Congrats buddy... you gave instrumental advice during every funding round we've raised, and we're better for it.
151 karma · joined January 29, 2010
I definitely agree with the notion "Team first, Idea second". Good ideas are easy; execution is the hard part. Put together a good team, and good ideas will come -- the support for this is the existence of many serial entrepreneurs.
For every candidate they accept in general, they must reject 8 others.
Seems like there is no inherent law preventing a portfolio manager from becoming bigger than any single item in his portfolio.
It's a funny story but we won the competition with this presentation, in part because Shasta Ventures, one of the judges there, happened to actually be funding the company (which they announced 3 days after we pitched it). For the questions regarding the financials, I don't know how closely they match reality but we were told by the judges that we won in part because the numbers were conservative/realistic and were in the same ballpark as their own figures.
Maybe it's more relevant for me because I'm addicted and not competitive.
* Accuracy in pricing shares (and it is important to know the actual value of a company for many reasons)
* Enable market participation. In many illiquid OTC markets, it is all but impossible for anyone outside large institutional players to participate. More trading = lower transaction costs, more transparency, and ability for the little guy (me) to join the action
* Liquidity. And yes, this is very important. It is a common answer because it is a good one
* The same security can be worth different amounts to different people. By definition this precludes it from being zero sum (this statement is of course subject to what school of financial theory you subscribe to)
* Performance measurement. Stock options have gotten a lot of bad press, but compensating a CEO according to lets say, revenue, is much less unbiased and can lead to worse outcomes (e.g., grows business in unattractive segments or over-invests to boost top line)
* Others
The above are in no way MECE and overlap in many ways. Markets can definitely be better, but calling it a zero-sum game or completely value-less to society is a bit too far.
While "Stanford vs. State School" might not be the best argument, the point still holds. It is useful information, and all else being equal the Stanford kid probably has a track record of a harder work ethic. Make a decision solely based upon it? Absolutely not. But it would be poor business sense not to take it into account.
That said, there are many downsides to finance as well and there are many reasons I am forgoing a $400k+ paycheck in PE to move back to SF to start a company where I am paid $0 and will have to live off of a ramen diet. The fact that I am not straight, white, and anglo-saxon however does not play a factor at all (and in fact there are running jokes at many banks and top tier consultancies that the above description puts you in the minority).
Although I don't hold the same view as the commenter, I do always appreciate this type of honesty on the board.
Yeah ok that just plain isn't true. I worked at Goldman Sachs in FIG investment banking, and now at McKinsey and Co in New York as a consultant. While we do have a graphics department that we can call on to help spruce things up, as well as workers in India to help with tasks such as following simple instructions to translate spreadsheets into charts, 95% of the work is done by the bankers/consultants themselves (i.e., me).
In fact, the reason I left Goldman is because as an analyst 80% of your time is spent line editing charts, checking footnotes, and making sure everything is aligned. We even used MS Word with built in macros because Power Point wasn't precise enough. When you're working 110 hrs/week, that's not fun. McKinsey is better but not much different - which is why I'm moving back to SF in 4 weeks to be an entrepreneur.
Same goes for the "I'll hand you over to my colleague" statement. Often times an Engagement Manager who is well versed in the overall project presents for continuity sake (so the audience doesn't get confused by 5 people all chiming in), and questions are directed to the analyst in charge of the section.
Your statement that "religious belief should be an individual thing" is exactly the mindset that I am trying to address. The existence of a God is fact, or not fact. It's either true for everyone, or false for everyone. Saying something is "individual" is healthy only to the point that it does not stop you from actually researching it, and many times the best learning is done in collaboration and reviewing the work of others.
Saying we "agree on 519 of 520 and disagree on 1" is a non-statement. The first person's belief in that 1 by definition precludes his belief in the other 519.
We will spend months stressing about a job or a start-up, which might affect our lives for the subsequent year or two or three, and no more than a few hours here and there really digging into what evidence exists to support an atheist or religious perspective. It's a cycle that sadly continues - 200 years ago everyone was Christian so people defaulted to it. Now, the trendy thing for "intellectuals" is atheism, and so many jump in without a thought (this continues to hold for both sides, as exemplified in the article).
When deciding which direction to take with a start-up we do hours and hours of customer interviews, site visits, market research, brainstorming, reading, and even self-reflection. The same, and more, should be done for religion (e.g., check out a church, speak in a truly unbiased fashion with ardent believers and non-believers alike, grab 20 minutes of a pastors time who has probably dedicated his life to talking to people like us, etc).
There is no topic that gets less thought relative to its importance.
hy·poc·ri·sy [hi-pok-ruh-see] –noun,plural-sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
I don't see how the author misuses the word "hypocrisy" at all. It appears to me that his case relates to #2 above - Jobs pretends to hold an attitude promoting open standards etc. when that is not the real motivation behind his actions at all.