Live data from Hacker News

Black Swan Farming

paulgraham.com

161–170 of 321 posts

Re: Black Swan Farming

#161
post #150
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how has that worked out for you? Have you ever experimented with an opposing strategy? (Funding "non-technical" founders with "weak" personalities.) Probably not, lest you would risk your reputation. Hence, you might not have evidence to show that this approach would not yield suffcient numbers of "big winners" to justify the investments. For example, if someone sugested the hypothesis that from a set of a given…

I don't recall arguing that our criteria are the only criteria one could use. I would love for someone to start the venture firm that focuses on non-technical founders with weak personalities! It would either be highly profitable or highly entertaining to watch...

Some internet VC, I can't remember who, was answering some interview questions from a journalist recently and made a comment to the effect that, with respect to financing startups, capital is too concentrated. (Sort of like the returns from startups are so concentrated in only a few.) 100 million in one project instead of 10 million in 10 projects, something like that. If it were somehow possible to achieve, maybe the process of spreading out venture capital that he alluded to would involve some of it going to "unlikely recipients". Black swans. Non-technical founders with weak personalities. Or something even more unusual.

It might not yield any "big winners" (then again it might) but it would in either case produce evidence that we could use to try to disprove certain theories.

"highly profitable or highly entertaning to watch..."

or highly informative

Re: Black Swan Farming

#162
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it. Have you met either of them? They both seem unstoppable.

It strikes me as smacking of old-school fatalistic "some are born winners" type thinking which is fundamentally contrary to everything we are led to believe about startups (namely; success is a function of smarts, hustle and luck). I have not met either of them. And while I have met a few individuals who have achieved success I can honestly say I have never met anyone who I thought radiated success or was otherwise p…

What do you think he actually means by 'radiate "winner"'? What if he'd said they radiate 'smarts and hustle'? That's two out the three qualities you name. (If he said they radiate luck, I would understand being put off).

"I have not met either of them. And while I have met a few individuals who have achieved success I can honestly say I have never met anyone who I thought radiated success or was otherwise predisposed to success."

Where in the above two statements do you contradict the idea that Benioff and Zuckerberg do give this impression in person? Notice that pg doesn't say that about everyone who is successful.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#164

History tends to get rewritten by big successes, so that in retrospect it seems obvious they were going to make it big. For that reason one of my most valuable memories is how lame Facebook sounded to me when I first heard about it. As a thought experiment, I would love to hear what pg and team would have thought about the following companies, had they applied to YC before they grew in popularity (assuming YC existed…

Here is what Bessemer said about PayPal when they passed: "Rookie team, regulatory nightmare" http://www.bvp.com/portfolio/antiportfolio

Great link.

"Cowan’s college friend rented her garage to Sergey and Larry for their first year. In 1999 and 2000 she tried to introduce Cowan to “these two really smart Stanford students writing a search engine”. Students? A new search engine? In the most important moment ever for Bessemer’s anti-portfolio, Cowan asked her, “How can I get out of this house without going anywhere near your garage?”"

Re: Black Swan Farming

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on bird brains, cough up what passes for thinking in your flock of losers. "Losers"? Sure: As the limited partners know all too well, the returns over the past 10 years from the 'information technology' venture capital 'asset class', in highly technical terminology, just SUCK. And PG's essay provides more evidence of the struggles to make money. Bluntly, on average, even including the big winners, the HN flock i…

Ad-hominems will get you nowhere. Also you appear not to have any idea how much waste exists in Pentagon contracting. Look up the writings of Robert Higgs, Winslow Wheeler, Dina Rasor etc etc etc When DoD is throwing billions of dollars around with merry abandon of course some of it ends up used for useful projects. They use up all their money and then get their budgets bumped up automatically by the politicians. And…

You talked yourself into nonsense.

On waste in DoD, sure, but not the parts I was talking about. Some of the big waste was, say, getting AC working in Iraq and now getting Diesel fuel and jet fuel to Akrapistan. And the cost of the black oil to send a destroyer across the Pacific would really set one back.

> Also you appear not to have any idea how much waste exists in Pentagon contracting.

Nonsense. All my early career was in DoD work, mostly in research, especially in applied math. E.g., I saved a project to improve the system that keeps an SSBN at the right depth in rough seas (and, thus, got my company a nice development contract). I found a solution to a problem of global nuclear war limited to sea, apparently later sold to a place near Langley, VA. I reduced to simple Lagrangian relaxation and the Kuhn-Tucker conditions a problem in non-linear, integer, max-min for evaluating the SSBN fleet. I know my way around the DC beltway, out to Vienna, VA, down Shirley Highway, up to Howard County, etc. very well, thank you.

What I saw in DoD spending was quite efficient, amazingly so.

For academic research, it takes some effort to understand it and how it can connect with entrepreneurship. Much of academic research is too far from real products for my tastes, and I complained about that when I was a grad student and, by accident for a while, a prof.

Still, the best of academic research is by far the best stuff, including for entrepreneurship. But it is crucial to pick and choose. And how to connect from academics to entrepreneurship is not so easy to see at first glance, varies across subjects, easy in some fields of engineering, super tough in some other fields, has varied across time, especially in recent years, but, net, in many cases can be quite easy, efficient, and effective.

The idea that the academic research is just generalized abstract nonsense and Greek chicken tracks is dangerously misinformed: In simple, blunt terms, for the technical areas of research, it is funded for essentially one purpose from essentially one source. The source is Congress, and the purpose is US national security. E.g., that's where Silicon Valley came from. Along with microelectronics. And the Internet. And the last I heard, the Department of Energy funded the BSD effort at Berkeley, and Congress funds that department also mostly just for national security.

In funding this research, Congress is quite correct, amazingly so. The beginning of the movie on Nash was correct: Essentially math research won WWII. No joke.

You are correct that SV would not be able to deploy the results of the research the way the DoD often does, but you are wrong to assume that there is nothing that SV could do. First, notice that much of the best research, especially for 'information technology', is done dirt cheap, typically by one person with paper and pencil. Second, notice that now with current computing, in a major fraction of cases, such research can be deployed at shockingly low cost. Not all research has to be as expensive to deploy as the B-2 bomber or GPS satellites.

There are many ways to waste money, and for SV to waste money. And PG's essay indicated some serious struggles in project evaluation. And there are plenty of posts, e.g., by Mark Suster, that on average VC ROI over the past 10 years sucks. So, SV is wasting money now.

But there are also some ways to make money, and I gave some rock solid ideas for how, based on research.

Long ago I guessed that no one would believe me short of my having a 300 foot yacht in Long Island Sound. By then I'm not sure I'll still give a sh!t about telling people things they so much don't want to hear.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That quote was the sketchiest part of the article for me, because the same math was used to justify the subprime mortgage bubble. The implicit assumption is that the population of startups is uniform across both the set that YC funds and the set that YC does not fund, such that startups in the latter group have the same chance of being a big hit (modulo YC's mentoring, which is accounted for with the "triple a startu…

"That quote was the sketchiest part of the article for me, because the same math was used to justify the subprime mortgage bubble." Except that YC doesn't do this. They aren't funding 10x more startups and pg says he avoids finding out how many get funded afterwards because it's the wrong thing to optimize for. To put it another way, there are a lot of ways to bring down post-Demoday funding to 30% and most of them a…

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but:

"We'd have to be willing to fund 10x more startups than they would."

I guess that if currently nearly all of your startups are getting VC funding, there are two ways to end up funding 10x more startups than VCs: 1.) Make the VCs fund 10x fewer startups or 2.) Fund 10x more startups yourself. (Or various combinations, of course.) #1 seemed absurd to me, so I read the thought experiment as suggesting #2.

Edit: Hmm, I guess another alternative is to fund startups that "look worse" to VCs, which is basically #1 but doesn't seem so absurd. So perhaps I was misreading the quote.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#167
This paragraph read a bit confusing to me:

The fact that the best ideas seem like bad ideas makes it even harder to recognize the big winners. It means the probability of a startup making it really big is not merely not a constant fraction of the probability that it will succeed, but that the startups with a high probability of the former will seem to have a disproportionately low probability of the latter.

It could be that it's a bit late, and I am tired. But it sounds a bit awkward.

Anyone care to clear that up for me?

Thanks!

Re: Black Swan Farming

#168
post #69

What is the value of all companies that weren't picked by YC? Are there any notable black swans that are known YC-rejects? It would be interesting to do an analysis of those companies that were rejected by YC, and see how many "black swans" were present in those rejects, as well as maybe relative value of the rejected startups vs the chosen ones to see how effective the YC selection process is.

There aren't any black swans yet that I know of, though there are at least two companies we rejected that must have valuations close to a hundred million, judging from the amounts they've raised. What worries me most is the possibility that we missed some we never heard about, because they either died or didn't happen.

The chance of that having happened or happening in the future is surely 100% at the stage you invest at. There are also undoubtedly many companies who could have been black swans that you did/will invest in who don't for execution's sake.

Take the swans you get an enjoy them. :)

Re: Black Swan Farming

#169
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic, but something I've been chewing on lately: what's it like to have your every written (or spoken!) word analyzed by a bunch of people? Esp. people that you end up having some form of contact with. It seems like it would be difficult to just have a public conversation about a topic. Do you think about that much when you write?

It's pretty grim. I think that's one of the reasons I write fewer essays now. After I wrote this one, I had to go back and armor it by pre-empting anything I could imagine anyone willfully misunderstanding to use as a weapon in comment threads. The whole of footnote 1 is such armor for example. I essentially anticipated all the "No, what I said was" type comments I'd have had to make on HN and just included them in t…

PG, thanks for writing the essays. They're definitely thought-provoking and a lot of people appreciate them. Keep writing. :)

Re: Black Swan Farming

#170
> It would hurt YC's brand (at least among the innumerate)

Worse, even -- innumerate and/or people who don't have domain knowledge. Probably considerably over 99% of all people.

Post reply on HN