3 ms·

I know you're pg and all, but this comment seems almost content-free without defining "formidable". What does that mean?

by pinko 14y ago

ghshephard 14y ago
I'll take a stab at it (though I recognize the entire purpose behind this being a "meta" rule is not to deconstruct). It's a combination of intellectual capacity, previous track record of success (in something great - not necessarily startups, though that's a bonus), absolute-and-utter commitment to the project, incredible confidence in what you're doing, a team that's fully formed, awareness of all relevant landscapes (technological, regulatory, competitive, etc..) the ability to answer every question without hesitation, insight into where you are strong, and where you are weak, but, perhaps most importantly, the ability to project a sense that regardless of what obstacles are placed in your way (and there will be many), you will be successful. Those teams always seem to come out ahead in the end.
einhverfr 14y ago
The way I read it was that to "seem formidable" is first and foremost a subjective assessment. You have to impress the VC's as to your ability to succeed, in a short period of time. It's a smell test. I could be wrong. If I am, maybe Pg will correct me ;-)
BerislavLopac 14y ago
"I know you're pg and all" -- ballsy, accurate and funny. Respect! :)
rexreed 14y ago
"Formidable" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. This means what's formidable to one investor is not to another, for a wide range of reasons - market focus, experience with investments in the area of the venture's focus, and the intelligence and savvy of investors. In other words, it is entirely subjective and not particularly meaningful. In a prior post on a related subject, I related that most VCs dramatically underperform the market and are not worth the investment [1]. This would imply that most VCs are not particularly good at determining the quality of their investments. I would argue that "formidable" is meaningless in this context when most VCs do such a poor job of distinguishing "winners" from "losers". [1] http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/institutional-limited-partners-must-accept-blame-for-poor-long-term-returns-from-venture-capital.aspx http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/institutional-limited-partn...
pg 14y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+formidable https://www.google.com/search?q=define+formidable

I know you're pg and all, but this comment seems almost content-free without defining "formidable". What does that mean?

by pinko 14y ago

I know you're pg and all, but this comment seems almost content-free without defining "formidable". What does that mean?

ghshephard 14y ago

I'll take a stab at it (though I recognize the entire purpose behind this being a "meta" rule is not to deconstruct). It's a combination of intellectual capacity, previous track record of success (in something great - not necessarily startups, though that's a bonus), absolute-and-utter commitment to the project, incredible confidence in what you're doing, a team that's fully formed, awareness of all relevant landscapes (technological, regulatory, competitive, etc..) the ability to answer every question without hesitation, insight into where you are strong, and where you are weak, but, perhaps most importantly, the ability to project a sense that regardless of what obstacles are placed in your way (and there will be many), you will be successful. Those teams always seem to come out ahead in the end.

einhverfr 14y ago

The way I read it was that to "seem formidable" is first and foremost a subjective assessment. You have to impress the VC's as to your ability to succeed, in a short period of time. It's a smell test. I could be wrong. If I am, maybe Pg will correct me ;-)

BerislavLopac 14y ago

"I know you're pg and all" -- ballsy, accurate and funny. Respect! :)

rexreed 14y ago

"Formidable" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. This means what's formidable to one investor is not to another, for a wide range of reasons - market focus, experience with investments in the area of the venture's focus, and the intelligence and savvy of investors. In other words, it is entirely subjective and not particularly meaningful. In a prior post on a related subject, I related that most VCs dramatically underperform the market and are not worth the investment [1]. This would imply that most VCs are not particularly good at determining the quality of their investments. I would argue that "formidable" is meaningless in this context when most VCs do such a poor job of distinguishing "winners" from "losers". [1] http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/institutional-limited-partners-must-accept-blame-for-poor-long-term-returns-from-venture-capital.aspx http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/institutional-limited-partn...

pg 14y ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+formidable https://www.google.com/search?q=define+formidable