Live data from Hacker News

So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

techcrunch.com

21–30 of 258 posts

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#21
post #13

In what sense do antitrust laws apply to investors? Why is it unlawful for investors to band together to get better terms for themselves? Wouldn't it be perfectly legal for these people to sit around a table an agree to merge and start a fund? If that's the case, how could it be unlawful for them to work on a joint venture? Just because I don't like the JV doesn't make it unlawful!

I'd like to know the laws too, this could be construed as collusion, conspiracy and probably a few other things.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#22

Props to Arrington for the post. He definitely has integrity, and knows how to write an interesting post.

he also leaves just enough to the imagination. sure, everyone is assuming the top 3-4 usual suspects, but it was a room full of people -- wondering who were 8,9,10

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#23
I bet it's people leaking fake conspiratorial meetings just to screw with Arrington.

We need more information though. Were there any, ahem, cons there? How about any balding acebookfay employees? Were there fewer, greater than, or exactly 500 hats in attendance? Was there anybody there using saccharin? Did your spy camera catch theone?

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#24
post #21
post #13

In what sense do antitrust laws apply to investors? Why is it unlawful for investors to band together to get better terms for themselves? Wouldn't it be perfectly legal for these people to sit around a table an agree to merge and start a fund? If that's the case, how could it be unlawful for them to work on a joint venture? Just because I don't like the JV doesn't make it unlawful!

I'd like to know the laws too, this could be construed as collusion, conspiracy and probably a few other things.

How? What market power are they exploiting? There's no conceivable monopsony for "shares of all startups".

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#25

@icey: can u change the title to something that explains the nature of the post? Something like "Super-Angels Colluding to Keep Valuations Down." I know u just kept the original headline, but it's confusing for people who haven't read the post. Just a request. 'Tis a VERY important thing for all to read in the community.

I changed it to add "[Allegations of investor collusion]", but then I changed it back because it looked weird. PG or one of the mods can modify the headline if it needs clarity; I generally prefer to use whatever the post title is.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#26

On the flip side, are valuations becoming over-inflated? I also think it's entirely appropriate for this group to be discussing strategies to increase their competitiveness versus YC, newcomers, and VCs. The real sinister claim is that they were talking about "more mundane things, like agreeing as a group not to accept convertible notes in deals." I wonder how that will pan out now.

The way to combat over-inflation is to simply not buy. You don't need a secret meeting for that. When investors aren't buying, that's a collective signal to founders selling that their valuations are too high.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#29
post #13

In what sense do antitrust laws apply to investors? Why is it unlawful for investors to band together to get better terms for themselves? Wouldn't it be perfectly legal for these people to sit around a table an agree to merge and start a fund? If that's the case, how could it be unlawful for them to work on a joint venture? Just because I don't like the JV doesn't make it unlawful!

I cannot speak to the letter of the law, but I'd venture to say the alleged misbehavior violates at least the _spirit_ of the law, since these angels would be considered competitors outside of that room.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#30
post #9

I do hope he's wrong, or that this a mistake of some sort. The rise of Angel investors has seen a lot of ideas and entrepreneurs get needed money when they might not have under the traditional VC model. Something like this, if true, will cause the government to step in, and probably regulate and change things for the worse for a great many people. It won't just hurt these few super angels. It will take everyone with…

I wouldn't take anything he says seriously. [Edit: If it wasn't clear, I meant Arrington, not Jesse]
Post reply on HN