3 ms·

I actually don’t find anything insightful about Rebel’s approach. They paid someone too much money to make a machine learning model that then informed their bi

I actually don’t find anything insightful about Rebel’s approach. They paid someone too much money to make a machine learning model that then informed their biases that highly educated people from prestigious universities and previous FANG jobs are the likely candidates of success. I’d rather work with a fund that had managers who understood due diligence, market analysis, and truly desired finding the best idea, not just pushing their own preconceived biases through pseudo-technical analysis.

mushufasa 5y ago
Yes, the idea that an inherently backwards-looking data-driven approach is a good way to evaluate an inherently no-history early stage company seems misguided to me. I'm sure their fund probably does okay though. It's the same set of biases as traditional VC. Not very rebellious, though.
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  > I'm sure their fund probably does okay though. It's the same set of biases as traditional VC. Most VC firms lose money.
jjtheblunt 5y ago
that fund is Berkshire Hathaway, more or less?
- mdorazio 5y ago
  Not really. Berkshire's general model is to buy mature businesses that are either troubled or undervalued and then "fix" them to reach a higher valuation within their overall portfolio. That's somewhat different than doing a deep business analysis on an early stage company to determine its long-term potential. Interestingly, I think the latter is actually closer to what VCs focused on before YC took center stage.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
908B64B197 5y ago
> from prestigious universities and previous FANG jobs are the likely candidates of success. The universities they list aren't all in the same league. > I’d rather work with a fund that had managers who understood due diligence, market analysis, and truly desired finding the best idea, not just pushing their own preconceived biases through pseudo-technical analysis. These investors won't blog about how they do it! But they sure exist.

mushufasa 5y ago

Yes, the idea that an inherently backwards-looking data-driven approach is a good way to evaluate an inherently no-history early stage company seems misguided to me. I'm sure their fund probably does okay though. It's the same set of biases as traditional VC. Not very rebellious, though.

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
> I'm sure their fund probably does okay though. It's the same set of biases as traditional VC. Most VC firms lose money.

jjtheblunt 5y ago

that fund is Berkshire Hathaway, more or less?

mdorazio 5y ago
Not really. Berkshire's general model is to buy mature businesses that are either troubled or undervalued and then "fix" them to reach a higher valuation within their overall portfolio. That's somewhat different than doing a deep business analysis on an early stage company to determine its long-term potential. Interestingly, I think the latter is actually closer to what VCs focused on before YC took center stage.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

908B64B197 5y ago

> from prestigious universities and previous FANG jobs are the likely candidates of success. The universities they list aren't all in the same league. > I’d rather work with a fund that had managers who understood due diligence, market analysis, and truly desired finding the best idea, not just pushing their own preconceived biases through pseudo-technical analysis. These investors won't blog about how they do it! But they sure exist.