2 ms·
The author implies a staffing delta up would change (increase) the performance of the fund. That may or may not be the view that others share, hence the query.
by 001sky 14y ago
The author implies a staffing delta up would change (increase) the performance of the fund. That may or may not be the view that others share, hence the query.
GV have strong brand affinity, deep pocketed sponsor, potential strategic/bus-dev angles, strong networks from current/xooglers etc. The two contra's are : (1) Strategic Fund (generically==not good); and (2) People (generic ==unkown). I'd be surprised if GV didn't get good looks at deals, unless issues were tied to the these last two points.
But it's also possible the author is just editorializing or ad-libbing or name-dropping or what-you-will.
- rdl 14y agoI think one of the differences is that GV doesn't invest tiny amounts in late stage hot deals at high valuations just to get their name on the investor list -- that's the traditional way for newer funds to inflate their reputation. Being a "strategic seed" is hard to bootstrap since basically no seed company is going to be Twitter inside of a couple years. Other new funds have definitely brought in high profile partners from other funds (or been due to a schism within an existing fund...), or successful tech CEOs, or whatever.