3 ms·

Ha! This is the opposite of my hypothesis that I blogged about a few days ago: Founder-CEO's outperform non-founder CEO's. https://medium.com/nick-tommarello

by npt4279 11y ago

Ha! This is the opposite of my hypothesis that I blogged about a few days ago: Founder-CEO's outperform non-founder CEO's. https://medium.com/nick-tommarello/my-strategy-for-investing-in-public-companies-805c323bd48d https://medium.com/nick-tommarello/my-strategy-for-investing...

TTPrograms 11y ago
They may both be true - this study was limited to the 1500 largest firms from 1993 to 2012. I'd guess the majority of those CEOs weren't founders. If you wanted to do an interesting followup, repeat this authors analysis but compare results between founder CEOs and non-founder CEOs!
- npt4279 11y ago
  That would be a cool idea. But I'm not sure the numbers of founder-CEO companies are large enough to make any conclusive determination. If you are limiting it to tech, I'd think the outliers of Apple, Amazon, and Google would destroy the competition.
  - nabla9 11y ago
    Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway, FedEx, News Corp, Oracle, Microsoft under Gates, Intel under Moore and Grove, ...
  - eru 11y ago
    Perhaps you can do a similar study for owner-managed vs owners and managers being different persons (like in a public company).
sr_banksy 11y ago
Neat strategy. It would be interesting to actually browse through the study's data set and isolate Founder-CEO companies. If there's any conceivable link, then maybe that explains the 30%? However, I don't think there would be many founder CEOs within the dataset.
- inopinatus 11y ago
  Difficult to correct for survivorship bias too (unless the study specifically did so - I couldn't get the full text)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- npt4279 11y ago
  I don't recall being a user of any .com companies that failed. But I might have been and forgot. I certainly used Paypal and Amazon though. Being a user of the product is a useful tool for separating hype from reality.
ljw1001 11y ago
Survival bias. Most founder CEOs go down with the ship before they get on your radar

by npt4279 11y ago

TTPrograms 11y ago

They may both be true - this study was limited to the 1500 largest firms from 1993 to 2012. I'd guess the majority of those CEOs weren't founders. If you wanted to do an interesting followup, repeat this authors analysis but compare results between founder CEOs and non-founder CEOs!

npt4279 11y ago
That would be a cool idea. But I'm not sure the numbers of founder-CEO companies are large enough to make any conclusive determination. If you are limiting it to tech, I'd think the outliers of Apple, Amazon, and Google would destroy the competition.
- nabla9 11y ago
  Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway, FedEx, News Corp, Oracle, Microsoft under Gates, Intel under Moore and Grove, ...
- eru 11y ago
  Perhaps you can do a similar study for owner-managed vs owners and managers being different persons (like in a public company).

sr_banksy 11y ago

Neat strategy. It would be interesting to actually browse through the study's data set and isolate Founder-CEO companies. If there's any conceivable link, then maybe that explains the 30%? However, I don't think there would be many founder CEOs within the dataset.

inopinatus 11y ago
Difficult to correct for survivorship bias too (unless the study specifically did so - I couldn't get the full text)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

npt4279 11y ago
I don't recall being a user of any .com companies that failed. But I might have been and forgot. I certainly used Paypal and Amazon though. Being a user of the product is a useful tool for separating hype from reality.

ljw1001 11y ago

Survival bias. Most founder CEOs go down with the ship before they get on your radar