Comments on: The Midas List? Yeah, sure, & I’m Brad Pitt

By: Gareth Wong

Gareth Wong — Mon, 07 May 2012 00:34:48 +0000

I can understand fully.. for list as such, IMHO, the creator need to take full ownership, and really be part of the ‘system’ to be able to ‘make the call’ and make and defend the list.. most employee would not be able to do it.. (for those that could, would probably decide to start his/her own list)..

being able to ‘stay’ the course, and work with others is not a Tech issue, I asked similar question to Lord Green (ex Chairman of HSBC) regarding regulations in the financial sector worldwide… interesting to hear how he skillfully answered the question: http://garethcxo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/must-watch-lord-stephen-greens-lecture.html

doing such a list is a thankless task.. but a brilliantly intellectually challenging but maybe rewarding one (a potential career) for some.. ;-)

@GarethWong

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Sun, 06 May 2012 22:54:59 +0000

Not sure I want to make another list here, Gareth :-) I would like to see Forbes get more serious about this list and actually do more in-depth reporting to make this is a good list, just as it used to be.

By: gareth wong

gareth wong — Sun, 06 May 2012 19:39:21 +0000

:) very insightful, any solution? Annual om deal maker list!?

Like ex forbes china rich list rupert founded & run his own hurun list..

Hard work though!?

@GarethWong

By: Bruce Upbin

Bruce Upbin — Fri, 04 May 2012 20:07:15 +0000

Hi Om,
Thanks for taking the time to read through the Midas List and the methodology. It’s an imperfect list and always was, just like the 400 and the Billionaires lists are imperfect, incomplete and always were. But I don’t think you can argue it’s bullshit, weak or deeply flawed. I asked a dozen or so VCs what they thought about the old list and they mostly laughed at what happened to it over time. They gave us some good advice which we aggregated into a new approach with TrueBridge. The flaws in years past (even the years you worked at Forbes.com) were that the methodology was overcomplicated, suffered from false precision and had the appearance of being under the influence of the whims of an editor. So we took a cleaner, more purely data-driven approach this time around built around the only clean data we had: exits and who got in when. The biggest flaw is that we don’t know what pre- or post-money valuations are for enough rounds to make cost basis a consistent data point. It would be awesome if we had that confirmed for each deal. Do you want to work on that with us next year? We could spend all year just investigating cost bases for 100s of deals..and would the list look that much different? I doubt it.

The methodology gives Fred Wilson credit for being early in his start-ups. The amount we give VCs for their exits is discounted higher the later they get in. So Fred gets more for his buck in Twitter than KPCB does. Doerr is higher for other reasons than Twitter.

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Fri, 04 May 2012 18:00:13 +0000

Point well made. I chalk it to lack of sleep more than anything else.

By: d

Fri, 04 May 2012 17:21:41 +0000

Fine, it was a joke that went over my head. You could’ve said that the first time instead of asking “where does in the story does it say I don’t know John Doerr”

FWIW Doerr is an early investor in Twitter and Square and is on the board of Groupon. He’s also done a lot of life science investing that gets less attention.

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Fri, 04 May 2012 17:18:17 +0000

This is a manner of speaking. Trying reading it as if you were speaking… it is being ironic.

By: d

Fri, 04 May 2012 17:01:26 +0000

I quote from the article:

” I don’t know, say, John Doerr, for example, who is ranked at the #12 spot.”

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Fri, 04 May 2012 16:46:04 +0000

Actually “D” where does in the story does it say I don’t know John Doerr. And no, he doesn’t keep a low profile. I think now Marc does a better job in the PR business.

The point is that he hasn’t had a high-return investment like Netscape in a long long time and to put him ahead of investors who have a track record that is better than him since “2007″ the cut off date by Forbes.

By: d

Fri, 04 May 2012 16:23:20 +0000

You seriously don’t know who John Doerr is? He keeps a low profile, but he’s one of the most successful VCs of the last 30 years. Ask Marc Andreesen about him – Doerr invested in Netscape.