5 ms·

I hugely disagree with this. KPCB very nearly owned the lion's share of Tesla, and missed out due to a mere $20MM in delta in valuation (VantagePoint offered $

I hugely disagree with this. KPCB very nearly owned the lion's share of Tesla, and missed out due to a mere $20MM in delta in valuation (VantagePoint offered $70MM, Kleiner offered $20MM). They then missed out again simply because of political struggles meant John Doerr couldn't take a board seat. They were less than a board seat or $20MM in conviction away from being proven right -- now everyone thinks they are proven wrong. Just goes to show you the risks in the game.

chrisgd 13y ago
They didn't get Tesla because Musk wanted Kleiner on the board not the partner who had done all the work. So Tesla took a $70M valuation with a board member they didn't care about rather than a $50M valuation with the board member they did want, which Musk says was a mistake. Still there were other missteps. This article came out a day after this one, which is more in-depth about all the problems they have faced. http://pando.com/2013/12/11/john-doerrs-last-stand-can-a-dramatic-shakeup-save-kleiner-perkins/ http://pando.com/2013/12/11/john-doerrs-last-stand-can-a-dra...
- chrisgd 13y ago
  I just realized that Giga linked to the above article, i responded before RTFA
- DaniFong 13y ago
  There are really a lot of potential legitimate reasons for wanting one partner on your board rather than another; particularly Doerr at KPCB vs Ray Lane, now emeritus. Like I said, politics. I don't know the scoop.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
foobarqux 13y ago
I don't think the fact that KPCB nearly invested in Tesla is a great counterargument that cleantech was a bad industry for VC. Even Tesla barely made it.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Have they made it? I think there's going to be an interesting tug of war between tax credits for green tech and tax credits for what amounts to toys for the wealthy.
- DaniFong 13y ago
  Apple barely made it also; this is a nature of this game. High risks, power returns, winner take most.
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    Right but if your strategy was to invest in computer hardware in the 80s and 90s you presumably did pretty well. If your strategy was to invest in cleantech in the last 5-10 years you probably did pretty poorly. If VCs were able to see today's distribution of cleantech returns without seeing exactly who the winners and losers were I doubt they would have allocated nearly as much capital to that industry as they did. So yes, high risk, high reward. But that means sometimes you get stuffed and in general those who invested heavily in cleantech got stuffed.
    - DaniFong 13y ago
      I'm wondering if this is true, and if so, why? It's the same winner take most dynamics. In most fields, like disk storage, it was extremely competitive and most profits disappeared. VC in general has poor returns for funds outside of the top 10 or 20.
      - foobarqux 13y ago
        It is not the same winner take most dynamic: Most companies in a sector are not competing against one another, often they provide complementary goods and services. Also, small pieces of a big market can still be large. Putting aside the specific example of computer hardware it is clear that industry and sector macro trends exist: Consider the DotCom boom when tech VCs made superlative returns.

chrisgd 13y ago

They didn't get Tesla because Musk wanted Kleiner on the board not the partner who had done all the work. So Tesla took a $70M valuation with a board member they didn't care about rather than a $50M valuation with the board member they did want, which Musk says was a mistake. Still there were other missteps. This article came out a day after this one, which is more in-depth about all the problems they have faced. http://pando.com/2013/12/11/john-doerrs-last-stand-can-a-dramatic-shakeup-save-kleiner-perkins/ http://pando.com/2013/12/11/john-doerrs-last-stand-can-a-dra...

chrisgd 13y ago
I just realized that Giga linked to the above article, i responded before RTFA
DaniFong 13y ago
There are really a lot of potential legitimate reasons for wanting one partner on your board rather than another; particularly Doerr at KPCB vs Ray Lane, now emeritus. Like I said, politics. I don't know the scoop.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

foobarqux 13y ago

I don't think the fact that KPCB nearly invested in Tesla is a great counterargument that cleantech was a bad industry for VC. Even Tesla barely made it.

ams6110 13y ago
Have they made it? I think there's going to be an interesting tug of war between tax credits for green tech and tax credits for what amounts to toys for the wealthy.
DaniFong 13y ago
Apple barely made it also; this is a nature of this game. High risks, power returns, winner take most.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  Right but if your strategy was to invest in computer hardware in the 80s and 90s you presumably did pretty well. If your strategy was to invest in cleantech in the last 5-10 years you probably did pretty poorly. If VCs were able to see today's distribution of cleantech returns without seeing exactly who the winners and losers were I doubt they would have allocated nearly as much capital to that industry as they did. So yes, high risk, high reward. But that means sometimes you get stuffed and in general those who invested heavily in cleantech got stuffed.
  - DaniFong 13y ago
    I'm wondering if this is true, and if so, why? It's the same winner take most dynamics. In most fields, like disk storage, it was extremely competitive and most profits disappeared. VC in general has poor returns for funds outside of the top 10 or 20.
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      It is not the same winner take most dynamic: Most companies in a sector are not competing against one another, often they provide complementary goods and services. Also, small pieces of a big market can still be large. Putting aside the specific example of computer hardware it is clear that industry and sector macro trends exist: Consider the DotCom boom when tech VCs made superlative returns.