Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 99% (of startups)

justinkan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#91

Post by [deleted] »

coryl wrote: post #88
Androider wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take 1000 people, have each predict a coin flip 10 times. The top 10 players will have predicted way better than random chance would have you believe. Why several of them are even 10 for 10, they must have special prediction powers! ;) Grow the player base, increase the number of predictions, you'll end up with some real super-stars who just go on winning. They'll probably write books and lecture about their techniqu…

Enough time and volume should eventually show whose truly good (statistically).

[deleted]

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#92

Post by sinatra »

coffeemug wrote: post #68
downandout wrote: post #64

This gives an interesting glimpse into the prognostication abilities of supposedly brilliant VC's. It also shows the the near-impossibility of cashing in private company shares, at least through VC's. In addition to this story, the Sony hack revealed that Evan Spiegel of Snapchat wanted to cash in about $40 million worth of shares just after he spurned Facebook's $3 billion offer. He was also roundly rejected. Had so…

> This gives an interesting glimpse into the prognostication abilities of supposedly brilliant VC's. The question isn't whether VCs are brilliant according to some absolute metric. The question is whether they deploy capital better than random chance. The numbers show that top ten VCs consistently do.

Well, there's also a self-fulfilling aspect when it comes to top ten VCs doing consistently well. Entrepreneurs and startups that are somewhat successful / proven can pick any VCs they want. And they pick the well respected (ie, historically successful) VCs.

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#93

Post by zaidf »

downandout wrote: post #64

This gives an interesting glimpse into the prognostication abilities of supposedly brilliant VC's. It also shows the the near-impossibility of cashing in private company shares, at least through VC's. In addition to this story, the Sony hack revealed that Evan Spiegel of Snapchat wanted to cash in about $40 million worth of shares just after he spurned Facebook's $3 billion offer. He was also roundly rejected. Had so…

I wonder why Zuckerberg didn't buy the $40M stake personally. I'm guessing he was turned down.

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#94

Post by gyardley »

downandout wrote: post #64

This gives an interesting glimpse into the prognostication abilities of supposedly brilliant VC's. It also shows the the near-impossibility of cashing in private company shares, at least through VC's. In addition to this story, the Sony hack revealed that Evan Spiegel of Snapchat wanted to cash in about $40 million worth of shares just after he spurned Facebook's $3 billion offer. He was also roundly rejected. Had so…

It's not that hard to get some liquidity on the private market, as long as you're not selling quantities so large they can only be bought by a fund. Just work with a specialized broker who does this for a living, and they'll find the buyer for you. If your company's doing well enough, these brokers will even come looking for you.

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#95

Post by goldenkey »

coldtea wrote: post #87
goldenkey wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you see inefficiency in the awareness of citizens. Do something about it. Disrupt. Clearly the Washington Post is not catching enough consumers.

I don't hold the idea that it's the news sources fault. Even with all the crap on mainstream media, there are more than enough excellent sources (including free) and a lower than ever barrier to access them. So, I consider it like I would consider a lack of caring of the environment, or for helping people in the streets, or inversely, an increase in racism etc: as the fault of the people not caring -- not of others t…

It's better to have ways that work with human dopaminergic feedback system instead of hoping for good-will and perseverence of the few gems of society. We are flawed as biological creatures. Our motivations are few and far. Good tech should warrant use onto itself. Good governmental systems should warrant good use onto its citizens. And good news/media/information systems should warrant good knowledge and information and affinity for that - upon its users.

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#96

Post by sl8r »

coffeemug wrote: post #68
downandout wrote: post #64

This gives an interesting glimpse into the prognostication abilities of supposedly brilliant VC's. It also shows the the near-impossibility of cashing in private company shares, at least through VC's. In addition to this story, the Sony hack revealed that Evan Spiegel of Snapchat wanted to cash in about $40 million worth of shares just after he spurned Facebook's $3 billion offer. He was also roundly rejected. Had so…

> This gives an interesting glimpse into the prognostication abilities of supposedly brilliant VC's. The question isn't whether VCs are brilliant according to some absolute metric. The question is whether they deploy capital better than random chance. The numbers show that top ten VCs consistently do.

Something I've often wondered about his how much of the top 10 VC performance advantage is due to deal availability. Top firms are offered the best deals (every startup wants to be funded by them), which means that they might be able to achieve better returns without being "better" than other VC firms in terms of, say, investing acumen or operational advice.

It could be that 0% of top VC returns are explained by this; I'm curious, though.

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#97

Post by rajacombinator »

Nice. Sadly it's super rare to see anyone who's made it deviate from the script and share authentically like this.

I suspect this is more a case of "VCs colluding against founders" than "VCs being too dumb." When you have a legit $100 mil valuation, SOMEONE will buy those shares, unless you're blocked from selling.

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#98

Post by coffeemug »

sl8r wrote: post #96
coffeemug wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This gives an interesting glimpse into the prognostication abilities of supposedly brilliant VC's. The question isn't whether VCs are brilliant according to some absolute metric. The question is whether they deploy capital better than random chance. The numbers show that top ten VCs consistently do.

Something I've often wondered about his how much of the top 10 VC performance advantage is due to deal availability. Top firms are offered the best deals (every startup wants to be funded by them), which means that they might be able to achieve better returns without being "better" than other VC firms in terms of, say, investing acumen or operational advice. It could be that 0% of top VC returns are explained by this…

> Something I've often wondered about his how much of the top 10 VC performance advantage is due to deal availability.

My guess is, most of it.

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#99

Post by refurb »

maaku wrote: post #90
Androider wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take 1000 people, have each predict a coin flip 10 times. The top 10 players will have predicted way better than random chance would have you believe. Why several of them are even 10 for 10, they must have special prediction powers! ;) Grow the player base, increase the number of predictions, you'll end up with some real super-stars who just go on winning. They'll probably write books and lecture about their techniqu…

Explain Berkshire Hathaway for me then, please.

Berkshire doesn't just buy stock. It buys a controlling interest and influences the way the company is run.

Re: The 99% (of startups)

#100

Post by [deleted] »

maaku wrote: post #90
Androider wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take 1000 people, have each predict a coin flip 10 times. The top 10 players will have predicted way better than random chance would have you believe. Why several of them are even 10 for 10, they must have special prediction powers! ;) Grow the player base, increase the number of predictions, you'll end up with some real super-stars who just go on winning. They'll probably write books and lecture about their techniqu…

Explain Berkshire Hathaway for me then, please.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN