3 ms·

Who said anything about funding new companies? We're talking about leverage and wealth generation. Big AUM means bigger fees. Non-VC funds like hedge funds and

by dpcheng2003 13y ago

Who said anything about funding new companies? We're talking about leverage and wealth generation. Big AUM means bigger fees. Non-VC funds like hedge funds and private equity are incentivized to have huge funds because they get the fees. Since most of their work is financial engineering, more AUM means more leverage and is an advantage. Large VC funds are disadvantaged because they're investing in growth. A 20x return off a $5M investment is more common than a 20x return off a $100M investment. I don't think it helps either community to pit one against the other. Finance and tech are different and serve different purposes and let's leave it at that.

argumentum 13y ago
If "AUM" is so crucial to power, why does the market value BlackRock at less than a third of Facebook? AUM is debt .. so its value depends on what is being done with it. To what extent that these assets can be used for "financial engineering"? They seem rather illiquid to me (and apparently the market, which feels that BlackRock's 11k employees and $4.2 trillion generate less than a third as much wealth as Facebook's 6k employees and $18 billion in total assets "under management"). And how is funding successful new companies not wealth generation? Y-Combinator has invested a total of ~$10m invested for approx a 5% share of ~500 new companies with a valuation greater than $20b and growing. It's annualized RoR is north of 50% for nearly a decade, and likely to increase henceforth. By contrast, Berkshire Hathaway grew at ~20% for ~50 years. I predict YC will blow those numbers out of the water.
- dpcheng2003 13y ago
  What are we discussing? Who has more power? I'm really confused by your argument because I don't think we're arguing the same points. Can we get back to my original response to the original post: 1. Is finance irrelevant to tech as the OP suggests. I think we can both agree that it is NOT irrelevant although we can both agree its importance (as a % of GDP and in society) has diminished. 2. Does Icahn have LEGAL legitimacy for his claims. I think we both agree that there is some legitimacy, even if we don't believe in it. 3. What is the desire to pit tech vs. finance coming from? Why can't both co-exist? Who values Facebook? Investors who make money off it. By the way, if you think YC is going to beat Berkshire Hathaway in terms of net IRR during a comparable time-frame, you're either trolling or have a limited history of venture and angel investing. Furthermore, it's worth noting that Berkshire is doing this at a much larger base, which makes Buffet's IRR that much more impressive.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    I was responding to your response to someone else, maybe that's the source of confusion. 1 & 2, pretty much agree (as you suggested). 3. It isn't my aim to pit (or not to pit) these industries against each other. These are merely my observations and opinions about the direction that things are headed. My prediction about YC/BH is entirely consistent with everything else I've written in this thread. I absolutely stand behind this prediction (with the force of all my (acknowledged) insignificance). Why would I make such a bold claim? 1. Berkshire Hathaway / Warren Buffet are symbolic of and exemplify all that was right with finance in the 19XXs and why "moving money" was so important for wealth generation in that century. I hold them in extremely high regard (as people should, in my opinion). 2. Similarly, Y-Combinator exemplifies the best of tech startup investing so far this century. 3. While (clearly) very different in many ways, both organizations are easily mistaken to be mere investors when they add a lot more value than just money. It would be just as much a mistake to view YC as a venture or angel investor as it would be to see BH as a "private equity firm". 4. This ~century is going to be fundamentally different than the last. What "value investing" was in the 19XXs is what "black swan farming"* is going to be to the 20XXs. Just as BH defined value investing, YC has defined, and will continue to define black swan farming. 5. I could go on, but I have to get to bed. * http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

argumentum 13y ago

If "AUM" is so crucial to power, why does the market value BlackRock at less than a third of Facebook? AUM is debt .. so its value depends on what is being done with it. To what extent that these assets can be used for "financial engineering"? They seem rather illiquid to me (and apparently the market, which feels that BlackRock's 11k employees and $4.2 trillion generate less than a third as much wealth as Facebook's 6k employees and $18 billion in total assets "under management"). And how is funding successful new companies not wealth generation? Y-Combinator has invested a total of ~$10m invested for approx a 5% share of ~500 new companies with a valuation greater than $20b and growing. It's annualized RoR is north of 50% for nearly a decade, and likely to increase henceforth. By contrast, Berkshire Hathaway grew at ~20% for ~50 years. I predict YC will blow those numbers out of the water.

dpcheng2003 13y ago
What are we discussing? Who has more power? I'm really confused by your argument because I don't think we're arguing the same points. Can we get back to my original response to the original post: 1. Is finance irrelevant to tech as the OP suggests. I think we can both agree that it is NOT irrelevant although we can both agree its importance (as a % of GDP and in society) has diminished. 2. Does Icahn have LEGAL legitimacy for his claims. I think we both agree that there is some legitimacy, even if we don't believe in it. 3. What is the desire to pit tech vs. finance coming from? Why can't both co-exist? Who values Facebook? Investors who make money off it. By the way, if you think YC is going to beat Berkshire Hathaway in terms of net IRR during a comparable time-frame, you're either trolling or have a limited history of venture and angel investing. Furthermore, it's worth noting that Berkshire is doing this at a much larger base, which makes Buffet's IRR that much more impressive.
- argumentum 13y ago
  I was responding to your response to someone else, maybe that's the source of confusion. 1 & 2, pretty much agree (as you suggested). 3. It isn't my aim to pit (or not to pit) these industries against each other. These are merely my observations and opinions about the direction that things are headed. My prediction about YC/BH is entirely consistent with everything else I've written in this thread. I absolutely stand behind this prediction (with the force of all my (acknowledged) insignificance). Why would I make such a bold claim? 1. Berkshire Hathaway / Warren Buffet are symbolic of and exemplify all that was right with finance in the 19XXs and why "moving money" was so important for wealth generation in that century. I hold them in extremely high regard (as people should, in my opinion). 2. Similarly, Y-Combinator exemplifies the best of tech startup investing so far this century. 3. While (clearly) very different in many ways, both organizations are easily mistaken to be mere investors when they add a lot more value than just money. It would be just as much a mistake to view YC as a venture or angel investor as it would be to see BH as a "private equity firm". 4. This ~century is going to be fundamentally different than the last. What "value investing" was in the 19XXs is what "black swan farming"* is going to be to the 20XXs. Just as BH defined value investing, YC has defined, and will continue to define black swan farming. 5. I could go on, but I have to get to bed. * http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]