41–50 of 54 posts
VCs want to fund businesses that reach all over the world, but they themselves must be reachable within an hour or two commute.
okay, i didn't really read this one, my time is too value-generating or something
i'm asking you, not the rest of you cunts
it isn't horrible, if you don't mind about.com-quality tripe
I don't know Sam, but I really like this experiment he's doing with writing. Lot's of decent articles being written a a high speed. It's almost like he's trying to replicate Paul Graham circa 2004- 2008. I haven't seen an article yet that breaks any new ground, ie he's still looking for his "blub paradox" article, but all his articles generate discussion. Just look at his article on AI from yesterday. It didn't reall…
Except unlike PG, he hasn't really established authority on what he is writing about (other than perhaps a confusing endorsement from PG). What are Sam's big hits? Edit: That sounds meaner than intended, but it's actually an honest question. How does this guy share a top 5 list spot with Jobs, Larry, and Sergey? How do we know we should take him at his word when he didn't learn these things be being successful doing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Collusion is a pretty big charge. If investors are upfront about the fact that they talk to each other (and, hey, it's right there in the blog post) then investor A calling up investor B to verify he has made an offer to a startup isn't collusion. It's just due diligence. I'm also unclear about the analogous situation in the public markets that you alluded to.
It's really not a big charge, and being upfront about it doesn't make it acceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelgate That was the one time someone actually caught them. Anyone who thinks that is the only time it happened is very bad at statistics.
To me, one of the biggies is raising too early. To Sam's point, you want a competitive environment. To get that you want to obviously be a good investment to as many investors as possible. If you don't have some combination of an amazing v1 product, a traction graph that's moving in the right direction, credible investors already on board, a big/timely market, or a top 5% team, you're almost certainly fundraising too…
It's sort of silly though - founders already take risk with years of their life going nowhere, why should they also bear the entirety of the financial risk? Isn't the purpose of early stage investment to validate the idea? And by contrast late-stage investment is to grow the validated idea? It feels like these days everyone wants to invest only in validated ideas. It just feels suboptimal that hardly anyone ever want…
I've never heard an investor actually say "no". They will hem, haw, delay, excuse, etc. and do everything except give a definitive "no". You just have to learn to treat "maybe" as "no" until you decide it's worth talking to them again.
I'd love to have an actual "no" from an investor.
It's like dating: "no" is no. "maybe" is no. "yes" is maybe until you've closed the deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoah there - that's a huge leap from investors finding out that the entrepreneur is lying to them to the investors colluding on price. One is fine, the other is not.
No. They are the same crime. You are wrong, both morally and factually. As a founder you have the right to represent investor interest however you see fit. It is up to them to judge you independently and, if they cannot do that, then any gain you make in dealing with them is rightfully yours.
And a founder saying "VC B has given us a term sheet", when no such term sheet exists and in fact they said "Normally we don't say no, but for you, we're going to make an exception. Don't call us again!" is okay and the right of the founder.
Could you explain why those two (separate) things should be like that? As a practical first thought, it seemed to me if investors couldn't fact check, and founders could lie freely, gathering social proof would be harder, not easier, which might make it harder to get investment.
FWIW I'm impressed more by how little actual (non-bullshit numbers) cash and time went into something.
To me, one of the biggies is raising too early. To Sam's point, you want a competitive environment. To get that you want to obviously be a good investment to as many investors as possible. If you don't have some combination of an amazing v1 product, a traction graph that's moving in the right direction, credible investors already on board, a big/timely market, or a top 5% team, you're almost certainly fundraising too…
Later, the right amount of validation will speak for itself and reduce friction. That is if investment would win a race-to-market. Otherwise, plan to get to market as quick as you can on with the team and money you have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. They are the same crime. You are wrong, both morally and factually. As a founder you have the right to represent investor interest however you see fit. It is up to them to judge you independently and, if they cannot do that, then any gain you make in dealing with them is rightfully yours.
Michael, I respect and like a lot of what you write, but you've lost me here. An investor fact-checking a statement like "VC A said they would send us a term sheet" is morally wrong and should/is illegal? And a founder saying "VC B has given us a term sheet", when no such term sheet exists and in fact they said "Normally we don't say no, but for you, we're going to make an exception. Don't call us again!" is okay and…
Investors who rely on social proof, if you don't have it yet, fall into that "can't be trusted with the truth" category and it's OK to apply reality tweaks that are ultimately in their interests (giving them the courage to do the right thing) as much as yours.
I don't advocate fraud (lying to people in a way that acts against their interests) but some people don't have the courage to do the right thing unless you pull out some reality tweaks and make them comfortable. That's just life.
Investors who scheme against people who are trying to do that are acting in bad faith, because the ultimate goal of this activity on their part is to bring the devolution of our society into a feudal state. They don't care, at this point, about building or investing in great businesses. They just want to keep others-- people who weren't born into their parasitic social network-- out. I can't respect that in the least and I have no issue with those who choose to mislead them. If the club's purpose is vapid and its selection criteria both meaningless and unfair, then is it wrong to fake membership if it is convenient? Absolutely not.