I don't know. Still sounds to me like he's using the linked definition. Which I agree is not a useful concept. People do cite betas. e.g. here's a quote page f

I don't know. Still sounds to me like he's using the linked definition. Which I agree is not a useful concept. People do cite betas. e.g. here's a quote page for Yahoo, on a big personal finance site, that cites the "beta" as defined earlier: http://www.dailyfinance.com/quotes/yahoo-inc/yhoo/nas http://www.dailyfinance.com/quotes/yahoo-inc/yhoo/nas It's entirely possible for a typical investor to only encounter that version. Colloquially, if someone says "I like high-beta stocks," they mean "I like really volatile stocks," not "I like stocks that have some combination of high volatility and high correlation to some index." So the statement makes sense colloquially. A more accurate version would be "YC looks for a moderately negative beta and expects a very high alpha." Since that describes companies that fundamentally alter their target industries--e.g. by harming all the established players, but still making money.