6 ms·

Chris Sacca is one of the few VCs that people outside of the SV bubble and even the tech world know and associate with the valley. He, along with Mark Cuban &

Chris Sacca is one of the few VCs that people outside of the SV bubble and even the tech world know and associate with the valley. He, along with Mark Cuban & potentially a few others will likely be part of the few of this era remembered many decades from now when history gets consolidated into a few figures, much like Gordon Moore of Intel & William Shockley of the Mountain View of the 1950's.

hashkb 9y ago
Because of Shark Tank?
- charred_toast 9y ago
  Judging by his website, because of his extraordinary ability to vet tech opportunities. Check out the list on his Posse page - it's staggering.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    I'd like to see a list of his investments that also includes the ones that failed, as well as the amount on each investment. Are there places that track this info among VCs?
    - mbesto 9y ago
      Pitchbook, it'll cost you a few grand a year though.
      - rlucas 9y ago
        Pitchbook doesn't even come close to figuring out the actual invested amounts and returns across an investor's portfolio. Don't get me wrong; Pitchbook is good and I pay $$$$ for it. But it serves a company-centric intel need, not an investment performance measurement need.
        sah2ed 9y ago
        > not an investment performance measurement need. Can you please expand on this? Genuinely curious as to what the metrics are in this case.
    - rlucas 9y ago
      Yes, you can buy this from Cambridge Associates, and a few other "consultants." But it costs more than you would be willing to pay out of mere curiosity. Generally speaking, the institutional limited partners (LPs; pension funds, endowments, family offices, etc.) that invest in venture and private equity incur pretty significant costs to get third-party information about actual performance by managers (i.e. VCs). From largest to smallest, LPs might generally: subscribe to Cambridge's data and use it in-house with full time staff, or hire a consultant (like Cambridge) to assess and help select their managers, or pay a fund-of-funds a fee (on the order of 1%) to do likewise. The point of all that is: figuring out who is actually making money in VC, and guessing who is likely to continue doing so, is very non-trivial. It can't be done with publicly available, Crunchbase / Angel.co type data, much less a VC's own statements or portfolio listing page.
  - YPCrumble 9y ago
    Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this the list you're referring to? http://markcubancompanies.com/index.html http://markcubancompanies.com/index.html What is staggering about that list? It looks pretty much like any list of a VC that has survived. One or two big but not tremendous plays like Dropbox and a lot of companies I haven't heard of before.
    - chambo622 9y ago
      No, I believe they were referring to Sacca's investments: https://lowercasecapital.com/posse/ https://lowercasecapital.com/posse/
    - mdekkers 9y ago
      Lol, Sacca has invested in some really "tremendous plays"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mbesto 9y ago
    > vet tech opportunities Sorry to snark, but the ability to vet opportunities isn't necessarily a skill that allows individuals to gain such a staggering list of investments. It's worth noting he improperly "vetted" Snapchat[0]. On the other hand, getting proprietary deal flow is. It would be easy to rank him at the top on that. [0] - https://twitter.com/sacca/status/837400028352151552 https://twitter.com/sacca/status/837400028352151552
- kevinmannix 9y ago
  It definitely has some part. I don't think the reason really matters. It's a variety of things including personality that somehow eek out of the niche field into the mainstream that causes a singular person to become associated with an entire movement.
ameister14 9y ago
I really don't think Mark Cuban will be on that list.
- ChicagoBoy11 9y ago
  ...but he put radio on the internet!
jacquesm 9y ago
Mark Cuban got rich of one deal that probably shouldn't have happened in the first place. He got very lucky.
- gist 9y ago
  As you know there is luck (of various types) involved for anyone who has ever gotten anywhere (even if family connections as a separate benefit there is also luck). You have to give Mark credit for doing a good job of snowing and playing Yahoo that does take skill. Look if Steve Jobs had grown up in, say, Iowa USA, had strong family ties that prevented him from even thinking about moving to Silicon Valley, where would he be today? If Bill Gates's mother wasn't on the board of the Red Cross he'd never have the IBM connection that gave him the contract. (Forget as well that he was the right age at the right time as well). Notoriety and wealth is always outsized relative to actual capabilities. Was watching Bloomberg on 60 minutes. Sure Mike is a really smart guy. Worth 40 billion or whatever. But compared to a smart guy who is worth 3 million or in debt he isn't that much smarter (Edit: I mean as a percentage ..). It's always been like this. I am not ever jealous that people have luck and great success. But I am typically annoyed at how other people (press, pundits, media, bloggers) give them accolades that essentially reduce to 'wow this guy is really smart capable' w/o acknowledging any luck at all.
  - disease 9y ago
    You've got me thinking about the interplay of natural ability, hard work, luck and success. How unsuccessful could someone be if they were extremely talented and hard-working, but had little luck. How far can luck push someone with no ability or desire? I suspect luck plays a greater role in our lives then we are willing to admit, even though it can be mitigated to some effect.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > How unsuccessful could someone be if they were extremely talented and hard-working, but had little luck. Homeless level bad. > How far can luck push someone with no ability or desire? Extremely far. I have seen examples of both, luck is a huge factor, and it comes in many guises (timing, circumstances, meeting the right person and so on).

hashkb 9y ago

Because of Shark Tank?

charred_toast 9y ago
Judging by his website, because of his extraordinary ability to vet tech opportunities. Check out the list on his Posse page - it's staggering.
- mozumder 9y ago
  I'd like to see a list of his investments that also includes the ones that failed, as well as the amount on each investment. Are there places that track this info among VCs?
  - mbesto 9y ago
    Pitchbook, it'll cost you a few grand a year though.
    - rlucas 9y ago
      Pitchbook doesn't even come close to figuring out the actual invested amounts and returns across an investor's portfolio. Don't get me wrong; Pitchbook is good and I pay $$$$ for it. But it serves a company-centric intel need, not an investment performance measurement need.
      - sah2ed 9y ago
        > not an investment performance measurement need. Can you please expand on this? Genuinely curious as to what the metrics are in this case.
  - rlucas 9y ago
    Yes, you can buy this from Cambridge Associates, and a few other "consultants." But it costs more than you would be willing to pay out of mere curiosity. Generally speaking, the institutional limited partners (LPs; pension funds, endowments, family offices, etc.) that invest in venture and private equity incur pretty significant costs to get third-party information about actual performance by managers (i.e. VCs). From largest to smallest, LPs might generally: subscribe to Cambridge's data and use it in-house with full time staff, or hire a consultant (like Cambridge) to assess and help select their managers, or pay a fund-of-funds a fee (on the order of 1%) to do likewise. The point of all that is: figuring out who is actually making money in VC, and guessing who is likely to continue doing so, is very non-trivial. It can't be done with publicly available, Crunchbase / Angel.co type data, much less a VC's own statements or portfolio listing page.
- YPCrumble 9y ago
  Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this the list you're referring to? http://markcubancompanies.com/index.html http://markcubancompanies.com/index.html What is staggering about that list? It looks pretty much like any list of a VC that has survived. One or two big but not tremendous plays like Dropbox and a lot of companies I haven't heard of before.
  - chambo622 9y ago
    No, I believe they were referring to Sacca's investments: https://lowercasecapital.com/posse/ https://lowercasecapital.com/posse/
  - mdekkers 9y ago
    Lol, Sacca has invested in some really "tremendous plays"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mbesto 9y ago
  > vet tech opportunities Sorry to snark, but the ability to vet opportunities isn't necessarily a skill that allows individuals to gain such a staggering list of investments. It's worth noting he improperly "vetted" Snapchat[0]. On the other hand, getting proprietary deal flow is. It would be easy to rank him at the top on that. [0] - https://twitter.com/sacca/status/837400028352151552 https://twitter.com/sacca/status/837400028352151552
kevinmannix 9y ago
It definitely has some part. I don't think the reason really matters. It's a variety of things including personality that somehow eek out of the niche field into the mainstream that causes a singular person to become associated with an entire movement.

ameister14 9y ago

I really don't think Mark Cuban will be on that list.

ChicagoBoy11 9y ago
...but he put radio on the internet!

jacquesm 9y ago

Mark Cuban got rich of one deal that probably shouldn't have happened in the first place. He got very lucky.

gist 9y ago
As you know there is luck (of various types) involved for anyone who has ever gotten anywhere (even if family connections as a separate benefit there is also luck). You have to give Mark credit for doing a good job of snowing and playing Yahoo that does take skill. Look if Steve Jobs had grown up in, say, Iowa USA, had strong family ties that prevented him from even thinking about moving to Silicon Valley, where would he be today? If Bill Gates's mother wasn't on the board of the Red Cross he'd never have the IBM connection that gave him the contract. (Forget as well that he was the right age at the right time as well). Notoriety and wealth is always outsized relative to actual capabilities. Was watching Bloomberg on 60 minutes. Sure Mike is a really smart guy. Worth 40 billion or whatever. But compared to a smart guy who is worth 3 million or in debt he isn't that much smarter (Edit: I mean as a percentage ..). It's always been like this. I am not ever jealous that people have luck and great success. But I am typically annoyed at how other people (press, pundits, media, bloggers) give them accolades that essentially reduce to 'wow this guy is really smart capable' w/o acknowledging any luck at all.
- disease 9y ago
  You've got me thinking about the interplay of natural ability, hard work, luck and success. How unsuccessful could someone be if they were extremely talented and hard-working, but had little luck. How far can luck push someone with no ability or desire? I suspect luck plays a greater role in our lives then we are willing to admit, even though it can be mitigated to some effect.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > How unsuccessful could someone be if they were extremely talented and hard-working, but had little luck. Homeless level bad. > How far can luck push someone with no ability or desire? Extremely far. I have seen examples of both, luck is a huge factor, and it comes in many guises (timing, circumstances, meeting the right person and so on).