I'm not sure if or why this is news? Everywhere you read, VCs say- don't cold call- come through a warm introduction which makes it clear that there are insider groups and people that carry weight. Not necessary that their scout circle has insight into every great idea/company.
I wonder if it would make sense at some point for VCs to make seed investments at infinite valuations -- that is, taking no equity at all -- in order to obtain information rights. Even if there are no follow-on investment rights attached, having insider information on how well a startup is doing must be worth something...<p>(For legal and tax reasons I'm guessing the "infinite" valuation would instead need to merely be astronomically high; the point remains however that in an economic sense they would be buying information rights rather than shares.)
Not sure why WSJ thinks this is exposé-worthy. Just a clever tactic on Sequoia's behalf, probably a good example of why they've been considered top dog in VC for so long.
When a startup receives investment from a VC firm, are all the limited partners in the fund disclosed? If so, how do you know those aren't also shell corporations, etc?
As a former CS50 student and Mark's classmate, I personally find it depressing that Harvard's current CS50 professor, who is widely praised, is secretly on Sequoia's payroll via a shell company so that they can have the inside track on the "next Zuckerberg."<p>If professors want to teach, they should teach. If they want to invest, they should invest. But they shouldn't be doing both without making it clear to students what they've actually signed up for.<p>Actually, all of it is deceptive (to entrepreneurs, to students, to the public, to other investors) and depressing. But that part is particularly disturbing.