<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sevin Rosen Unfunds - why?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/</link>
	<description>The Business of Technology</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eric Jackson</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67775</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Jackson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:04:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67775</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;With this announcement and CRV's move into angel investing this week, all signs are pointing to a definite shift in the traditional VC model.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As with any shift, there are likely to be winners and losers:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Winners: &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The bluest of "blue-chip" VCs. The Sequoias and KPCBs of the world shine brighter when the maddening crowd is rushing to chase the latest trend of VC investing. They've been there and done that time-and-again.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Existing Angel Investors who have a track-record. When a space gets hot (i.e., angel investing), those who have been there for a while are the old wise men. Josh Kopelman, Jeff Clavier, and others will see a rise for their services even as others rush in. There will be a flight to quality. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Traditional VCs who are able to make the leap and really differentiate from other angel investors. Although CRV is a great firm, their success is not guaranteed. They need dealflow; their GPs needs to be seen as credible by non-nascent entrepreneurs; and they really need to be able to deliver value to their investments (beyond the simple "we love to roll up our shirtsleeves alongside our investee companies" platitudes).&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;2nd and 3rd Time Entrepreneurs: They're even more sought after following this news than they were before. We are heading for a Hollywood-type star system where Bill Nguyen announces his idea for his next start-up at lunch and the deal is done by dinner. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Losers:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Stuck-in-the-middle VCs: Those VCs who do a little bit of angel investing and a little bit of traditional are likely to do neither well.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Former Great VCs who don't adapt to changing times: Remember when Softbank was king of the hill? Hot VCs who have yet to reach the echelon of Sequoia and KPCB are not assured of long-term success. They are also likely to stick-to-what-they-(think-they-)know-best. Dangerous, when the rules of the game are changing&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Later-stage/Mezzanine Investors: They just got even less relevant.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Eric&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;http://breakoutperformance.blogspot.com/2006/11/are-angels-new-vcs.html&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With this announcement and CRV&#8217;s move into angel investing this week, all signs are pointing to a definite shift in the traditional VC model.</p>
<p>As with any shift, there are likely to be winners and losers:</p>
<p>Winners: </p>
<ul>
<li>The bluest of &#8220;blue-chip&#8221; VCs. The Sequoias and KPCBs of the world shine brighter when the maddening crowd is rushing to chase the latest trend of VC investing. They&#8217;ve been there and done that time-and-again.</li>
<li>Existing Angel Investors who have a track-record. When a space gets hot (i.e., angel investing), those who have been there for a while are the old wise men. Josh Kopelman, Jeff Clavier, and others will see a rise for their services even as others rush in. There will be a flight to quality. </li>
<li>Traditional VCs who are able to make the leap and really differentiate from other angel investors. Although CRV is a great firm, their success is not guaranteed. They need dealflow; their GPs needs to be seen as credible by non-nascent entrepreneurs; and they really need to be able to deliver value to their investments (beyond the simple &#8220;we love to roll up our shirtsleeves alongside our investee companies&#8221; platitudes).</li>
<li>2nd and 3rd Time Entrepreneurs: They&#8217;re even more sought after following this news than they were before. We are heading for a Hollywood-type star system where Bill Nguyen announces his idea for his next start-up at lunch and the deal is done by dinner. </li>
</ul>
<p>Losers:</p>
<ul>
<li>Stuck-in-the-middle VCs: Those VCs who do a little bit of angel investing and a little bit of traditional are likely to do neither well.</li>
<li>Former Great VCs who don&#8217;t adapt to changing times: Remember when Softbank was king of the hill? Hot VCs who have yet to reach the echelon of Sequoia and KPCB are not assured of long-term success. They are also likely to stick-to-what-they-(think-they-)know-best. Dangerous, when the rules of the game are changing</li>
<li>Later-stage/Mezzanine Investors: They just got even less relevant.</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Eric</p>
<p> (<a href="http://breakoutperformance.blogspot.com/2006/11/are-angels-new-vcs.html" rel="nofollow">link</a>) </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexander Muse</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67774</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexander Muse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:16:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67774</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Looks like Sevin Rosen might have tried to pull a snow job over on the NYT.  Dan Primack is writing about it:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;http://texasvc.weblogswork.com/2006/10/14/dallas-vc-caught-in-snow-job/&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like Sevin Rosen might have tried to pull a snow job over on the NYT.  Dan Primack is writing about it:</p>
<p> (<a href="http://texasvc.weblogswork.com/2006/10/14/dallas-vc-caught-in-snow-job/" rel="nofollow">link</a>) </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JPM</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67773</link>
		<dc:creator>JPM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67773</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Maybe its time to realize that PE is not just about bailing out thru either trade sale or IPO routes&#8230; Smart Capital is the proper terminology for PE investments&#8230; you dont just get capital for expansion, growth&#8230; you get it along with a bunch of smart people (no matter how dumb they are!)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe its time to realize that PE is not just about bailing out thru either trade sale or IPO routes&#8230; Smart Capital is the proper terminology for PE investments&#8230; you dont just get capital for expansion, growth&#8230; you get it along with a bunch of smart people (no matter how dumb they are!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Prashant</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67772</link>
		<dc:creator>Prashant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67772</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;you know something ? have you heard of Greater fool Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory&lt;em&gt;of&lt;/em&gt;the&lt;em&gt;greater&lt;/em&gt;fool) .
with all the due respect to out going veteran i would like to say that one reason for this over heating is the Trend of Exit by sell of not by revenue or IPO and reliability on advertisement as a de facto revenue stream .&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;it seems World has run out of Enough fools . having an unregulated institution only Equity Exchange for pre IPO company can be a solution : )
essentially thats what being done here only under the veil&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you know something ? have you heard of Greater fool Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory<em>of</em>the<em>greater</em>fool) .<br />
with all the due respect to out going veteran i would like to say that one reason for this over heating is the Trend of Exit by sell of not by revenue or IPO and reliability on advertisement as a de facto revenue stream .</p>
<p>it seems World has run out of Enough fools . having an unregulated institution only Equity Exchange for pre IPO company can be a solution : )<br />
essentially thats what being done here only under the veil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 10012</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67771</link>
		<dc:creator>10012</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/sevin-rosen-unfunds-why/#comment-67771</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen! nice to blame the model. ironic this comes out while they've been trying to raise a fund for the last 6 months&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if you can&#8217;t take the heat get out of the kitchen! nice to blame the model. ironic this comes out while they&#8217;ve been trying to raise a fund for the last 6 months</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
