Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: re: IEEE SPectrum Opinion: Speakout: An Engineer's view of VCs
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 02:14:43 -0400
Reply-To: <revers () evers org> From: "Ridgely C. Evers" <revers () evers org> To: <farber () cis upenn edu> Dave, Sorry to innundate you, but this one caught my eye as well. I've worked with venture capitalists for almost 20 years, and have come to believe that the traditional venture capital industry is profoundly broken. There's always been a structural problem, to wit, the *customer* of the venture industry is the investor, not the entrepreneur (despite all the assertions to the contrary on every VC's web site). Entrepreneurs are suppliers to the venture firms, and we all know how well companies tend to treat their suppliers! VCs make money in two ways: on the "carry" -- their share of their investors' profits -- and on the management fee -- an amount they get for simply having a pulse. In recent years, the fund sizes have gotten larger and larger, to the point where, according to an article in the WSJ about 18 months ago, the average partner in a Sand Hill Road venture capital firm was taking home $3 million a year just in management fees. That, per se, is not a problem. What *is* a problem is the ability of venture capitalists to actually help in building a business; the people involved have less and less real-world business-building experience. It reminds me of a sign that used to hang in H+E German Cars, the original BMW dealer in Palo Alto, back in the 60's: Shop Rate: $25/hr If you watch: $35/hr If you help: $50/hr What's starting to happen, though, is a classic example of the free market at work. New, smaller venture firms are cropping up, started and run by people who have had career experience that is of real value to their portfolio companies. Here's an analogy that may help explain why this is so important. Think of a young company as an airplane, with the management sitting in the pilot's seat and the investors sitting in the copilot's seat. As long as the plane is "straight and level" everything is fine. But if the plane runs into trouble, whether mechanical (internal) or weather (external), the copilot is likely to try to grab the wheel and "help." If the copilot knows how to fly, great. But if not, then the pilot's problem is compounded -- potentially fatally. Similar problems can arise if the pilot and copilot have different opinions as to the destination. To be sure, there are some great VCs out there who have been adding real value for years. (I've had the privilege of working with several.) But my advice to entrepreneurs is to be as thoughtful about where they get their capital as they are about every other aspect of their business. Best, --Ridge ___________________________________________________ Ridgely C. Evers revers () ncircle com nCircle Network Security www.ncircle.com ___________________________________________________ --Ridge -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com [mailto:owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com]On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 2:50 PM To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com Subject: IP: re: IEEE SPectrum Opinion: Speakout: An Engineer's view of VCsDate: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 14:47:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Marc Hedlund <marc () precipice org> Dave, [Feel free to forward to IP if you want.]An Engineer's View of Venture Capitalists http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/sep01/speak.htmlThe remedies this article proposes seem to me not to change anything. Angel investing, while obviously excellent for getting a company started, is simply a step on the road to venture investment (as the article says itself). A public VC fund would be obligated to maximize return for its investors, so it would *have* to use all the same tactics VC's use today or face shareholder lawsuits. This is like saying, the buyers of our product aren't agreeing to prices we like, so let's create fake buyers that will pay more. This makes no sense economically, and does nothing to change the long-term efficiency of the market. It seems to me that there are better ways to change the power balance than trying to match the VC's dollar for dollar, which is not realistic. The most obvious possibility to me would be to try to create a engineer's information network that allows engineers to share deal information in the same way VC's do (a process the article describes under the heading "VCs collude"). If engineers want to effect change, they should instead try to create a more efficient marketplace for engineering effort by ameliorating the imbalance of information sharing. A VentureWire for nerds. Marc Hedlund e: marc at precipice dot orgFor archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
Current thread:
- IP: re: IEEE SPectrum Opinion: Speakout: An Engineer's view of VCs David Farber (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- IP: re: IEEE SPectrum Opinion: Speakout: An Engineer's view of VCs David Farber (Sep 02)