3 ms·
" They keep cheerleading on a clear conflict of interest, non-stop" That's their business model: they buy and then pump the companies in hopes that someone wil
by veyron 14y ago
" They keep cheerleading on a clear conflict of interest, non-stop"
That's their business model: they buy and then pump the companies in hopes that someone will buy stake from them at a higher valuation later. The nature of the VC model precludes multi-decade investments and incentivizes quick exits even if they blow up in others' faces
FW replied to a similar remark i made: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4068495 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4068495
- anon808 14y agothat is exactly correct. VC's are facilitators, middlemen, and wholesalers, they are not equity holders. Their goal is to move equity. If the 'end-user' of the equity ends up owning a great business, great, if not, makes no difference to the VCs. You could argue there's reputation risk at stake but I don't see it: Fred Wilson made his name with geocities, a company that never earned any dividends for its ultimate owners (yahoo) while generating huge returns for its equity resellers. And we celebrate him and that deal as a success. Finding the greatest sucker is not a sustainable strategy, it's simple wealth transfer, no value gets created. it's not a way forward.
- qq66 14y agoIt's true that VCs have moved a lot of eventually worthless equity but they've also moved a lot of really valuable equity. Google, Amazon, Genentech, Oracle, etc. are companies with real, fundamental long-term value which could not have existed without some kind of investor (whether you call it a "VC" is largely semantic).