40 ms·

Wow these guys are horrible at this.

by lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago

andybak 2y ago
You missed the point somewhat.
- lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
  What was the point that I missed?
  - unsupp0rted 2y ago
    That everyone who’s in the game will inevitably fumble the ball some % of the time. And the more opportunities you get with the ball, the more opportunities there are to fumble it.
    - lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
      Ok, so what's your criteria for saying that someone sucks at investing? If you go "oh shucks i fumbled some %" that will excuse anything and everything. If you give me a list of the times you fumbled and they're all the most amazing opportunities ever, what that tells me is that you're taking the obviously good opportunities, and missing the counter-intuitively amazing opportunities.
      - pm215 2y ago
        A reasonable criterion for whether somebody sucks/is good at investing would be something like "what % return did you get over the last decade, and how does that compare to (a) markets in general and (b) other investors in your field?". If BVP passed on a bunch of great opportunities but also passed on a bunch of money-losing deadends, and on net got better % returns than the hypothetical alternative VC fund that took more of these but also lost a pile of cash on terrible startups, then BVP is making good decisions even given the failures. That a hundred-year old VC firm didn't identify every unicorn it ever had the opportunity to invest in doesn't seem very surprising to me.
      - AdamN 2y ago
        Buffet has a statement to the effect of, "Don't lose money" and that really is the core tenet of investing. Missing some monster hits is fine and normal and preferred to putting money into big failures.
        lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
        Buffet operates in an entirely different space than these people. VCs brand themselves as finding the next growth monsters. It's fine if they want to "find companies that you can reliably value and are undervalued by the market" (which is what Buffet does), but then don't market yourself as a VC.
        theshaper 2y ago
        It has even happened to Buffet. Regarding the sale of his shares in Paramount: “Actually, owning Paramount made me think even deeper, but I certainly looked harder about the whole question of what people do with their leisure time and what the governing principles are of running an entertainment business of any sort, whether it’s sports or movies or whatever it might be,” Buffett said. “I think I’m smarter now than I was a couple years ago, but I also think I’m poorer because I acquired the knowledge in the manner I did.” ← great quote Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/warren-buffett-sells-paramount-stock-huge-loss-1235831979/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/war...
        lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
        Buffet also lost billions in buying Dexter shoes or whatever the name was.
      - josephg 2y ago
        > Ok, so what's your criteria for saying that someone sucks at investing? They’re no longer in business.
        lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
        That's a really low bar, but perhaps not unexpected from the "fake it til you make it" HN crowd.
        josephg 2y ago
        Is it? If you investment well, you make money. If you invest poorly you lose money. It’s quite simple. It’s not about “faking it till you make it”. It’s a numbers game. If you don’t have the skill to pick winners well, you’ll invest in bad companies and your fund will dry up.
        lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
        You said "they're no longer in business", you didn't say "they lose money", those are not the same thing. You can lose money for a long time and still be in business because you're good at attracting capital. This is not an hypothetical, it actually happens in the real world. Madoff stayed in business for 30 years while at the same time losing money. Furthermore, you might make money but less than you could at no risk. Your criterion of being in business is awful. It sounds like it was the first thing that popped into your mind and you entertained it for about a second before typing it down.
        josephg 2y ago
        Being able to attract capital requires you to convince others to invest in you. For a VC firm, usually that means your fund needs to be profitable. Nobody will invest in a VC firm that loses money. So again, staying in business as an investor requires you to invest well. Or, I suppose, you could commit fraud. I’m assuming we’re talking about regular vc companies and not criminals. Yes, the truth is more complex than a single sentence can convey. I hope in time you can forgive my crime of brevity.
  - andybak 2y ago
    Ask yourself why they chose to publish this list.

Wow these guys are horrible at this.

andybak 2y ago

You missed the point somewhat.

lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
What was the point that I missed?
- unsupp0rted 2y ago
  That everyone who’s in the game will inevitably fumble the ball some % of the time. And the more opportunities you get with the ball, the more opportunities there are to fumble it.
  - lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
    Ok, so what's your criteria for saying that someone sucks at investing? If you go "oh shucks i fumbled some %" that will excuse anything and everything. If you give me a list of the times you fumbled and they're all the most amazing opportunities ever, what that tells me is that you're taking the obviously good opportunities, and missing the counter-intuitively amazing opportunities.
    - pm215 2y ago
      A reasonable criterion for whether somebody sucks/is good at investing would be something like "what % return did you get over the last decade, and how does that compare to (a) markets in general and (b) other investors in your field?". If BVP passed on a bunch of great opportunities but also passed on a bunch of money-losing deadends, and on net got better % returns than the hypothetical alternative VC fund that took more of these but also lost a pile of cash on terrible startups, then BVP is making good decisions even given the failures. That a hundred-year old VC firm didn't identify every unicorn it ever had the opportunity to invest in doesn't seem very surprising to me.
    - AdamN 2y ago
      Buffet has a statement to the effect of, "Don't lose money" and that really is the core tenet of investing. Missing some monster hits is fine and normal and preferred to putting money into big failures.
      - lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
        Buffet operates in an entirely different space than these people. VCs brand themselves as finding the next growth monsters. It's fine if they want to "find companies that you can reliably value and are undervalued by the market" (which is what Buffet does), but then don't market yourself as a VC.
      - theshaper 2y ago
        It has even happened to Buffet. Regarding the sale of his shares in Paramount: “Actually, owning Paramount made me think even deeper, but I certainly looked harder about the whole question of what people do with their leisure time and what the governing principles are of running an entertainment business of any sort, whether it’s sports or movies or whatever it might be,” Buffett said. “I think I’m smarter now than I was a couple years ago, but I also think I’m poorer because I acquired the knowledge in the manner I did.” ← great quote Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/warren-buffett-sells-paramount-stock-huge-loss-1235831979/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/war...
        lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
        Buffet also lost billions in buying Dexter shoes or whatever the name was.
    - josephg 2y ago
      > Ok, so what's your criteria for saying that someone sucks at investing? They’re no longer in business.
      - lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
        That's a really low bar, but perhaps not unexpected from the "fake it til you make it" HN crowd.
        josephg 2y ago
        Is it? If you investment well, you make money. If you invest poorly you lose money. It’s quite simple. It’s not about “faking it till you make it”. It’s a numbers game. If you don’t have the skill to pick winners well, you’ll invest in bad companies and your fund will dry up.
        lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
        You said "they're no longer in business", you didn't say "they lose money", those are not the same thing. You can lose money for a long time and still be in business because you're good at attracting capital. This is not an hypothetical, it actually happens in the real world. Madoff stayed in business for 30 years while at the same time losing money. Furthermore, you might make money but less than you could at no risk. Your criterion of being in business is awful. It sounds like it was the first thing that popped into your mind and you entertained it for about a second before typing it down.
        josephg 2y ago
        Being able to attract capital requires you to convince others to invest in you. For a VC firm, usually that means your fund needs to be profitable. Nobody will invest in a VC firm that loses money. So again, staying in business as an investor requires you to invest well. Or, I suppose, you could commit fraud. I’m assuming we’re talking about regular vc companies and not criminals. Yes, the truth is more complex than a single sentence can convey. I hope in time you can forgive my crime of brevity.
- andybak 2y ago
  Ask yourself why they chose to publish this list.