The accredited investor rules in USA seem draconian"
Think carefully about what the word "draconian" means. There is no organization that is responsible for tracking or allowing membership in the club of "accredited investors." This article suggests 1 in 10 USA households meets the definition:
https://dqydj.com/accredited-investors-in-america/
Look around on Google and you will find many different estimates. Since there is no central organization that actually tracks this number, it is impossible to point to an official number.
If an unaccredited investor invests in a small startup, there is no penalty for the investor. Because of that, I would not use the word "draconian."
Think carefully about what the word "draconian" means. There is no organization that is responsible for tracking or allowing membership in the club of "accredited investors." This article suggests 1 in 10 USA households meets the definition:
https://dqydj.com/accredited-investors-in-america/
Look around on Google and you will find many different estimates. Since there is no central organization that actually tracks this number, it is impossible to point to an official number.
If an unaccredited investor invests in a small startup, there is no penalty for the investor. Because of that, I would not use the word "draconian."
[deleted]
As an alternative there's always Matt Levine's "Certificate of Dumb Investment" proposal: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earnin...
1. Anyone can invest all they want in a diversified portfolio of approved investments (non-penny-stock public companies, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds with modest fees, insured bank accounts, etc.).
2. Anyone can also invest in any other dumb investment; you just have to go to the local office of the SEC and get a Certificate of Dumb Investment. (Anyone who sells dumb non-approved investments without requiring this certificate from buyers goes to prison.)
3. To get that certificate, you sign a form. The form is one page with a lot of white space. It says in very large letters: “I want to buy a dumb investment. I understand that the person selling it will almost certainly steal all my money, and that I would almost certainly be better off just buying index funds, but I want to do this dumb thing anyway. I agree that I will never, under any circumstances, complain to anyone when this investment inevitably goes wrong. I understand that violating this agreement is a felony.”
4. Then you take the form to an SEC employee, who slaps you hard across the face and says “really???” And if you reply “yes really” then she gives you the certificate.
5. Then you bring the certificate to the seller and you can buy whatever dumb thing he is selling.
6. If an article ever appears in the Wall Street Journal in which you (or your lawyer) are quoted saying that you were just a simple dentist, didn’t understand what you were buying and were swindled by the seller’s flashy sales pitch, then you go to prison.
1. Anyone can invest all they want in a diversified portfolio of approved investments (non-penny-stock public companies, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds with modest fees, insured bank accounts, etc.).
2. Anyone can also invest in any other dumb investment; you just have to go to the local office of the SEC and get a Certificate of Dumb Investment. (Anyone who sells dumb non-approved investments without requiring this certificate from buyers goes to prison.)
3. To get that certificate, you sign a form. The form is one page with a lot of white space. It says in very large letters: “I want to buy a dumb investment. I understand that the person selling it will almost certainly steal all my money, and that I would almost certainly be better off just buying index funds, but I want to do this dumb thing anyway. I agree that I will never, under any circumstances, complain to anyone when this investment inevitably goes wrong. I understand that violating this agreement is a felony.”
4. Then you take the form to an SEC employee, who slaps you hard across the face and says “really???” And if you reply “yes really” then she gives you the certificate.
5. Then you bring the certificate to the seller and you can buy whatever dumb thing he is selling.
6. If an article ever appears in the Wall Street Journal in which you (or your lawyer) are quoted saying that you were just a simple dentist, didn’t understand what you were buying and were swindled by the seller’s flashy sales pitch, then you go to prison.
Related: Robin Hanson's idea of "would have banned" stores (that sell things that would normally be banned, with some kind of filter that you understand why they were banned):
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/paternalism_is_.html
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/paternalism_is_.html
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...
This is the funniest thing I've read this year
Subscribe to Money Stuff! It's free and full of similar gems.
https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/994296126055608320
https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/994296126055608320
I enjoy Matt Levine's pieces and I understand this is meant to be humorous and far from serious, but it's also instructive to think about how such a scheme could go wrong, because it illustrates how hard incentive problems are. I think the big problem would be if the "Certificate of Dumb Investment" by happenstance didn't seem so dumb anymore (a couple of lucky, high-profile investments really take off and are in the news for weeks) and then say a million people (< 1% of the U.S. adult population!) pile in to the next dumb investment and get all their money stolen.
No matter what they've signed, that's still a million people who've gotten their money stolen and they'll be out for blood, communicating on forums, in-person, etc. Beyond the brute fact that a million people have had money stolen, which is bad, there's the secondary problem that if just another 1% of that million still complains to newspapers, there's no way that the government could arrest 10,000 people at once without major public backlash, especially if those people play their cards well and can spin a media story of "victims of financial fraud further being punished by the government." If you've got 10,000 examples to choose from, there are bound to be sympathetic stories which capture the public attention.
And then at that point, if the government chooses not to prosecute those cases, the floodgates are loose and the "Certificate of Dumb Investment" has lost most of its power and purpose.
No matter what they've signed, that's still a million people who've gotten their money stolen and they'll be out for blood, communicating on forums, in-person, etc. Beyond the brute fact that a million people have had money stolen, which is bad, there's the secondary problem that if just another 1% of that million still complains to newspapers, there's no way that the government could arrest 10,000 people at once without major public backlash, especially if those people play their cards well and can spin a media story of "victims of financial fraud further being punished by the government." If you've got 10,000 examples to choose from, there are bound to be sympathetic stories which capture the public attention.
And then at that point, if the government chooses not to prosecute those cases, the floodgates are loose and the "Certificate of Dumb Investment" has lost most of its power and purpose.
Yeah, it's funny as a joke but not really a sound principle. We have all sorts of people screaming "that's a stupid investment!" for stupid investments. The problem is not that the nay-sayers aren't heard. It's that the buyers are convinced everyone else is a h8er or sheeple, and will buy whatever dumb shit they've been convinced of regardless.
Have you ever been party to a class action lawsuit and gotten some amount of recompense for your troubles? And had that not been part of the mainstream news so no one you already knew was part of it? Because they happen all the time, and the government doesn't go after them - damages are civil not criminal, so the lawyers are the ones getting richer. As far as "the big problem", people win the lottery every day. It's still not a sound investment strategy (unless you have some sort of edge).
> Because they happen all the time, and the government doesn't go after them - damages are civil not criminal, so the lawyers are the ones getting richer.
The crucial point from the original proposal is the following:
> If an article ever appears in the Wall Street Journal in which you (or your lawyer) are quoted saying that you were just a simple dentist, didn’t understand what you were buying and were swindled by the seller’s flashy sales pitch, then you go to prison.
The implication (the WSJ is just a stand-in) being that if lawyers representing you even talk about this investment, let alone try to bring a court case, you go to jail. No law like this exists at the moment and I'm saying such a law would quickly become toothless because it would be nigh impossible for the government to enforce.
> As far as "the big problem", people win the lottery every day. It's still not a sound investment strategy (unless you have some sort of edge).
Yes and that's precisely why there's still a lot of people who buy lottery tickets. My point is telling people upfront that something is a losing proposition and then taking away the ability to complain if they do it and lose anyway isn't enough of a disincentive to prevent people from doing something if they are convinced that they're the lucky ones or that "this is the real deal," a slap in the face at your local SEO office be damned.
The crucial point from the original proposal is the following:
> If an article ever appears in the Wall Street Journal in which you (or your lawyer) are quoted saying that you were just a simple dentist, didn’t understand what you were buying and were swindled by the seller’s flashy sales pitch, then you go to prison.
The implication (the WSJ is just a stand-in) being that if lawyers representing you even talk about this investment, let alone try to bring a court case, you go to jail. No law like this exists at the moment and I'm saying such a law would quickly become toothless because it would be nigh impossible for the government to enforce.
> As far as "the big problem", people win the lottery every day. It's still not a sound investment strategy (unless you have some sort of edge).
Yes and that's precisely why there's still a lot of people who buy lottery tickets. My point is telling people upfront that something is a losing proposition and then taking away the ability to complain if they do it and lose anyway isn't enough of a disincentive to prevent people from doing something if they are convinced that they're the lucky ones or that "this is the real deal," a slap in the face at your local SEO office be damned.
I get that they exist to protect people from getting scammed, but it also locks people out of some of the best ways to create wealth unless they’re already rich.
Crypto is an example of both. More people get scammed, more regular people accumulated wealth. Outside of that look at startups, regular people are locked out of early stage investment (including many of us in the industry).
I understand the trade off but find it frustrating I’m constrained for my own good. It feels like being held down to the level of the (uncharitably stated) dumbest person.
Crypto is an example of both. More people get scammed, more regular people accumulated wealth. Outside of that look at startups, regular people are locked out of early stage investment (including many of us in the industry).
I understand the trade off but find it frustrating I’m constrained for my own good. It feels like being held down to the level of the (uncharitably stated) dumbest person.
Hmmm; According to which metrics and stats is investment in early startups / random new companies and schemes, the best way to accumulate wealth? How do we define "best" - safest? Highest top possibility? Lowest risk? Over which period of time?
Our experiences may vary. I have far more visibility into people scammed left right and centre where I'm at. Those who did make money on sketchy schemes are lucky outliers (who of course believe themselves to be savvy risk takers fair enough ; I see most of them as incorrigible Russian roulette players who got lucky but not wiser).
Our experiences may vary. I have far more visibility into people scammed left right and centre where I'm at. Those who did make money on sketchy schemes are lucky outliers (who of course believe themselves to be savvy risk takers fair enough ; I see most of them as incorrigible Russian roulette players who got lucky but not wiser).
The accredited investor rule is not the main barrier to investing in quality startups. The barrier is being part of an insiders' club. A16z will call its network of rich entrepreneurs when an investment opportunity arises. Nobody except the already-rich and connected even know it's happening.
> locks people out of some of the best ways to create wealth unless they’re already rich
im sorry what? investing in startups is one of the best way to create wealth? you have a source that talks about average and median returns on investments across all startups?
im sorry what? investing in startups is one of the best way to create wealth? you have a source that talks about average and median returns on investments across all startups?
I don't care about the average or median case and 'some of the best' is suitably subjective, I just want the freedom to make my own choices.
The entire bet with startups if you're not rich enough to fund via an incubator is picking a team or company you think is good and kicking in some smallish amount of cash (~10k), angel list basically. If you're in the industry you may be better positioned to do this than a random person. We can do this by going and working for a startup and dumping money in to exercise options (arguably even riskier since now your job is also tied to its success), but not by just kicking in some cash unless you hit the accredited investor threshold.
I should be able to choose to do this if I want to. Instead I can only put money in after the company is public and a lot of the early return has already been taken by people rich enough to be allowed to buy in earlier.
Meanwhile I could go and gamble at a casino on slots without any proof that I'm rich enough to waste money that way.
The entire bet with startups if you're not rich enough to fund via an incubator is picking a team or company you think is good and kicking in some smallish amount of cash (~10k), angel list basically. If you're in the industry you may be better positioned to do this than a random person. We can do this by going and working for a startup and dumping money in to exercise options (arguably even riskier since now your job is also tied to its success), but not by just kicking in some cash unless you hit the accredited investor threshold.
I should be able to choose to do this if I want to. Instead I can only put money in after the company is public and a lot of the early return has already been taken by people rich enough to be allowed to buy in earlier.
Meanwhile I could go and gamble at a casino on slots without any proof that I'm rich enough to waste money that way.
If you've been in the industry for a while, you may already qualify as an accredited investor. The income threshold is $200K/year, which according to levels.fyi would easily be met by someone with a few years experience at a FAANG, for example.
If not, you can also qualify by passing the Series 65 exam, which is a 3-hour multiple-choice test that anyone can take.
You'll probably find that the biggest barrier is finding good startups who will take your money. The ones interested in taking a small amount of cash from some random person are also the least likely to succeed.
If not, you can also qualify by passing the Series 65 exam, which is a 3-hour multiple-choice test that anyone can take.
You'll probably find that the biggest barrier is finding good startups who will take your money. The ones interested in taking a small amount of cash from some random person are also the least likely to succeed.
> The ones interested in taking a small amount of cash from some random person are also the least likely to succeed.
Part of this is the result of the existing regulations making it a pain to do so.
Part of this is the result of the existing regulations making it a pain to do so.
I live in a place with no requirements to be an investor and it's still all the same. It's just in general a very, very bad idea.
The relatively little money (and little experience with startups) that most retail investors have would not be enough to diversify their risk and thus be equivalent to gambling. I think the figure is 5% of startups are successful?
Anyone who has become wealthy through crypto became so because they gambled. And, bitcoin has a history of being manipulated. I had a friend who was part of a network that communicated to him when to buy and sell bitcoin. He mentioned "the whales" a few times when talking about it.
Anyone who has become wealthy through crypto became so because they gambled. And, bitcoin has a history of being manipulated. I had a friend who was part of a network that communicated to him when to buy and sell bitcoin. He mentioned "the whales" a few times when talking about it.
Interesting statement, since "certified" investors invest money into startups which have a failure rate of 95%.
But these people are of course not "gambling", because they bet at 50 horses at once. And for all their experience, they continuously fail. It all seems very arbitrary.
Personally, I think "gambling" is the wrong word. It's high risk investing. When I put all my chips on "red", that's gambling. When I read about a startup, believe in their idea and see potential, yet am proven wrong, I made an investment mistake. It's not gambling unless one blindly invests without any research.
But these people are of course not "gambling", because they bet at 50 horses at once. And for all their experience, they continuously fail. It all seems very arbitrary.
Personally, I think "gambling" is the wrong word. It's high risk investing. When I put all my chips on "red", that's gambling. When I read about a startup, believe in their idea and see potential, yet am proven wrong, I made an investment mistake. It's not gambling unless one blindly invests without any research.
I've heard exactly this argument from every gambler who walked into a casino with a "system". You might come out better than someone blindly laying bets, but you are still very much gambling.
Where is the line of personal responsibility? Fraud should be prosecuted. Isn’t that the protection? These are laws that ensure only the rich can get richer. Terrible. Literally a law that says “you’re too stupid, we’re protecting you”.
The fact that laws prevent people from doing things that would cause them harm is a feature, not a bug.
The accreditation requirements are not absurdly stringent (eg $200k annual income). I think there’s a clear argument that people who do not meet those requirements can neither accurately judge the risk of their prospective investments nor afford to lose their investment (high likelihood). The current crypto markets are perfectly bearing this line of thinking out.
Retail investors are free to invest in public companies where there are significantly more fraud protections in place.
The accreditation requirements are not absurdly stringent (eg $200k annual income). I think there’s a clear argument that people who do not meet those requirements can neither accurately judge the risk of their prospective investments nor afford to lose their investment (high likelihood). The current crypto markets are perfectly bearing this line of thinking out.
Retail investors are free to invest in public companies where there are significantly more fraud protections in place.
You're only repeating the law without addressing the point.
Rich people, whom are already in a situation of privilege, have unique access to the number one way to exponentially increase their wealth: an early seat at the table.
The basis for this distinction is that they're rich. It's kind of insane to award rich people with extra perks. The other basis for the distinction is that they're smart, and we're stupid. Whether you're stupid or smart apparently is based on the random number of 200K. Below it you're obviously not very smart.
Preventing self harm is quite an arbitrary point. I'd say the greatest self harm one can inflict is regarding your health. Death seems worse than losing money. Yet there's basically no protection at all against this self harm, hence we have an obesity crisis, diabetes crisis, inactivity crisis, sleep crisis, mental health crisis, public health is in a terrible state. This is all fine though, just don't lose money.
Rich people, whom are already in a situation of privilege, have unique access to the number one way to exponentially increase their wealth: an early seat at the table.
The basis for this distinction is that they're rich. It's kind of insane to award rich people with extra perks. The other basis for the distinction is that they're smart, and we're stupid. Whether you're stupid or smart apparently is based on the random number of 200K. Below it you're obviously not very smart.
Preventing self harm is quite an arbitrary point. I'd say the greatest self harm one can inflict is regarding your health. Death seems worse than losing money. Yet there's basically no protection at all against this self harm, hence we have an obesity crisis, diabetes crisis, inactivity crisis, sleep crisis, mental health crisis, public health is in a terrible state. This is all fine though, just don't lose money.
Also note that the SEC has recently (2016) relaxed rules on equity crowdfunding to allow retail investors more access to such deals while also mitigating some components of risk or fraud:
https://www.sec.gov/smallbusiness/exemptofferings/regcrowdfu...
https://www.sec.gov/smallbusiness/exemptofferings/regcrowdfu...
> Fraud should be prosecuted. Isn’t that the protection?
While throwing a (likely bankrupt) fraudster in jail might be emotionally satisfying, it doesn't get your money back.
These laws are aimed at protecting 87-year-old Aunt Minnie, who has some money in the bank that her late husband left her.
While throwing a (likely bankrupt) fraudster in jail might be emotionally satisfying, it doesn't get your money back.
These laws are aimed at protecting 87-year-old Aunt Minnie, who has some money in the bank that her late husband left her.
That's one side.
The other side is that gains to the upside (private equity, other alternatives only available to accredited investors and QP's) aren't available to the masses, which further feeds the gap.
Didn't they change the rules so you don't need 200K salary / 1M in non-house assets to be an accredited investor, but you need to pass one of the financial services exams (Series 7, etc.)?
The other side is that gains to the upside (private equity, other alternatives only available to accredited investors and QP's) aren't available to the masses, which further feeds the gap.
Didn't they change the rules so you don't need 200K salary / 1M in non-house assets to be an accredited investor, but you need to pass one of the financial services exams (Series 7, etc.)?
As of December 2020, if you have a series 7, 63, or 82, you now qualify as accredited.
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/amendments-accredited-investor-d...
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/amendments-accredited-investor-d...
I'm not sure, it seems that many who make good money but are in debt can invest:
> Individual investors with an annual income or net worth less than $107,000 can contribute either $2,200 or 5% of their annual income or net worth, whichever is greater. The old rules limited them to the lesser of those two numbers.
> Investors with annual incomes or net worth greater than $107,000 can contribute up to 10% of the highest number.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/startups-and-cr...
> Individual investors with an annual income or net worth less than $107,000 can contribute either $2,200 or 5% of their annual income or net worth, whichever is greater. The old rules limited them to the lesser of those two numbers.
> Investors with annual incomes or net worth greater than $107,000 can contribute up to 10% of the highest number.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/startups-and-cr...
That's RegCF, accredited is under RegD. See also RegA and RegB based investment. There are numerous options.
But the same people excluded by the government from investing in early stage tech companies are encouraged by the same government to buy lottery tickets and visit casinos.
That's not a fair comparison.
Lotteries and casinos are recognized as a form of entertainment - gambling - people may not behave rationally and they may end up ruining their lives, but there is a certain folk wisdom that gambling just loses money and you shouldn't do it (except for fun).
Investing has different norms and expectations. Few people think that financial analysis is "fun" in the same way that going to a casino or buying lottery tickets is fun - so the "entertainment" value isn't there in the same way. But many financially unqualified people will be bamboozled by con-artists who take advantage of the apparent "respectability" of investing.
Lotteries and casinos are recognized as a form of entertainment - gambling - people may not behave rationally and they may end up ruining their lives, but there is a certain folk wisdom that gambling just loses money and you shouldn't do it (except for fun).
Investing has different norms and expectations. Few people think that financial analysis is "fun" in the same way that going to a casino or buying lottery tickets is fun - so the "entertainment" value isn't there in the same way. But many financially unqualified people will be bamboozled by con-artists who take advantage of the apparent "respectability" of investing.
> Lotteries and casinos are recognized as a form of entertainment - gambling - people may not behave rationally and they may end up ruining their lives, but there is a certain folk wisdom that gambling just loses money and you shouldn't do it (except for fun).
This is a pretense. They're recognized as things that generate huge sums of money for nothing for the owners of lotteries and casinos. They refer to them as "entertainment" to abandon responsibility for serious consequences. Cigarette companies would be happy to sell "smoking entertainment."
edit: to be fair, nutritional supplements have basically lobbied their way into the same thing.
This is a pretense. They're recognized as things that generate huge sums of money for nothing for the owners of lotteries and casinos. They refer to them as "entertainment" to abandon responsibility for serious consequences. Cigarette companies would be happy to sell "smoking entertainment."
edit: to be fair, nutritional supplements have basically lobbied their way into the same thing.
Casinos will take your grandmothers last dollar and throw her out on the street when her credit runs out.
Somehow the regular people are smart enough to know the lottery is entertainment but they aren’t smart enough for investment wizardry. It’s just incidental, I guess that the government profits significantly from the lottery.
Listen, I’ve heard and understand the arguments “why” investors must be accredited. But I can’t help but find myself hearing these arguments and thinking “this is the government codifying the wealth gap”. When Slick Rick scams someone, it’s the worst thing ever. But when the government scams us all, it’s just the way the world works.
But hey, Powerball is just entertainment! Right?
Somehow the regular people are smart enough to know the lottery is entertainment but they aren’t smart enough for investment wizardry. It’s just incidental, I guess that the government profits significantly from the lottery.
Listen, I’ve heard and understand the arguments “why” investors must be accredited. But I can’t help but find myself hearing these arguments and thinking “this is the government codifying the wealth gap”. When Slick Rick scams someone, it’s the worst thing ever. But when the government scams us all, it’s just the way the world works.
But hey, Powerball is just entertainment! Right?
>Thousands of AngelList members were invited to invest personal checks ranging from $2,000 to $20,000+ via the mailing lists of multiple syndicates."
That doesn't happen on good opportunities which the well connected keep to themselves until it is the time to finally hand the bag over...
That doesn't happen on good opportunities which the well connected keep to themselves until it is the time to finally hand the bag over...
I'm glad they expanded accreditation to licensed professionals who don't have 2 million. Before it was too much gatekeeping just on money alone.
Amazingly, my startup (KubeSail.com YCS19) has similar revenue, has raised 500x less, and we've been told point blank that "nobody wants to invest in a hardware company", or "yes, but what's the path to 100B".
Hey maybe we don't have any path to 100B (is 1B just for chumps?), and maybe our margins aren't B2E-style 99%, but I'd much rather be making something people want rather than...
And then I hear my wifes voice in my head: "You can't pay yourself that little forever...". Maybe I'm the fool.
Strange world.
Hey maybe we don't have any path to 100B (is 1B just for chumps?), and maybe our margins aren't B2E-style 99%, but I'd much rather be making something people want rather than...
And then I hear my wifes voice in my head: "You can't pay yourself that little forever...". Maybe I'm the fool.
Strange world.
I might get downvoted for saying this, but rich people aren't necessarily smarter than anyone else. They're just richer.
Undoubtedly, there are many successful founders with talent and brains that were able to exit successfully, and to those people, kudos. But a tremendous amount of immense family wealth is controlled by people that are in no way, shape or form smarter or more talented than the average person. Their wealth just demands an unhealthy amount of control and influence in whatever it is they're investing, regardless of how knowledgeable they are.
I saw it in multi-family real estate about 5 years ago. A multi-family property company I was associated with was making an absolute killing (and still are) when all of a sudden, leadership wanted to start investing in AI because their investors demanded them to.
They signed a massive deal with a custom software shop to build them an AI tool to decide which properties to buy, and the entire project was an absolute joke. It wasn't AI of any kind, it was just a dashboard that pulled data from various real estate APIs for things like walkability score, etc. But they showed their investors and called it "AI", who absolutely loved it, not knowing at all what actually was, partially because these execs were old school real estate guys that didn't understand themselves what the tool really was either. They raised millions more for their next fund, and the whole time I'm wondering how what this company was doing wasn't fraudulent.
In the end, it didn't even matter, the next fund performed incredibly well and at the following Christmas party, one of the employees involved in the project received a $50k Escalade as a gift to reflect the success of the "AI" project.
I will never again assume that just because someone has a ton of money knows anything about they're talking about.
Undoubtedly, there are many successful founders with talent and brains that were able to exit successfully, and to those people, kudos. But a tremendous amount of immense family wealth is controlled by people that are in no way, shape or form smarter or more talented than the average person. Their wealth just demands an unhealthy amount of control and influence in whatever it is they're investing, regardless of how knowledgeable they are.
I saw it in multi-family real estate about 5 years ago. A multi-family property company I was associated with was making an absolute killing (and still are) when all of a sudden, leadership wanted to start investing in AI because their investors demanded them to.
They signed a massive deal with a custom software shop to build them an AI tool to decide which properties to buy, and the entire project was an absolute joke. It wasn't AI of any kind, it was just a dashboard that pulled data from various real estate APIs for things like walkability score, etc. But they showed their investors and called it "AI", who absolutely loved it, not knowing at all what actually was, partially because these execs were old school real estate guys that didn't understand themselves what the tool really was either. They raised millions more for their next fund, and the whole time I'm wondering how what this company was doing wasn't fraudulent.
In the end, it didn't even matter, the next fund performed incredibly well and at the following Christmas party, one of the employees involved in the project received a $50k Escalade as a gift to reflect the success of the "AI" project.
I will never again assume that just because someone has a ton of money knows anything about they're talking about.
> I might get downvoted for saying this, but rich people aren't necessarily smarter than anyone else. They're just richer.
You'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
You'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
If you did intelligence tests on 1000 American centi-millionaires and 1000 randomly selected Americans, do you think the difference in scores would be undetectable?
Yes, because a tremendous amount of wealth is inherited. The idea that the vast majority of wealthy Americans are self-made is a myth.
80% of US millionaires are first generation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/c....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/c....
Big difference between millionaire and centi-millionaire or billionaire though. You can save a million dollars just by making the median American salary and making large contributions to your 401k over 40 years, due to the power of compound interest.
[deleted]
> 80% of US millionaires are first generation.
Apples and oranges. Most of the wealth is not most of the wealthy people.
Apples and oranges. Most of the wealth is not most of the wealthy people.
Inheritance doesn't start and stop at money. There are other inherited traits that may influence the scores of the people in the study.
Intelligence is hereditary too, in large part, so that would lead to the opposite conclusion right?
I look at how the ultra-wealthy are lionized in the US and genuinely wonder sometimes. It's amazing what we'll let those people get away with because we too want to join the exclusive club of high net worth individuals.
I mean here we are on a message board that is the vanity project of an investment firm catering to highly skilled technicians.
> I look at how the ultra-wealthy are lionized in the US and...
I look at the ultra-wealthy make a diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder
I look at the ultra-wealthy make a diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder
I sometimes wonder how much the fact that I'd stop trying to make more money at like $25m savings—and maybe sooner—is a factor in my not having that much money in the first place. Like I'm not saying that's all or even most of the reason, but I do wonder if the running-up-the-score attitude is itself valuable for making any decent amount of money in the first place.
what do u need 25mil for? Seems arbitrary. With 7.5m u can have 300k/y income from stock invested without lowering your net worth. Seems more than enough for anyone
Yeah that's why I threw in "maybe sooner". $25m is a bit arbitrary but is also somewhere around the point at which I'd have to start trying to waste money before I'd risk touching principal. That's "never think about money again, even a little" territory, for me (but then I don't want a yacht or any of that), so at the top end of the range in which I could see myself deciding never to work again.
Also, $7.5m is still low enough to be threatened by healthcare costs and end-of-life care and such (x2 for a couple, plus if a kid gets very sick before they're out, or even after but you don't want them to be ruined by it, et c). Not enough to wipe it out, probably, but enough to diminish it substantially if you get a bad roll of the dice. I wouldn't even need that much to stop having any motivation to try to make more, if I lived somewhere with decent universal healthcare where having your savings eaten by the healthcare/hospice-care industry is practically unheard of.
Also, $7.5m is still low enough to be threatened by healthcare costs and end-of-life care and such (x2 for a couple, plus if a kid gets very sick before they're out, or even after but you don't want them to be ruined by it, et c). Not enough to wipe it out, probably, but enough to diminish it substantially if you get a bad roll of the dice. I wouldn't even need that much to stop having any motivation to try to make more, if I lived somewhere with decent universal healthcare where having your savings eaten by the healthcare/hospice-care industry is practically unheard of.
Interestingly, when I look at the top 5 richest people on the planet, I don't think any are optimizing for wealth.
They are not optimizing for wealth... anymore. It's easy to shift your priorities once you are overwhelmed with a resource you could not possibly use all of.
I think I would describe Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk etc... as optimizing for making their companies succeed in the end, not optimizing for wealth.
The majority of people world wide are, by that definition, idiots.
[deleted]
You're literally on the "rich people are better than" site
[deleted]
Juicero
Theranos
ZERA food recycler
Nikola electric truck
What are your favourites?
Theranos
ZERA food recycler
Nikola electric truck
What are your favourites?
Re: Theranos - to give Henry Kissinger and the other very old rich guys the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Elizabeth Holmes is just a Bene Gesserit using the Voice to get them to hand over their money?
Honestly I can't even fathom trusting my hard earned money to a person that doesn't blink.
I once worked with someone who went from "not rich" to "rich", who also ending up in a senior position at Cisco where he had the authority to spend lots of money.
His observation was that a "normal" person has to work hard to find ways to make money. A person with lots of money to spend has people queuing at their door, offering ways to make even more money. It becomes a case of picking the best opportunities from the menu.
His observation was that a "normal" person has to work hard to find ways to make money. A person with lots of money to spend has people queuing at their door, offering ways to make even more money. It becomes a case of picking the best opportunities from the menu.
"I will never again assume that just because someone has a ton of money knows anything about they're talking about."
Well, apparently they did know, how to increase their avaiable money. And this is what matters to most people, not solving real problems. The problem seems, that those 2 things are not really aligned often.
Well, apparently they did know, how to increase their avaiable money. And this is what matters to most people, not solving real problems. The problem seems, that those 2 things are not really aligned often.
The thing is that it's so much easier to make money when you have it. It's not even necessarily that rich people just know innately how to make money, it's more like they just have access to many more people who do know how to invest.
Any schmo can open a Wealthfront account with no minimum balance that returns somewhere in the realm of retail investment returns, but only people with obscene amounts of money can go invest in the real estate firms like the one I referenced, which return many times more to the investors than anything in retail would. That firm was returning many multiples above anything you could invest in on the retail side. So having a million dollars to put into these kinds of firms winds up making so much more percentage-wise than the tens of thousands that I can put into my retirement account. It's a self-perpetuating system that allows the wealthy to continue out-earning everyone else. That's how wealth inequality works in a nutshell.
I could give you the name of the firm so you too would know how to make that kind of money. Only, you wouldn't be able to without being able to make the minimum required investment. It's not that they have some secret knowledge about making money, it's that they can buy access to the high-return investment firms that you and I just can't.
Any schmo can open a Wealthfront account with no minimum balance that returns somewhere in the realm of retail investment returns, but only people with obscene amounts of money can go invest in the real estate firms like the one I referenced, which return many times more to the investors than anything in retail would. That firm was returning many multiples above anything you could invest in on the retail side. So having a million dollars to put into these kinds of firms winds up making so much more percentage-wise than the tens of thousands that I can put into my retirement account. It's a self-perpetuating system that allows the wealthy to continue out-earning everyone else. That's how wealth inequality works in a nutshell.
I could give you the name of the firm so you too would know how to make that kind of money. Only, you wouldn't be able to without being able to make the minimum required investment. It's not that they have some secret knowledge about making money, it's that they can buy access to the high-return investment firms that you and I just can't.
> The thing is that it's so much easier to make money when you have it.
So true. My rich uncle once told me "The hardest million I made was my first million". Then you look at how the banking system works: the more money you have in the bank, the more money the bank pays you. But if you don't have enough money in the bank, then the bank charges you. So it's actually more expensive to be poor than it is to be rich, and the richer you are, the faster you become richer.
It's as if you're first place in Mario Kart, and all you get are stars, while the last place car keeps getting banana peels that they then slip on. Not a very fun game, but that's life.
So true. My rich uncle once told me "The hardest million I made was my first million". Then you look at how the banking system works: the more money you have in the bank, the more money the bank pays you. But if you don't have enough money in the bank, then the bank charges you. So it's actually more expensive to be poor than it is to be rich, and the richer you are, the faster you become richer.
It's as if you're first place in Mario Kart, and all you get are stars, while the last place car keeps getting banana peels that they then slip on. Not a very fun game, but that's life.
"But if you don't have enough money in the bank, then the bank charges you. So it's actually more expensive to be poor than it is to be rich, and the richer you are, the faster you become richer."
Not only banking, everything is more expensive, when you are poor.
Miss a payment, because the money was gone before the end of month? You still have to pay it fully, plus fees.
Can only afford a old car? Pay more with repairs and tax.
You need money but have low bank reputation? Pay way higher interest rate - if you are lucky to even get the loan.
You get screwed over, but cannot afford a lawyer? Bad luck.
Etc. etc.
Not only banking, everything is more expensive, when you are poor.
Miss a payment, because the money was gone before the end of month? You still have to pay it fully, plus fees.
Can only afford a old car? Pay more with repairs and tax.
You need money but have low bank reputation? Pay way higher interest rate - if you are lucky to even get the loan.
You get screwed over, but cannot afford a lawyer? Bad luck.
Etc. etc.
I am unable to talk about specifics - but I can 100% endorse this comment. Would add management consultants to the list as well.
> I might get downvoted for saying this, but rich people aren't necessarily smarter than anyone else. They're just richer.
... ish?
Generally speaking, rich people may not be smarter than anyone else but they probably aren't dumber. In other words, they are likely to be making fewer mistakes and taking more favourable risks, even if they aren't particularly any more likely to spot an extraordinary opportunity.
... ish?
Generally speaking, rich people may not be smarter than anyone else but they probably aren't dumber. In other words, they are likely to be making fewer mistakes and taking more favourable risks, even if they aren't particularly any more likely to spot an extraordinary opportunity.
> Generally speaking, rich people may not be smarter than anyone else but they probably aren't dumber.
You're kind of proving my point here though by making the argument that rich people probably just make better decisions than the working class. It's not really about making better decisions as it is about having access to better financial opportunities that others don't have. As I stated elsewhere, the real estate firm I described offered massive returns that you could not dream of getting in retail investment situation, but it required a minimum $1M investment, which obviously excludes most people.
I could give you the name of the firm so you too could know how to make that crazy money, but if you don't have the million, you're SOL. It has nothing to do with how smart you are, it has everything to do with how much money you have.
You're kind of proving my point here though by making the argument that rich people probably just make better decisions than the working class. It's not really about making better decisions as it is about having access to better financial opportunities that others don't have. As I stated elsewhere, the real estate firm I described offered massive returns that you could not dream of getting in retail investment situation, but it required a minimum $1M investment, which obviously excludes most people.
I could give you the name of the firm so you too could know how to make that crazy money, but if you don't have the million, you're SOL. It has nothing to do with how smart you are, it has everything to do with how much money you have.
That’s hilarious … I worked for a company (several, really) that bragged about being AI but where really just conventional business logic.
The products worked great so nobody cared. Nor should they.
To be clear, the companies started as AI. They just pivoted until they found a market and product that matched.
The products worked great so nobody cared. Nor should they.
To be clear, the companies started as AI. They just pivoted until they found a market and product that matched.
> It wasn't AI of any kind, it was just a dashboard that pulled data from various real estate APIs for things like walkability score, etc. But they showed their investors and called it "AI"
Isn't that the smartest possible way to deal with investors who demand AI?
Isn't that the smartest possible way to deal with investors who demand AI?
I went on your page, and it looks like I am your target audience - relatively tech savvy, want to ungoogle myself, ready to pay for convenience of doing so, yet I got confused quickly.
1. What do you sell? Hardware or some kind of management software? Looks like latter, then why there is image of PiBox all over the page?
2. What is cluster? Is it a single PiBox/another Linux or something more? Word "cluster" implies to me there are many somethings grouped, what are these somethings?
3. Price plans mention proxied traffic. What it is and how does it fit into big picture?
4. I signed up, clicked add cluster -> "Bring YourOwn" and nothing changes, it still offers me to buy PiBox with shipping date in July(!! I know it's not your fault, but damn). How do I add my own "cluster" (whatever it is)?
5. Once logged in, I can't get to the homepage anymore, it is all dashboard now.
1. What do you sell? Hardware or some kind of management software? Looks like latter, then why there is image of PiBox all over the page?
2. What is cluster? Is it a single PiBox/another Linux or something more? Word "cluster" implies to me there are many somethings grouped, what are these somethings?
3. Price plans mention proxied traffic. What it is and how does it fit into big picture?
4. I signed up, clicked add cluster -> "Bring YourOwn" and nothing changes, it still offers me to buy PiBox with shipping date in July(!! I know it's not your fault, but damn). How do I add my own "cluster" (whatever it is)?
5. Once logged in, I can't get to the homepage anymore, it is all dashboard now.
Hi! Thanks for your feedback!
1. We sell both hardware and software, although our software works with almost any computer that runs Linux - it doesn't require our hardware and can run on anything that can run Kubernetes. Obviously, this is somewhat "the deep end" for many users, so our PiBox comes plug-n-play ready.
2. Cluster is a Kubernetes term, which we really should stop using, although we have a core value of educating instead of shielding our users - so we've tried to keep the "upstream" terminology as much as we can. It simply means "one or more Linux servers". Most of our customers simply run one machine as their "cluster", but a small handful have dozens of machines in the same group.
3. We're trying to bundle everything that's needed to host apps and websites at home. For most users, home internet connections aren't very good for this - the IP address changes often, and sometimes ISPs do not even allow port 80 or 443 to be exposed to the internet - we solve this by proxying traffic directly to your cluster, bypassing firewalls and avoiding the need for port-forwarding, router configuration, etc. This means you can plug in a PiBox, install, say, PhotoStructure, and access `photos.home.erulabs.k8g8.com` (for example), without needing to know anything at all about networking or firewalls or DNS. We also offer backups, as another example of trying to make home-hosting "complete".
4. Ack! I broke this last night! Thank you for pointing that out, fixed now!
5. You can click "home" in the footer, but yes, some polish there would be nice... One day we'll hire a proper designer ;)
Thank you for the feedback, very much appreciated.
1. We sell both hardware and software, although our software works with almost any computer that runs Linux - it doesn't require our hardware and can run on anything that can run Kubernetes. Obviously, this is somewhat "the deep end" for many users, so our PiBox comes plug-n-play ready.
2. Cluster is a Kubernetes term, which we really should stop using, although we have a core value of educating instead of shielding our users - so we've tried to keep the "upstream" terminology as much as we can. It simply means "one or more Linux servers". Most of our customers simply run one machine as their "cluster", but a small handful have dozens of machines in the same group.
3. We're trying to bundle everything that's needed to host apps and websites at home. For most users, home internet connections aren't very good for this - the IP address changes often, and sometimes ISPs do not even allow port 80 or 443 to be exposed to the internet - we solve this by proxying traffic directly to your cluster, bypassing firewalls and avoiding the need for port-forwarding, router configuration, etc. This means you can plug in a PiBox, install, say, PhotoStructure, and access `photos.home.erulabs.k8g8.com` (for example), without needing to know anything at all about networking or firewalls or DNS. We also offer backups, as another example of trying to make home-hosting "complete".
4. Ack! I broke this last night! Thank you for pointing that out, fixed now!
5. You can click "home" in the footer, but yes, some polish there would be nice... One day we'll hire a proper designer ;)
Thank you for the feedback, very much appreciated.
>"We're trying to bundle everything that's needed to host apps and websites at home."
This should be written somewhere on your website. A good simple use-case description like this cuts through some of the jargon to quickly explain what is is you're actually helping a user to do apart from describing features and technical ways you enable them to do actually do that thing.
edit: so this is on the site, but I had to scroll down further. I'd highly suggest moving the "What would you say you do here" at least to the top of the black box it is in, if not the top of the page.
It is much more informative, while the other paragraphs are more confusing to read first, I left the page without scrolling down further.
This should be written somewhere on your website. A good simple use-case description like this cuts through some of the jargon to quickly explain what is is you're actually helping a user to do apart from describing features and technical ways you enable them to do actually do that thing.
edit: so this is on the site, but I had to scroll down further. I'd highly suggest moving the "What would you say you do here" at least to the top of the black box it is in, if not the top of the page.
It is much more informative, while the other paragraphs are more confusing to read first, I left the page without scrolling down further.
> Once logged in, I can't get to the homepage anymore, it is all dashboard now.
a lot of sites do this, see github.com (I'm not a fan of the pattern)
a lot of sites do this, see github.com (I'm not a fan of the pattern)
Here's a massively oversimplified and harsh view, but maybe useful to contrast different ends of the spectrum:
1. Get VC style investment, become unicorn, pay yourself 500-1000k a year immediately, ride the roller-coaster. Ending = derail ? feel burned, but have some dosh to show for it, possibly swallowing feelings of contempt towards investors due to overriding decision that forced you to watch your baby burn : Homerun, now watch everything you worked for be monetised into a souleless husk of it's innocent beginnings, you can't help but feel you sold out, quit once you had enough, dosh to show for it.
2. No investors, go the hard way, grow slow. If you make the right decisions, you will be able to afford to gradually increase your salary to something modest, and eventually perhaps even "good", you maintain full control of your product and peace of mind of ownership and decision making. OR, you keep making the wrong decisions, you burn through all your money, possibly burn through your enthusiasm too if you don't know when to quit.
#1 can be risky for the soul 2# can be risky for the pocket
If you aren't very materialistic and don't want expensive toys, #2 can be quite attractive because of the sanity you are able to create for your everyday worklife... the other thing is that just because it isn't a 100B business idea, doesn't mean it isn't a good business idea, it might just have a different scale, maybe it can't pay 10k workers and a pile of investors, but it could pay pay 10 or 100 people with the same salary, minus all the corporate BS... it just takes longer to get there. VCs want relatively quick money, but that is only applicable to certain ideas that can reach a certain scale, even then it comes at a non monetary cost that can be hard to stomach.
1. Get VC style investment, become unicorn, pay yourself 500-1000k a year immediately, ride the roller-coaster. Ending = derail ? feel burned, but have some dosh to show for it, possibly swallowing feelings of contempt towards investors due to overriding decision that forced you to watch your baby burn : Homerun, now watch everything you worked for be monetised into a souleless husk of it's innocent beginnings, you can't help but feel you sold out, quit once you had enough, dosh to show for it.
2. No investors, go the hard way, grow slow. If you make the right decisions, you will be able to afford to gradually increase your salary to something modest, and eventually perhaps even "good", you maintain full control of your product and peace of mind of ownership and decision making. OR, you keep making the wrong decisions, you burn through all your money, possibly burn through your enthusiasm too if you don't know when to quit.
#1 can be risky for the soul 2# can be risky for the pocket
If you aren't very materialistic and don't want expensive toys, #2 can be quite attractive because of the sanity you are able to create for your everyday worklife... the other thing is that just because it isn't a 100B business idea, doesn't mean it isn't a good business idea, it might just have a different scale, maybe it can't pay 10k workers and a pile of investors, but it could pay pay 10 or 100 people with the same salary, minus all the corporate BS... it just takes longer to get there. VCs want relatively quick money, but that is only applicable to certain ideas that can reach a certain scale, even then it comes at a non monetary cost that can be hard to stomach.
Apologies in advance for providing unsolicited feedback...
When I go to a landing page, I expect to be given a reason to give the company my money. (And in fact I'm hoping to be convinced of that, because it means my life is better.) I visited your landing page and do not know what problem you are claiming to solve. It looks like a competitor for Digital Ocean, but DO is easier to use and just as cheap. IMO your landing page should make me say "I want to give them my money so I don't have to think about [problem] again."
When I go to a landing page, I expect to be given a reason to give the company my money. (And in fact I'm hoping to be convinced of that, because it means my life is better.) I visited your landing page and do not know what problem you are claiming to solve. It looks like a competitor for Digital Ocean, but DO is easier to use and just as cheap. IMO your landing page should make me say "I want to give them my money so I don't have to think about [problem] again."
No need to apologize, I appreciate the feedback! I tweak our little initial landing page pitch lines all the time, and I feel like the current state is pretty bad. I'll see if I can't improve it :)
I went to your homepage. So I can pay for a server to run backups and apps? The problem is that I have heard of exactly 0 of the apps you highlighted.
Excluding backups, essentially the pitch is, 'Pay us money to run a server to serve apps you have never heard of.' Are Element, Jellyfin, NextCloud things you expect your target customers to know about?
My perception is that Plex is moderately well known, I suggest you highlight that.
Disclaimer: I work for Google, all opinions are my own.
Excluding backups, essentially the pitch is, 'Pay us money to run a server to serve apps you have never heard of.' Are Element, Jellyfin, NextCloud things you expect your target customers to know about?
My perception is that Plex is moderately well known, I suggest you highlight that.
Disclaimer: I work for Google, all opinions are my own.
> KubeSail Platform allows you to provision software when your customers signup and pay. Spin up cloud resources on-demand, or physically ship your customers a plug-n-play device.
I may have misunderstood, this appears to be B2B?
Edit: I went on the blog. My current understanding is:
"KubeSail" is the physical box (some sort of pi with a sata adapter).
"KubeSail Templates" is some standardized wrapper around opensource cloud software.
"KubeSail Platform" is some sort of B2B deployment platform for the open source wrappers.
I may have misunderstood, this appears to be B2B?
Edit: I went on the blog. My current understanding is:
"KubeSail" is the physical box (some sort of pi with a sata adapter).
"KubeSail Templates" is some standardized wrapper around opensource cloud software.
"KubeSail Platform" is some sort of B2B deployment platform for the open source wrappers.
It is.
Everybody just focuses on two possible outcomes that are easy to define -- what is the probability it goes bust and what is probability it is going to add a letter to FAANG.
I think the answer is laziness. If you invest money you shouldn't care much about the size of the company you are investing. From a purely financial point of view should be looking at return on your investment where return is defined as an integral over all possible future payouts adjusted for their probability and adjusted for your risk tolerance.
Everybody just focuses on two possible outcomes that are easy to define -- what is the probability it goes bust and what is probability it is going to add a letter to FAANG.
I think the answer is laziness. If you invest money you shouldn't care much about the size of the company you are investing. From a purely financial point of view should be looking at return on your investment where return is defined as an integral over all possible future payouts adjusted for their probability and adjusted for your risk tolerance.
>I think the answer is laziness.
If an investor wasn't lazy they wouldn't be an investor and have a real full time job, OR they would be Jason Calacanis.
I'm not saying that they are bad people, I totally understand the appeal of getting a cushy, but potentially profitable job.
If an investor wasn't lazy they wouldn't be an investor and have a real full time job, OR they would be Jason Calacanis.
I'm not saying that they are bad people, I totally understand the appeal of getting a cushy, but potentially profitable job.
The VC model has to consider the expectation that most investments will be a complete loss. To have even a hope of ~20% return every investment has to have a path to $xxxB. Otherwise it’s not worth including.
Yes, this is a huge misunderstanding of where the returns from VC come from. It does not come from "moderate success". That's hopeless, given the fail rate.
If you have a safe path to 20% or even 100% returns, just get a loan. There's absolutely not point in the VC process at that level... or reason for them to exist.
If you have a safe path to 20% or even 100% returns, just get a loan. There's absolutely not point in the VC process at that level... or reason for them to exist.
There's clearly been a lot of thought put into KubeSail, the platform & pibox provisioning service looks interesting.
Have you had businesses try to make this part of an internal provisioning process?
It looks like you're aiming for hobbyists, but I'd take a guess you could be integrating with businesses at a premium.
Have you had businesses try to make this part of an internal provisioning process?
It looks like you're aiming for hobbyists, but I'd take a guess you could be integrating with businesses at a premium.
We’re working on that, absolutely. The idea behind the KubeSail Platform is that businesses (or open source developers) can sell a fully loaded, pre-configured “box” that runs their software directly to their customers.
PhotoStructure is one of our favorite YC friends - and for example - a “buy a photostructure box!” Button on their site will hopefully be a great source of revenue for both KubeSail and PhotoStructure.
We’d love to sign some large enterprises (and we’re working on that too) but we’re extremely keen on making open source / self-hostable software financially viable for its authors (and easier to use for its users!)
PhotoStructure is one of our favorite YC friends - and for example - a “buy a photostructure box!” Button on their site will hopefully be a great source of revenue for both KubeSail and PhotoStructure.
We’d love to sign some large enterprises (and we’re working on that too) but we’re extremely keen on making open source / self-hostable software financially viable for its authors (and easier to use for its users!)
Author of PhotoStructure here: I'm really looking forward to adding that button to the site!
I'm hoping that KubeSail can help my less-technical users self-host the stuff they care about. It's certainly a tall order, but it seems like the pieces are coming together...
I'm hoping that KubeSail can help my less-technical users self-host the stuff they care about. It's certainly a tall order, but it seems like the pieces are coming together...
Tried to check out your site, ‘clicked start for free’ on the homepage but got:
“Bad request”
Can I learn more?
“Bad request”
Can I learn more?
Heh, maybe _thats_ why we don't have a 300M valuation! I shouldn't comment on HN while deploys go out. Fix going out currently, thank you!
Or maybe commenting on HN is a good way to get free user acceptance testing. Comment on every deployment!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Oh that's neat, I had almost exactly that startup idea years ago, but it never got any further than describing it to some friends over a beer. Looks like you created something pretty cool!
I have a similar feeling. I must be the fool for not raising capital while money is so cheap, especially when I see firms raising 7 figures with no revenue nor even a product.
How does this differ from competitors outside of backups being included?
[deleted]
Is there any evidence that Kagan took money off the table or paid himself an outsized salary, or hired his friends on exaggerated salaries, or used the startup's funds as his piggybank?
Similarly, the article conflates A16Z leading the seed round but not the follow on round as being some kind of smell. A16Z certainly do lead follow-on rounds, but it isn't the norm. (It would be interesting to know if they exercised pro-rata or not, but even that isn't necessarily indicative of anything.)
I don't know if there is or isn't fraud here, but the only evidence seems to be that Kagan was good at fundraising, raise a lot in a frothy market on little traction, and did not succeed at building the product or a successful business.
One of the best things about the tech ecosystem is the lack of stigma around failure. I hope people don't lose sight of that as round sizes and valuations spike.
Similarly, the article conflates A16Z leading the seed round but not the follow on round as being some kind of smell. A16Z certainly do lead follow-on rounds, but it isn't the norm. (It would be interesting to know if they exercised pro-rata or not, but even that isn't necessarily indicative of anything.)
I don't know if there is or isn't fraud here, but the only evidence seems to be that Kagan was good at fundraising, raise a lot in a frothy market on little traction, and did not succeed at building the product or a successful business.
One of the best things about the tech ecosystem is the lack of stigma around failure. I hope people don't lose sight of that as round sizes and valuations spike.
> Similarly, the article conflates A16Z leading the seed round but not the follow on round as being some kind of smell.
Typically everybody wants a new investor to lead the next round. A completely inside round is usually a sign that a company is in trouble (though it could mean the deal is so sweet the insiders don’t want to share).
As in investor, a newcomer is reassuring that you aren’t simply in love with the business.
And for management, investors, and of board, someone new setting a price guarantees that the new price wasn’t determined on some sweetheart basis.
Typically everybody wants a new investor to lead the next round. A completely inside round is usually a sign that a company is in trouble (though it could mean the deal is so sweet the insiders don’t want to share).
As in investor, a newcomer is reassuring that you aren’t simply in love with the business.
And for management, investors, and of board, someone new setting a price guarantees that the new price wasn’t determined on some sweetheart basis.
Typically multi-stage investors like A16Z would like to lead the follow up round from seed. Seed is just a way to get in to the company, and the next rounds are where the actual money is for large funds. If the company is killing it, there is no reason for the VC not to invest. You basically want every single piece of the cap table you can without messing up the company. This is where the whole "signaling risk" issue came from.
If you look up Crunchbase where A16Z are the lead investor and organize the list by company name, you see that it's more likely they have lead at least 2 rounds: Charthop (seed, A, B), Compound (seed, A), Clubhouse (A,B,C), Databricks (A,D,E,F), Descript (seed, A), Fivetran (B,C,D)...
Founders can also prefer the previous investor because often you can get lower dilution, you already know the investors, no additional board seats and get the round done in one day vs multi week or month raise.
Founders sometimes can also prefer choosing a new lead investor but I wouldn't say it's typical at all that everyone wants a new investor.
Another multi-stage investors, Sequoia, WhatsApp raised all their rounds from Sequoia and no-one else. Sequoia also led Stripe's seed, Series A and have participated in every round so far.
In the end it's the founder who chooses the lead investor.
If you look up Crunchbase where A16Z are the lead investor and organize the list by company name, you see that it's more likely they have lead at least 2 rounds: Charthop (seed, A, B), Compound (seed, A), Clubhouse (A,B,C), Databricks (A,D,E,F), Descript (seed, A), Fivetran (B,C,D)...
Founders can also prefer the previous investor because often you can get lower dilution, you already know the investors, no additional board seats and get the round done in one day vs multi week or month raise.
Founders sometimes can also prefer choosing a new lead investor but I wouldn't say it's typical at all that everyone wants a new investor.
Another multi-stage investors, Sequoia, WhatsApp raised all their rounds from Sequoia and no-one else. Sequoia also led Stripe's seed, Series A and have participated in every round so far.
In the end it's the founder who chooses the lead investor.
Likely a16z exercised their pro-rata as a16z is also listed in their Series B on Crunchbase along with the seed.
There are any number of reasons a lead investor in your seed doesn't lead your Series B, and there is no way to know a16z did not want to lead in the first place. A different fund may give a larger check/different terms/ a partner you want on board and you may accept that instead etc.
There are many companies with outsized valuations that do not justify the revenue or any other metric, it is neither new to this wave (or even the dotcom wave) nor is it all that uncommon. On the surface it doesn't look like there is anything out of ordinary Kagan has done yet.
It is high risk industry after all, if investors put strong filtering criteria then they risk loosing on deals which were actually legitimate or became legit with funding, it is risk VCs are quite aware of and willing to take.
A Buyer should be beware of what he is getting into, accreditation is a thin shield,With Increasing SPAC listings and inflated markets even public listing won't protect them from early stage startup shenanigans these days companies like Nikola (anyone can invest ) do exist.
There are any number of reasons a lead investor in your seed doesn't lead your Series B, and there is no way to know a16z did not want to lead in the first place. A different fund may give a larger check/different terms/ a partner you want on board and you may accept that instead etc.
There are many companies with outsized valuations that do not justify the revenue or any other metric, it is neither new to this wave (or even the dotcom wave) nor is it all that uncommon. On the surface it doesn't look like there is anything out of ordinary Kagan has done yet.
It is high risk industry after all, if investors put strong filtering criteria then they risk loosing on deals which were actually legitimate or became legit with funding, it is risk VCs are quite aware of and willing to take.
A Buyer should be beware of what he is getting into, accreditation is a thin shield,With Increasing SPAC listings and inflated markets even public listing won't protect them from early stage startup shenanigans these days companies like Nikola (anyone can invest ) do exist.
there is small proof of fraud though. I am now writing from memory but they claim they have many clients when their own search shows they have only few small clients.
[deleted]
What I don't get is how some people have found the capital fountain but others haven't, and it seems to have nothing to do with whether the businesses are actually working.
A friend of mine runs a fashion business that has worked with actual A-list celebrities, yet turns away orders because they lack the cash to make the stuff.
Others have had a hard time getting appointments with VCs to show their deck, and others have had a tough time getting those that are in touch to put any money in.
But in the news it's story upon story about firms getting piles of money thrown at them. What's more is several of the ones I know about have pretty much nothing for a business, and due diligence would reveal it.
A friend of mine runs a fashion business that has worked with actual A-list celebrities, yet turns away orders because they lack the cash to make the stuff.
Others have had a hard time getting appointments with VCs to show their deck, and others have had a tough time getting those that are in touch to put any money in.
But in the news it's story upon story about firms getting piles of money thrown at them. What's more is several of the ones I know about have pretty much nothing for a business, and due diligence would reveal it.
The VC model is all about making a lot of huge risky bets in the hopes that at least one of them will pay off. So you don't need an actual business that's making real money. That doesn't fit into the VC model. What you need is a story about how your business will be as big as Google or Facebook. That's what VCs are buying.
So if you come to them with a pitch for a business with solid fundamentals and a clear map to profit, they will not be interested. Why? Because even if you deliver 100% on your promise, it won't be enough for them to recoup the bets they made on a dozen other risky ventures. If you hit it out of the park, you better be on target to be a billion dollar unicorn. Otherwise, what's the point? They need to make up the millions upon millions of dollars they've been betting.
In that sense, it's much better to have a story about a juicer that will be sold to billions of people and replace the concept of juice as we know it. Or to have a story about how you will revolutionize the world of medical testing even though the technology is science fiction. VCs don't care, they just want a story. All this talk about due diligence is them trying to feel better about their bets. Really if your idea was sound it wouldn't be something VCs would find interesting in the first place (because then it would be obvious and therefore not valuable to the tune of billions).
So if you come to them with a pitch for a business with solid fundamentals and a clear map to profit, they will not be interested. Why? Because even if you deliver 100% on your promise, it won't be enough for them to recoup the bets they made on a dozen other risky ventures. If you hit it out of the park, you better be on target to be a billion dollar unicorn. Otherwise, what's the point? They need to make up the millions upon millions of dollars they've been betting.
In that sense, it's much better to have a story about a juicer that will be sold to billions of people and replace the concept of juice as we know it. Or to have a story about how you will revolutionize the world of medical testing even though the technology is science fiction. VCs don't care, they just want a story. All this talk about due diligence is them trying to feel better about their bets. Really if your idea was sound it wouldn't be something VCs would find interesting in the first place (because then it would be obvious and therefore not valuable to the tune of billions).
If you look at Theranos, the major funding sources were not traditional vcs.
Total investment: $724m, approx. Waltons: $150m, Rupert Murdoch: $121m, Cox family: $100m, DeVos family: $100m, Carlos Slim: $30m, etc. I count at least $559m from non-vc sources [1].
And then you have hedge funds like Partner Fund Management: $96m. Whether you consider them a traditional vc or not, per their lawsuit, Theranos faked blood test results. I guess you can blame them, but I'm not sure how much duedil is going to catch wholesale fraud.
MedVenture, a vc, did due diligence and didn't invest. GV turned them down.
VCs certainly didn't make Walgreens not do duedil before partnering with Theranos. etc.
I don't think Theranos is proof that vcs are, as a class, incompetent and just want a story.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-cost-business-and-gove...
Total investment: $724m, approx. Waltons: $150m, Rupert Murdoch: $121m, Cox family: $100m, DeVos family: $100m, Carlos Slim: $30m, etc. I count at least $559m from non-vc sources [1].
And then you have hedge funds like Partner Fund Management: $96m. Whether you consider them a traditional vc or not, per their lawsuit, Theranos faked blood test results. I guess you can blame them, but I'm not sure how much duedil is going to catch wholesale fraud.
MedVenture, a vc, did due diligence and didn't invest. GV turned them down.
VCs certainly didn't make Walgreens not do duedil before partnering with Theranos. etc.
I don't think Theranos is proof that vcs are, as a class, incompetent and just want a story.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-cost-business-and-gove...
Yup, exactly. I always bring up Theranos as a success case for Silicon Valley VCs. At the surface level it should have been a slam dunk investment from day 1 – charismatic female founder, industry connections, lofty ideas, market buzz, potential revolutionary tech. Yet every single VC firm we know of passed on them. And outside investors who tried to take the short-cut to the valley got burned.
Different things.
- Hard to scale a celebrity fashion business in practice and as a story. A family friend started a successful jewelry company popular w/ Hollywood types and it's growing great, just nothing like Splunk, Notion, SpaceX, etc. There are outliers here - why everyone loved D2C co's like Dollar Shave Club - but gotta fit that growth model.
- Much of VC is largely story driven and, at least in b2b, rides a delegated sales/marketing motion (vs product/tech ROI motion). Once the first big money is in (pure pitch), there's a funny treadmill. Each round gets spent on artificially pumping numbers (big marketing, big sales, ...) enough to hit the next round before the money runs out. As long the #'s match what looks good in a deck, the co is largely good. However, most investors don't actually do truly deep diligence to identify whether the core is hollow, just that if there's enough that in 18mo + 36mo there's a good enough story on getting a bigger investor in. That can easily be something like "ignoring company quality, is there any sort of market demand here?" Each startup has issues and VCs often have surprisingly little time (ex: read up on Tiger), and you only hear about the Yes's and not the Passes (startups just need 1-2 Yes's), so not surprising to see some dumb/ok-money float in. So 7 years and $100M+ of funding later, sales/marketing-driven customers probably start churning out and the leads are burned, and oops... but maybe it's ok and they've exited. Bringing back to the founders, it's not that they're building a great company, but that they can sell that story and delegate operations to the 'adults' (sales/marketing/engineering) who keep the façade alive through the hollow growth of an otherwise busted product. There's probably a similarly unsatisfying set of common stories for consumer co's ;-)
- Hard to scale a celebrity fashion business in practice and as a story. A family friend started a successful jewelry company popular w/ Hollywood types and it's growing great, just nothing like Splunk, Notion, SpaceX, etc. There are outliers here - why everyone loved D2C co's like Dollar Shave Club - but gotta fit that growth model.
- Much of VC is largely story driven and, at least in b2b, rides a delegated sales/marketing motion (vs product/tech ROI motion). Once the first big money is in (pure pitch), there's a funny treadmill. Each round gets spent on artificially pumping numbers (big marketing, big sales, ...) enough to hit the next round before the money runs out. As long the #'s match what looks good in a deck, the co is largely good. However, most investors don't actually do truly deep diligence to identify whether the core is hollow, just that if there's enough that in 18mo + 36mo there's a good enough story on getting a bigger investor in. That can easily be something like "ignoring company quality, is there any sort of market demand here?" Each startup has issues and VCs often have surprisingly little time (ex: read up on Tiger), and you only hear about the Yes's and not the Passes (startups just need 1-2 Yes's), so not surprising to see some dumb/ok-money float in. So 7 years and $100M+ of funding later, sales/marketing-driven customers probably start churning out and the leads are burned, and oops... but maybe it's ok and they've exited. Bringing back to the founders, it's not that they're building a great company, but that they can sell that story and delegate operations to the 'adults' (sales/marketing/engineering) who keep the façade alive through the hollow growth of an otherwise busted product. There's probably a similarly unsatisfying set of common stories for consumer co's ;-)
Lernout & Hauspie was a dotcom era fraud that attracted investments from several major players, including a $45 million investment from Microsoft and millions more from Intel and the Belgian government. At one point, it was valued at $10B.
They claimed to have solved real time speech recognition and translation, and claimed to have over $300M in annual revenues. None of that was true. Their speech recognition software did not work, and they had very little revenue. Their management went to prison and it was one of the biggest financial frauds in modern European history at the time.
They claimed to have solved real time speech recognition and translation, and claimed to have over $300M in annual revenues. None of that was true. Their speech recognition software did not work, and they had very little revenue. Their management went to prison and it was one of the biggest financial frauds in modern European history at the time.
My impression was that Lernout & Hauspie had had decent--for the time--technology: they bought Dragon (admittedly in a shady deal), PowerScribe, and a few other "real" companies. It was certainly rougher than people might have desired, but this is the first time I've heard they didn't have any actual products.
I thought its downfall was more related to straight-up accounting fraud, with fake sales, hidden loans, etc.
I thought its downfall was more related to straight-up accounting fraud, with fake sales, hidden loans, etc.
Like you mention, they acquired legitimate companies, but as far as I can gather, their own tech was fraudulent through and through. This is an account of someone who went on a roadshow with the Lernout & Hauspie sales team in the 1990s.
"They had this room with a whole wall of computers and you talked into a microphone and the computers would do the speech recognition. Then they put your sample through a translation program, and the program would convert it to another language. They were demonstrating the Holy Grail of speech recognition in 1999. It turned out all that was done by a man behind the curtain, literally the Wizard of Oz. The man behind the curtain just typed it in; everything else was an illusion."
From page 37 of this columbia.edu PDF.
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/valueinvesting/sites/valueinve...
"They had this room with a whole wall of computers and you talked into a microphone and the computers would do the speech recognition. Then they put your sample through a translation program, and the program would convert it to another language. They were demonstrating the Holy Grail of speech recognition in 1999. It turned out all that was done by a man behind the curtain, literally the Wizard of Oz. The man behind the curtain just typed it in; everything else was an illusion."
From page 37 of this columbia.edu PDF.
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/valueinvesting/sites/valueinve...
> When you’re the founder of a startup that takes in a $50M investment like this, you’re all set to live off the money however you want. You can pay yourself a “market salary” of $500,000/yr+
This is just not true, even for a venture backed company like this. The Board of Directors should be approving all executive comp; seems like a baseless claim to suggest there isn't some basic governance at play here
This is just not true, even for a venture backed company like this. The Board of Directors should be approving all executive comp; seems like a baseless claim to suggest there isn't some basic governance at play here
I don’t know what the situation is here but a startup can setup the board or governance in different ways. Founder could control everything directly or indirectly and the board might have one or no external directors.
And while technically you should inform the board of executive comp changes, it’s not like the investors generally care that much in the early stages or there is some box they have to officially check. You could just go to your payroll system and increase your comp. They don’t come to check your payroll or accounting unless they suspect something so it’s not that hard fly under the radar for some time.
And while technically you should inform the board of executive comp changes, it’s not like the investors generally care that much in the early stages or there is some box they have to officially check. You could just go to your payroll system and increase your comp. They don’t come to check your payroll or accounting unless they suspect something so it’s not that hard fly under the radar for some time.
Do you really think Greylock, A16Z or Azure Capital has no interest in BOD seats and no experience forming a Compensation Committee?
As CEO, the Board is your boss. If you instruct payroll to bump your salary up without proper approval you will probably be looking for another job.
These investors have a basic fiduciary duty to their LPs to make sure there is no blatant fraud, and you don't get to billions under management and not understanding this.
As CEO, the Board is your boss. If you instruct payroll to bump your salary up without proper approval you will probably be looking for another job.
These investors have a basic fiduciary duty to their LPs to make sure there is no blatant fraud, and you don't get to billions under management and not understanding this.
My understanding is that "hot" founders receive a tremendous amount of latitude from their BOD - so they wouldn't think twice about "generous" (by startup standards) executive comps.
There are hot rounds you have those names involved and they all don't get a board seat. Usually only the lead gets a board seat (not always) and growth investors (Tiger) also don't typically ask for board seats. Depends on the amount of leverage the founder has. If A16Z is wanting to win a deal and Tiger is offering more money and no board seat, and the founder wants that then A16Z either has to pass or offer the same.
You're overestimating the formalness of the early stage startup corporation practices or board (seed-series b) and the reporting requirements. Most of the time it's like any other meeting, you chat about what's going well, what's not and how to improve. It's not like public company board at all, there most definitely are no committees (maybe on paper). If you need approvals, like for employee option grants, you just send them an fyi and a docusign (this case the approval is also after the fact. You already gave someone an offer and the accepted it. It would be hard to go back to change it so approval is just a rubber stamp.)
It's up to you as board define what kind of board meetings you have and what's on the agenda. At the end of the year, most VCs ask you submit some basic financials, cap table etc but for example the CEO's salary is not one of those numbers. The BOD might be also completely fine with $500k/year salary.
As the startup grows and matures, the practices mature too but likely that won't happen before ~100 employees or after Series B.
I can assure you that as CEO, I could go to our payroll service increase my salary. We don't even have a payroll or HR department. No-one would really know until maybe next year when accounting gets done. Obviously, I wouldn't do that but if you don't care about your reputation and there to scam then it's very easy to do. If the investors find out, they might not be able to get rid of the CEO that easily, since like I said before, the founder(s) could control the board by votes or by seats. It's also unlikely these investors would cause any publicity around this because it's embarrassing to them and pushing a founder out could hurt their reputation (like when Benchmark kicked Travis out of Uber), they would just more likely walk away.
You're overestimating the formalness of the early stage startup corporation practices or board (seed-series b) and the reporting requirements. Most of the time it's like any other meeting, you chat about what's going well, what's not and how to improve. It's not like public company board at all, there most definitely are no committees (maybe on paper). If you need approvals, like for employee option grants, you just send them an fyi and a docusign (this case the approval is also after the fact. You already gave someone an offer and the accepted it. It would be hard to go back to change it so approval is just a rubber stamp.)
It's up to you as board define what kind of board meetings you have and what's on the agenda. At the end of the year, most VCs ask you submit some basic financials, cap table etc but for example the CEO's salary is not one of those numbers. The BOD might be also completely fine with $500k/year salary.
As the startup grows and matures, the practices mature too but likely that won't happen before ~100 employees or after Series B.
I can assure you that as CEO, I could go to our payroll service increase my salary. We don't even have a payroll or HR department. No-one would really know until maybe next year when accounting gets done. Obviously, I wouldn't do that but if you don't care about your reputation and there to scam then it's very easy to do. If the investors find out, they might not be able to get rid of the CEO that easily, since like I said before, the founder(s) could control the board by votes or by seats. It's also unlikely these investors would cause any publicity around this because it's embarrassing to them and pushing a founder out could hurt their reputation (like when Benchmark kicked Travis out of Uber), they would just more likely walk away.
> Founder could control everything directly or indirectly and the board might have one or no external directors.
Uhh, investors are definitely going to demand seats on the board after funding
Uhh, investors are definitely going to demand seats on the board after funding
Some do, some don't. Depends on the investor and the company.
I work for a startup that has raised a bit over $30M, with no board seats given up.
I work for a startup that has raised a bit over $30M, with no board seats given up.
Yeah, if you got “deep” connections, you definitely can avoid due diligence.
Where do you think all that printed money during pandemic actually went? Only a minuscule amount was given to plebs, rest goes to shady startups and gets diluted.
Such evaluations also make naive founders believe that they can get a similar amount. If you aren’t in the club, you won’t ever see a dime of this funny money.
Where do you think all that printed money during pandemic actually went? Only a minuscule amount was given to plebs, rest goes to shady startups and gets diluted.
Such evaluations also make naive founders believe that they can get a similar amount. If you aren’t in the club, you won’t ever see a dime of this funny money.
That doesn’t seem right. Projects now are significantly more developed than they used to be, although scams still abound. In the early days I bought something called Hobonickels and it went up 5,000%. It was literally a copy/paste with a changed name. Today the projects have roadmaps, teams, and products that release. They do more auditing, both security and financial. Because the market has demanded it, not some regulatory body.
Sagas like these succinctly demonstrate the moral hazard of cryptocurrencies and other forms of organized faithless financial activity: we're all idly speculating on the next fool's willingness to buy into the scheme. There is no incentive for honest action (or innovation, for that matter), and there cannot be until there is ample regulation.
I don't have overwhelming amounts of sympathy for the accredited investors who buy into these schemes at petty individual scales, but I do have sympathy for the honest employers and employees trying to survive in a faithless economy.
I don't have overwhelming amounts of sympathy for the accredited investors who buy into these schemes at petty individual scales, but I do have sympathy for the honest employers and employees trying to survive in a faithless economy.
In case anyone's wondering how Elizabeth Holmes (theranos) thought she could get away with that, or even thought it was a perfectly normal "entrepreneurial" approach... I feel like she wasn't wrong, what she did IS quite typical and everyone gets away with it, with regard to how she treated investors or her fake business (which is after all what she was convicted of -- defrauding investors and lenders!), she just made the mistake of doing it in the medical industry.
> Insiders familiar with Kagan tell SV Gossip that he’s preternaturally talented at pitching, blessed with a version of the famous Steve Jobs reality distortion field that lets him work investors into a frenzy while somehow not having checked off any of the milestones, metrics or other objective criteria they typically look for.
Holmes is probably right now wondering why she got prosecuted for doing the same thing that other people do and go on to raise even more money the next time around at the next company, and I get it.
> Insiders familiar with Kagan tell SV Gossip that he’s preternaturally talented at pitching, blessed with a version of the famous Steve Jobs reality distortion field that lets him work investors into a frenzy while somehow not having checked off any of the milestones, metrics or other objective criteria they typically look for.
Holmes is probably right now wondering why she got prosecuted for doing the same thing that other people do and go on to raise even more money the next time around at the next company, and I get it.
Yep, fake it til you make it. Look at how much money Amazon/Lyft/Instacart have lost, profitability is only X years away! (to be fair Amazon did make it)
> You can pay yourself a “market salary” of $500,000/yr+.
That is like L6 FAANG money. Even if you're just defrauding rich investors, you're still likely putting more than an L6 amount of work. I don't think these entrepreneurs are doing doing it for the money like the author is implying. I think they genuinely enjoy being an entrepreneur, sometimes to a delusional extent as with Elizabeth Holmes.
That is like L6 FAANG money. Even if you're just defrauding rich investors, you're still likely putting more than an L6 amount of work. I don't think these entrepreneurs are doing doing it for the money like the author is implying. I think they genuinely enjoy being an entrepreneur, sometimes to a delusional extent as with Elizabeth Holmes.
You could say the same for Pixis/Pyxis One/AbsentiaVR or whatever else they try to rebrand themselves as now.
An IT-outsourcing company focusing on new tech just gets passed around as some AI SaaS tool, without having any public docs or advocacy. The shadiest part is how they've raised $124mn from Softbank, General Atlantic et al & yet nobody knows any financials.
For a Bangalore based company they sure did spin up new origin stories like California based etc at every round, hype like 200 "self evolving networks" etc. Half of their marketing copies mention existing tools & the other half says they are yet to build said tools.
An IT-outsourcing company focusing on new tech just gets passed around as some AI SaaS tool, without having any public docs or advocacy. The shadiest part is how they've raised $124mn from Softbank, General Atlantic et al & yet nobody knows any financials.
For a Bangalore based company they sure did spin up new origin stories like California based etc at every round, hype like 200 "self evolving networks" etc. Half of their marketing copies mention existing tools & the other half says they are yet to build said tools.
TIL my daughter is Barbicide Certified! Who knew. I'm not kidding. I put my last name in lookup.merits.com and her record came up. I think it's actually correct as she did take some courses on cosmetology in high school.
Despite the weird name, the company is somewhat well known amongst hairdressers/beauticians - my wife's a hairdresser and I'd heard of them. They were one of a few companies doing online courses in hygiene, PPE, covid safety, etc. who came along at exactly the right time for the pandemic.
Having an early stage investment from a prominent SV venture firm is essentially a blank check to lure in suckers for the next half dozen rounds. It doesn't matter what your company does or what results it has. In today's environment you can just go "a16z is invested in us, you wouldn't want to miss out right?"
"When you’re the founder of a startup that takes in a $50M investment like this, you’re all set to live off the money however you want."
I think if you're going to suggest this about a particular startup, you probably should have some documentation this is actually happening.
I think if you're going to suggest this about a particular startup, you probably should have some documentation this is actually happening.
I'm kind of more interested in "SV Gossip".
"Launched 2 hours ago". Can't look at other articles without subscribing.
"Launched 2 hours ago". Can't look at other articles without subscribing.
Probably an investor, who decided to do their DD after the company failed instead of before investing.
I'm not sure if they have other articles. When I look at their Archive I just see this one.
Maybe this is their MVP?
Maybe this is their MVP?
It does seem like an article written by a person with a personal agenda against that particular startup's founder. Maybe a disgruntled employee of that other failed startup that is mentioned in the article ?
I believe it's Graham Gintz. I don't know that there's a relationship to either company, but that would be hard to uncover with the limited time I'm willing to put into it.
Reminds me of the famous Wolf of Wall Street scene with M. McConaughey:
"Keep the client on the Ferris wheel, and it goes, the park is open 24/7, 365, every decade, every goddamn century. That’s it. Name of the game."
"Keep the client on the Ferris wheel, and it goes, the park is open 24/7, 365, every decade, every goddamn century. That’s it. Name of the game."
I'm also interested in the Quixey story -- how can a company raise >$100mm without ever releasing a product? What happened there?
You gotta remember, this was over 10 years ago. The VC/tech game was a lot different back then. The "search engine for apps" pitch kinda made sense back in those days.
A "search engine for apps" sounds stupid nowadays because it's impossible on iOS. But back then, jailbreaking was quite popular. Many Quixey employees (and many people in silicon valley) had jailbroken iPhones. iOS 3 was pretty limited and limera1n worked on every iPhone. Piracy was still mainstream. Spotify sounded stupid back then because Grooveshark was so much better. It was inevitable that Apple would cave in and open up its platform any day. And if Apple didn't do that, Android would eat their lunch.
Then Steve Jobs died, and Tim Cook released the iPhone 4S, the first iPhone you couldn't jailbreak easily. The rest is history.
Mobile was a new landscape, and it was a tough problem to solve. Plus they were going up against Google so there was a sense of FOMO if you weren't in on it. The thinking was, maybe there's a 1% chance it pays off and Quixey beats Google.
A "search engine for apps" sounds stupid nowadays because it's impossible on iOS. But back then, jailbreaking was quite popular. Many Quixey employees (and many people in silicon valley) had jailbroken iPhones. iOS 3 was pretty limited and limera1n worked on every iPhone. Piracy was still mainstream. Spotify sounded stupid back then because Grooveshark was so much better. It was inevitable that Apple would cave in and open up its platform any day. And if Apple didn't do that, Android would eat their lunch.
Then Steve Jobs died, and Tim Cook released the iPhone 4S, the first iPhone you couldn't jailbreak easily. The rest is history.
Mobile was a new landscape, and it was a tough problem to solve. Plus they were going up against Google so there was a sense of FOMO if you weren't in on it. The thinking was, maybe there's a 1% chance it pays off and Quixey beats Google.
Another former employee. I'll add that once search engine for apps clearly wouldn't work there was an attempt to pivot to something like Google cards but directly linked to the app (so yelp reviews for restaurants instead of Google reviews). This wasn't a bad idea but they raised the money for a large scale product (1000s of apps) and so invested in scale before proving the market fit. Combine that with Alibaba money splitting focus again and there never was a useful product launched.
(Google employee now: views are my own)
(Google employee now: views are my own)
I'm curious too, as there were some early LessWrong folks working there, IIRC. I used to walk by their office in Mountain View.
This article discusses what went wrong with their finances, but doesn't discuss what happened with the product (app search, app deep-linking): https://www.axios.com/behind-the-fall-of-quixey-1513301224-0...
This article discusses what went wrong with their finances, but doesn't discuss what happened with the product (app search, app deep-linking): https://www.axios.com/behind-the-fall-of-quixey-1513301224-0...
Ask Magic Leap.
Hey, at least the founder is fluent in "Hebew".
Can you clarify what you mean here?
His LinkedIn page has "Hebew" as a language he's fluent in. Given his background/interests, he obviously means Hebrew, but this lack of attention to detail is at least a yellow flag for me. I also am surprised that LinkedIn allows free text with no corrections in that field! :)
Thanks for clarifying! This wasn't obvious, but it's clear now.
Someone downvoted my comment. Stay classy, HN.
Someone downvoted my comment. Stay classy, HN.
Sure, why not? Who cares about due diligence? We're deep into the silly-season of the market.
Supposedly Tether has been given $75 billion and nobody's asking any tough questions, so what's a few hundred million between friends?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-07/crypto-my...
Supposedly Tether has been given $75 billion and nobody's asking any tough questions, so what's a few hundred million between friends?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-07/crypto-my...
Can someone tell me more about Rose Parks Advisors and the predilections of Matthew Christensen?
I have a view into family offices and there is a lot they can do, I am just wondering more about if there is a relationship between this startup and that family office to make this worth that family offices' time, or if that family office really just has that much cash to place. Many times family offices can have a large limited partner of the family that is their non-profit foundations, which is basically dead capital that can be used to spruce up any investment, and so that is what it is used for. Many quick raises are done by institutional investors that are just endowments.
I have a view into family offices and there is a lot they can do, I am just wondering more about if there is a relationship between this startup and that family office to make this worth that family offices' time, or if that family office really just has that much cash to place. Many times family offices can have a large limited partner of the family that is their non-profit foundations, which is basically dead capital that can be used to spruce up any investment, and so that is what it is used for. Many quick raises are done by institutional investors that are just endowments.
TL;DR
The founder of Coupang was one of Christensen's students; the check he put in turned out to be one of the all-time great investments.
Rose Park is flooded with cash and credibility (but under-indexes on access vs. traditional VCs), so they're working hard to get into a lot of deals.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2021/03/15/rose-park...
The founder of Coupang was one of Christensen's students; the check he put in turned out to be one of the all-time great investments.
Rose Park is flooded with cash and credibility (but under-indexes on access vs. traditional VCs), so they're working hard to get into a lot of deals.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2021/03/15/rose-park...
> By structuring Rose Park as one evergreen fund instead of a typical venture fund, the Christensens were able to invest in a mix of public and private companies .... "“We’re allowed to invest in any type of security in any geography, any industry, any stage, but only when the investment thesis derives from my dad’s research"
Interesting. I would like to see more of that. I am also curious about the evergreen fund structure. I helped form a hedge fund with an aggressive sidepocket , where sidepockets act like a VC fund but without burdening the limited partners with capital calls. But being even more flexible really makes the subscription documents and prospectus complicated, and making additional funds are expensive and time consuming, even as just a family office without outside investors, the separate limited partners are just entities that the family has formed before. Pooling assets from trusts, retirement plans, individual family members, and non-profits like foundations.
I'm mostly confused/inspired by which offshore feeders are being used.
Interesting. I would like to see more of that. I am also curious about the evergreen fund structure. I helped form a hedge fund with an aggressive sidepocket , where sidepockets act like a VC fund but without burdening the limited partners with capital calls. But being even more flexible really makes the subscription documents and prospectus complicated, and making additional funds are expensive and time consuming, even as just a family office without outside investors, the separate limited partners are just entities that the family has formed before. Pooling assets from trusts, retirement plans, individual family members, and non-profits like foundations.
I'm mostly confused/inspired by which offshore feeders are being used.
> You can pay yourself a “market salary” of $500,000/yr+. You can use the money as a piggy bank for flights, hotels, Uber Black, and other travel expenses.
This is just downright false. The founders alone do not decide C-suite compensation - that's reserved for the board of directors (which should be a combination of one or more founders plus other individuals selected by the investors). Travel expenses and other "piggy bank spending" would also have to be reported in quarterly or yearly financial reports to the shareholders.
If what this article says is true, the investors deserve just as much blame as the founder.
This is just downright false. The founders alone do not decide C-suite compensation - that's reserved for the board of directors (which should be a combination of one or more founders plus other individuals selected by the investors). Travel expenses and other "piggy bank spending" would also have to be reported in quarterly or yearly financial reports to the shareholders.
If what this article says is true, the investors deserve just as much blame as the founder.
Of course they can. It happens all the time, FOMO is a powerful drug.
I always wondered if this happened alot. Compare how 'tight' shows like Dragons Den (UK) are who really grill the contestants ... and THEN do further due diligence. They ask for profitable track records (or some kind of proof that sales will come) and demand high percentages.
By contract silicon valley seems to throw money at people. Much more money, for much lower percentages. If someone can talk the talk and make the right noises they can game this system. Failed 4 times? Well that's great! They are experienced. They know the problems and will succeed this time.
Maybe rich people forget, but if you give the average person a million dollars ... that's a lot of money! Crime shows I watch a typical amount someone will literally kill for is $50,000.
By contract silicon valley seems to throw money at people. Much more money, for much lower percentages. If someone can talk the talk and make the right noises they can game this system. Failed 4 times? Well that's great! They are experienced. They know the problems and will succeed this time.
Maybe rich people forget, but if you give the average person a million dollars ... that's a lot of money! Crime shows I watch a typical amount someone will literally kill for is $50,000.
Another startup in this category is
https://medium.com/@phillish/my-worst-mistake-as-a-homeowner...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Made-Renovation-Reviews-E4...
https://medium.com/@phillish/my-worst-mistake-as-a-homeowner...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Made-Renovation-Reviews-E4...
Another startup in this category is
https://medium.com/@phillish/my-worst-mistake-as-a-homeowner...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Made-Renovation-Reviews-E4...
https://medium.com/@phillish/my-worst-mistake-as-a-homeowner...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Made-Renovation-Reviews-E4...
> But a16z is typically known for breaking out the checkbook for follow-on funding the instant their investments are showing signs of success. What happened here?
I think the problem becomes that because VC is such an insular environment, no VC firm wants to be caught talking about how portfolio company isn't successful. As a result, they'll politely decline to lead follow-on rounds, but still allowing the startup to tout the investment from top tier VC firm as social proof for the next round.
I think the problem becomes that because VC is such an insular environment, no VC firm wants to be caught talking about how portfolio company isn't successful. As a result, they'll politely decline to lead follow-on rounds, but still allowing the startup to tout the investment from top tier VC firm as social proof for the next round.
"Solving Human Coordination"
50M must buy a lot of Kool-Aid
50M must buy a lot of Kool-Aid
it's more likely to avoid due diligence because by the time it reaches that scale enough people have underwritten it through rounds and other methods of approval that it's likely to continue to be green checked without due diligence. Even more likely then a barebones startup as it has rapport.
Is this the new valleywag? Someone needs to be the new whistleblower with a hint of sarcasm. Hope this is it!
This is what SV investors want! OTOH most other investors are misers who only bet on sure things.
I have to admit, for a long time I thought that Barbicide is what you call it when a barber is murdered.
Close. It's what barbers use to kill germs on their equipment.
I mean, as long as you go to work on time, and don't slack off, you've been duly diligent.
in b4 libel lawsuit
There are no other articles by SV Gossip but this. While I don't dispute the content, it does feel like a very targeted hit.
What statement or two in this writeup could be proven false in a libel suit?
They've just raised a $50 MM warchest. Having things like this out there will hurt their ability to raise more, so they're willing to pay to make it go away. There are enough statements are there that I wouldn't want to deal with the SLAPP suit. Bloomberg, on the other hand, can afford to defend the reporters.
Still, without any specific alleged falsehood, a libel defense need not be very expensive.
And lawsuits bring more attention to the allegations.
If you were preparing a suit for pure harassment/SLAPP purposes, what sections of this reporting would you highlight in your filing? Keep in mind, the court document will be pored over & commented-on by libel experts, & turn up in future searches about the company and its principals.
And lawsuits bring more attention to the allegations.
If you were preparing a suit for pure harassment/SLAPP purposes, what sections of this reporting would you highlight in your filing? Keep in mind, the court document will be pored over & commented-on by libel experts, & turn up in future searches about the company and its principals.
A libel defense to a SLAPP suit would be annoying to me personally. It would probably be filed across the country in some random rural court. Regardless of the merits, it require me to go in person to West Virginia or pay a lawyer to do so for me.
As for what to take objection with, I'm not sure. Probably something spinable like being compared to Steve Jobs (positive) and ending with "somehow not having checked off any of the milestones, metrics or other objective criteria they typically look for." But I don't think it's really going to turn up in any news stories anyway.
As for "poured over by libel experts". I have not idea who would do that or why.
As for what to take objection with, I'm not sure. Probably something spinable like being compared to Steve Jobs (positive) and ending with "somehow not having checked off any of the milestones, metrics or other objective criteria they typically look for." But I don't think it's really going to turn up in any news stories anyway.
As for "poured over by libel experts". I have not idea who would do that or why.
It's worth noting that any US person investing this way is required to be an accredited investor, which is another way of saying they've proven they can afford to lose that $20k (or whatever they're putting in).
The accredited investor rules in USA seem draconian, but if it weren't for them, we'd be absolutely drowning in fake tech companies taking money from retail investors. (Today those fakes are in crypto, where you can pretend your investment offering is a utility token or maybe a donation to a revolutionary DAO that just happens to issue tradeable crypto-tokens in return, and hide behind pseudonyms to make it harder for SEC to find you eventually.)