My daily readings 09/25/2011

  • tags: idea startup

    • So I asked four of the top investors in technology what they thought about this: Fred Wilson from Union Square Ventures, Chris Dixon from Founder Collective, Paul Graham from Y Combinator, and Ben Horowitz from Andreessen Horowitz. I figured that if something new was working, these four — a mix of East and West Coast, early and later stage investors — might have heard about it.

       

      Fred Wilson said:

       

      “We have not been able to quantify it. We haven’t even tried. Although I am sure someone could do it and they might be very successful with it.

       

      To us, the ideal founding team is one supremely talented product oriented founder and one, two, or three strong developers, and nothing else. The supremely talented product oriented founder should have been obsessed about a product area/idea for a long period of time and just has to build something to satisfy their passion/curiosity. That’s about it. Joshua Schachter/Delicious, Jack Dorsey/Twitter, Dennis Crowley/Foursquare are the iconic examples of this kind of person in our portfolio.”

    • Chris Dixon said:

       

      “One of the main activities of good investors is trying to find ‘accurate contrarian theses’ about what make good startups, markets, founders etc. So there is a lot of Moneyball-esque activity. I’ve seen a few attempts to do it quantitatively (I recall an academic paper on it and also some studies done internally at VCs) but I think those are often flawed because the quantitatively measurable things are either obvious (e.g. founders who sold their last company for a boatload of money are more likely to be successful than founders who failed), irrelevant, or suffer from ‘overfitting’ (finding patterns in the past that don’t carry forward in the future).

       

      Personally, I think the biggest ‘Moneyball’ opportunities in seed investing are around the processes used. For example, I think the format of spending a few hours getting ‘pitched’ is a deeply flawed process for getting to know whether a first time founder will be successful. You can think of [Y Combinator] as an example of trying a new process. I’m personally constantly experimenting with different ‘getting to know founders’ processes.”

    • “I know of no reputable investor who invests based on data. I once heard of someone who planned to, but I forget who it was; probably nothing came of it. […]

       

      We are the far opposite end of the spectrum from an analytical approach. We decide based on gut feel after a 10 minute convo. It may seem ironic that we who have the most data make the least use of data. But perhaps not: perhaps it’s because we have so much data that we know it all comes down to the personalities of the founders. Or maybe we’re just lazy.”

      • The major challenges seem to include:

         

        • A lack of good data (unlike baseball, where stats for some players go back to Little League)
        • A more complex and different “game” than baseball, which is played for 162 games per year and has clear, objective winners and losers, unlike tech startups which can build for years before they win or lose
        • A “draft” in baseball that doesn’t exist in tech, unless programs like Y Combinator and TechStars effectively turn into that sort of thing
        • Different incentives to work together than in baseball
      • A pattern in one field doesn’t necessary apply to another field. Another example is the ziye114 VS Ctrip pattern.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: