4 ms·

The industry has been around for a very long time, and it still has a pretty strong B-school flavor. You'd think that this would be a candidate for change, giv

The industry has been around for a very long time, and it still has a pretty strong B-school flavor. You'd think that this would be a candidate for change, given that the industry is losing money. However, I don't expect ever to see it happen. Even though MBA culture is anachronistic and less-than-useless, it persists because it convinces a set of people who can't actually do anything that they deserve to be the High Priests of the economy.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
That's true. The thing is, if I see why an industry should change, but notice it hasn't changed, there are only two conclusions I can reach. Either: a) My analysis is flawed, or b) I've discovered an opportunity to profit. I tend to assume a), if only because b) takes more work.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Not necessarily on B. I'm more talented than 99% of people in finance, including the major decision makers. However, that doesn't give me an "opportunity to profit". We're talking about VC here, which requires a huge cash base before it converges. I don't have one.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    No, that goes back to a). It's a moot point to say that you'd be a good venture capitalist, if only you had money, but that the characteristics that get someone VC-level money also make them bad VCs. The MBA who can raise a $100 million fund is clearly a better VC than you, even if you're more talented, because he's actually a VC.
    - pw0ncakes 17y ago
      That has everything to do with connections (e.g. accidents of history, in many cases before many of us were born) and nothing to do with personal merit.
      - byrneseyeview 17y ago
        "Everything" and "nothing" are pretty strong terms! Good connections obviously help people raise money, which helps them make investments, which is what makes them VCs. But I've never met a dumb VC, and the only "lazy" ones I meet are better described as "efficient." The VC's job is to raise money, invest it in promising companies, and help them realize the maximum possible value of that investment. Being good at the last two is nice, but being unable to raise money would make it pretty tough for you to become an investor.

byrneseyeview 17y ago

That's true. The thing is, if I see why an industry should change, but notice it hasn't changed, there are only two conclusions I can reach. Either: a) My analysis is flawed, or b) I've discovered an opportunity to profit. I tend to assume a), if only because b) takes more work.

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Not necessarily on B. I'm more talented than 99% of people in finance, including the major decision makers. However, that doesn't give me an "opportunity to profit". We're talking about VC here, which requires a huge cash base before it converges. I don't have one.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  No, that goes back to a). It's a moot point to say that you'd be a good venture capitalist, if only you had money, but that the characteristics that get someone VC-level money also make them bad VCs. The MBA who can raise a $100 million fund is clearly a better VC than you, even if you're more talented, because he's actually a VC.
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    That has everything to do with connections (e.g. accidents of history, in many cases before many of us were born) and nothing to do with personal merit.
    - byrneseyeview 17y ago
      "Everything" and "nothing" are pretty strong terms! Good connections obviously help people raise money, which helps them make investments, which is what makes them VCs. But I've never met a dumb VC, and the only "lazy" ones I meet are better described as "efficient." The VC's job is to raise money, invest it in promising companies, and help them realize the maximum possible value of that investment. Being good at the last two is nice, but being unable to raise money would make it pretty tough for you to become an investor.