3 ms·

So far as I know, the pitch of VC is that they target outlier returns, and therefore will make highly unlikely bets in the pursuit of those returns. So it's not

So far as I know, the pitch of VC is that they target outlier returns, and therefore will make highly unlikely bets in the pursuit of those returns. So it's not particularly revelatory that a VC-funded idea turned out to be unfeasible, because that's what you'd expect with such a strategy. The claim of expertise comes from the idea that VCs can generate magnitudes better returns than the market. This is a true claim when talking about top firms, and I don't see how the fact of VCs making a bad bet disputes that -- unless your standard is that experts never lose money.

20andup 10y ago
I don't think we are arguing different points here. Some VC place bets on outliers companies like uBeam and Theranos. The problem that I have is that they didn't do their due diligence. You can bet on outliers no matter how unfeasible it seems, but you still need to do your research. The fact that uBeam is argued by many to be physical impossible, supported by facts rather than opinions, strikes me as surprising. Expert is not always winning. It means not betting on outliers just for outliers sake. Can these VC firms go back to their shareholders and convince them that they did their due diligence? Reading from these articles, its painfully obvious they were not being transparent with their investors. These companies have all been around for a few years, and the fact that none of them have seen a reliable working product is another surprise. Mark Cuban has said he has never even seen a working prototype from uBeam.