5 ms·

The question I have with all these resignations and apologies is whether the partners in question are still getting carry on their fund. Since it's not addresse

The question I have with all these resignations and apologies is whether the partners in question are still getting carry on their fund. Since it's not addressed anywhere, I think it's safe to assume the answer is yes. I can't imagine how shitty it is to have been harassed, and to then muster up the bravery to out the perpetrator, only for the harasser to continue to earn money on your work while they sun themselves on a beach somewhere.

draw_down 9y ago
Yeah, and all the followup stories are about how the old-boys club is finally toppling. Is it? Or is it just getting a new paint job?
djyaz1200 9y ago
Agree that's shitty. Suggest the female founders who dealt with McClure (including and especially those NOT funded) get together and file a class action lawsuit against the fund. Then they can own it, or at least a big piece of it. When women take action on that scale this kind of thing will be policed much more carefully... but it will take powerful people losing 8/9 figure money.
- pbiggar 9y ago
  Good point. I'd estimate that Dave McClure's carry is worth $25m (assumptions: funds control 250m in investments, 20% carry, 2.5x returns, DMC has 20% ownership) It would be tough to get an investor to agree to give up that carry. Maybe a lawsuit is a better approach to ensure they don't profit from their harassment.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
daxorid 9y ago
only for the harasser to continue to earn money on your work Are you advocating for the total abrogation of property rights, here ?
- pbiggar 9y ago
  I'm advocating that the ability to divest investors from your company is a necessary step to solving this problem. (PS although I answered your question directly, I did not miss the fact that you twisted my words to say something I didn't even come close to saying. Please don't do that)
hkmurakami 9y ago
There is an additional layer to this when a person in question is a founder of a fund. It's not just the carry (and salary) that generates their returns -- they also own equity in the organization itself (thus the founders of a fund like KPCB will be orders of magnitude more weathy than other concurrent GPs, as evidenced by the famous exploits of Tom Perkins). However, whether a forced sale of a founder's equity share of the investing organization is warranted or not is a darker shade of gray than the divestiture of one's carried interest. Certainly there must have been examples in the past in various private investment funds where a founder is forced to relinquish one's ownership (due to fraud, etc.); I wonder where we deem this line to be drawn in the sand.
- pbiggar 9y ago
  I'd love to hear more on this. Can you describe the structures in more detail? I wouldn't have expected the org itself to be anything except a shell around each successive fund. (Maybe I shouldn't have skipped this part of Venture Deals)

draw_down 9y ago

Yeah, and all the followup stories are about how the old-boys club is finally toppling. Is it? Or is it just getting a new paint job?

djyaz1200 9y ago

Agree that's shitty. Suggest the female founders who dealt with McClure (including and especially those NOT funded) get together and file a class action lawsuit against the fund. Then they can own it, or at least a big piece of it. When women take action on that scale this kind of thing will be policed much more carefully... but it will take powerful people losing 8/9 figure money.

pbiggar 9y ago
Good point. I'd estimate that Dave McClure's carry is worth $25m (assumptions: funds control 250m in investments, 20% carry, 2.5x returns, DMC has 20% ownership) It would be tough to get an investor to agree to give up that carry. Maybe a lawsuit is a better approach to ensure they don't profit from their harassment.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

daxorid 9y ago

only for the harasser to continue to earn money on your work Are you advocating for the total abrogation of property rights, here ?

pbiggar 9y ago
I'm advocating that the ability to divest investors from your company is a necessary step to solving this problem. (PS although I answered your question directly, I did not miss the fact that you twisted my words to say something I didn't even come close to saying. Please don't do that)

hkmurakami 9y ago

There is an additional layer to this when a person in question is a founder of a fund. It's not just the carry (and salary) that generates their returns -- they also own equity in the organization itself (thus the founders of a fund like KPCB will be orders of magnitude more weathy than other concurrent GPs, as evidenced by the famous exploits of Tom Perkins). However, whether a forced sale of a founder's equity share of the investing organization is warranted or not is a darker shade of gray than the divestiture of one's carried interest. Certainly there must have been examples in the past in various private investment funds where a founder is forced to relinquish one's ownership (due to fraud, etc.); I wonder where we deem this line to be drawn in the sand.

pbiggar 9y ago
I'd love to hear more on this. Can you describe the structures in more detail? I wouldn't have expected the org itself to be anything except a shell around each successive fund. (Maybe I shouldn't have skipped this part of Venture Deals)