TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

There are no (absolute) red flags in venture capital

87 点作者 mlchild大约 2 年前

9 条评论

OnlineGladiator大约 2 年前
&gt; Remember: Red flags are very rarely outright fraud, and when they are, it’s often obvious only in hindsight...Look at Enron! Look at Madoff!<p>The author&#x27;s two examples of obvious fraud were called out by many people as fraudulent years before it became public knowledge. It&#x27;s possible to do your own research and conclude the zeitgeist is wrong before it becomes common knowledge. It would make the argument stronger to come up with examples where there weren&#x27;t numerous experts screaming fraud for years.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;2010&#x2F;mar&#x2F;24&#x2F;bernard-madoff-whistleblower-harry-markopolos" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;2010&#x2F;mar&#x2F;24&#x2F;bernard-mad...</a>
评论 #34903393 未加载
评论 #34899970 未加载
评论 #34899954 未加载
robocat大约 2 年前
The biggest red flag is that both VCs and founders are required to be highly irrational at their core.<p>Founders are gamblers, betting they will be the one to win against the odds. Most companies fail, and the expected returns are approximately zero, with all the average returns coming from few winners. Founders that take VC money are multiplying their risk by giving away preferential shares (founder gets approximately zero if business is just mildly successful), founder radically increasing the pressure upon themselves, and if you need VC money you are usually <i>by definition</i> in a highly competitive market where growth-rate wins the market.<p>VCs are irrational because the vast majority of VC funds fail to beat the market. Fund managers do OK from their 2% fees, but a majority of VCs will not make excessive money (while some minority do make a lot). <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;06&#x2F;01&#x2F;the-meeting-that-showed-me-the-truth-about-vcs&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;06&#x2F;01&#x2F;the-meeting-that-showed-me...</a> references slide 14[2] that shows 2% of VC funds (the top 20) rake in 95% of market returns: VC fund returns are nearly as skewed power law as founder returns are!<p>Power laws of returns truely suck for the majority. Think iPhone games.<p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.slideshare.net&#x2F;gilbenartzy&#x2F;money-talks-things-you-learn-after-77-investment-rounds" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.slideshare.net&#x2F;gilbenartzy&#x2F;money-talks-things-yo...</a>
GCA10大约 2 年前
This essay becomes more fun -- and more useful -- if we apply OP&#x27;s standards to other areas of trust and risk. For example:<p>- Are there no absolute red flags in online dating? (Some ex-convicts with teardrop tattoos may be fully reformed.)<p>- Are there no absolute red flags in getting into a taxi (Some angry drivers with alcohol on their breath may be capable of getting to the destination.)<p>In such situations, the thought experiment fails. Wrong decisions can be catastrophic or fatal. Past a certain point, we don&#x27;t roll the dice, even if good outcomes are possible, too. And we cringe when others knowingly take those risks.<p>OP&#x27;s argument probably works best for Y Combinator, where the financial risk per deal is small and fully bounded. (The portfolio is vast; there&#x27;s no implicit commitment to fund any deal beyond $500k, and everything is so early stage that the worst investments will likely fail quietly. They won&#x27;t become the reputation-ruining messes of expose journalism, indictments, etc. that will impair your ability to stay in the venture business.)<p>For larger VC firms, particularly ones that get most of their capital from scandal-wary limited partners at universities or state retirement orgs, it&#x27;s a different story. Extreme investment outcomes (good or bad) define your reputation in ways that can last for many years. Even a single deal&#x27;s red-flag implosion can hurt your credibility far longer than you&#x27;d like.<p>So, bravo to OP for working at a firm where periodic red flags can be safely ignored. Do be careful in your choice of taxi drivers or online dates.
评论 #34900957 未加载
xg15大约 2 年前
Well yes, the facts that the support structure for the proposed bridge would be mostly made of rusty scrap metal and zip ties and that the engineering team consists solely of Bob who has watched a YouTube video on bridge building once (but has a very good memory) absolutely do constitute red flags.<p>However, for an investor, a red flag is first and foremost just a piece of information. To make use of it, he must put it into a proper, objective context: Such as that we readily accept bridges made out of wood and ropes on our playgrounds - or that model railroad enthusiasts successfully used cardboard as a bridge-building material for decades.<p>Then the information must be weighed against expected rewards and mitigating factors, like the expected toll revenue before collapse or the fact that the location is close to the Mexican border, so everyone affected can quickly leave the country, should the need arise.<p>Only after carefully weighting all those pieces of information can an investor make an informed decision.
评论 #34911474 未加载
notahacker大约 2 年前
There are some valuable points in there, but the &quot;if the product is selling and the company is making money, how much of a problem could it be&quot; in an article which references FTX and could have referenced Theranos sounds like Gordon Gecko style parody of the industry...
hd95489大约 2 年前
“ No sane person is going to invest in a scheme to turn lead into gold, but early-stage startups—and even some mid- and late-stage startups—rarely present such a clear-cut profile”<p>Why not? If the founder is sufficiently charismatic, huge followers and lots of suckers willing to pile in. Sure the odds of a real product are zero but odds of a 100x exit are non zero. It may be a decent enough investment dispite being outright fraud. If you think you are in early enough in the scam and you can get out.
评论 #34907430 未加载
nathan_compton大约 2 年前
This is a great example of what I think of as the &quot;thought leader&quot; style of Hackernews blog posts in which someone says something extremely obvious and at great length while taking pains to make it seems like its deep and insightful, even slyly subversive.<p>What does this post really say beyond &quot;gee, there sure are a lot of different ways to think about investment in a company?&quot;
addHoax大约 2 年前
The red flag inherent to venture capital is venture capital.<p>Society recently felt government accountable to the range and gradient of human conditions was immoral so it changed the rules to let private power pick and choose and private power is pricing everyone out of homes and food, which is apparently quite moral.<p>Nevermind the state of reality we leave behind for the future; we’ll be dead. Those old religious metaphors about hell on Earth must be made so! Buy cars! Fly! We were promised this! Again the epitome of moral behavior.<p>Humans fairy tales run the world.
评论 #34900647 未加载
评论 #34902117 未加载
评论 #34900409 未加载
评论 #34900189 未加载
评论 #34899779 未加载
评论 #34899781 未加载
kh3dron大约 2 年前
This article says absolutely nothing of substance. It takes no side and makes no argument. &quot;some things look like red flags. maybe that&#x27;s ok. maybe it&#x27;s not. someone, somewhere, will figure it out eventually.&quot; Paul Graham&#x27;s blog and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
评论 #34902026 未加载