63 Comments

Summary:

Every VC firm has its own way of evaluating potential investments. Remmy Oxley, an anonymous VC, says that Moneyball-style methods are the next step, and reveals his firm’s algorithm for screening candidates.

Screen Shot 2012-12-21 at 1.07.44 AM
photo: Sony Pictures Digital, Inc.

Statistics and big data took over baseball scouting some years ago, with the rise of Moneyball. More recently, those tactics have spread to the political world, with presidential candidates using big data to maximize their vote, and Nate Silver using algorithms to correctly predict outcomes in all 50 states.

Now we’re doing it, too. Instead of relying on the gut instincts, punditry and armchair quarterbacking that VCs are notorious for, our firm is pattern replicating to decide which entrepreneurs to fund.

Here are the components of a secret algorithm I developed that we use to score and rate potential investments with entrepreneurs.

1. We look at (and score) what you read

What content has been uploaded into your cerebral cortex via apps, websites, PDFs, books and other miscellaneous educational all matter to your eventual success outcome.What books have your founder team read and what have you posted in your social media feeds? If they’ve spent time reading Technology Ventures, Gear Up, Four Steps to an Epiphany and tweeting knowledge nuggets – quoting chapter and verse – that could lift their entrepreneurial success score via our proprietary algorithm. Posting to Twitter your snowboarding pictures from Lake Tahoe might say something else.

Chris Sacca has been quoted as saying he goes right to Twitter and reads the last 50 tweets before he even considers taking a meeting. In our new VC algorithm, you can scrape and evaluate multiple social media streams for what founders have read, uploaded, integrated, and executed. Quality is great, but we are really looking for the quantity of entrepreneurial material comprehended.

2. Age of cellphone number and time of first daily phone call

The age of an entrepreneur’s cellphone number reveals so much: their relative stability, how old they are, whether their number was a jettisoned friends-and-family program or an imported landline number. We get the age of cellphone number through a process called cellphone underwriting, which reveals all of the above and more, and which is perfectly legal but secretive enough that I won’t reveal how it works. At the end of the day, we’re looking for entrepreneurs who are young, stable, middle class, and who have the support of family and friends networks — and the age of the cellphone number tells us all those things.

So, I take the approximate age of a founder’s cellphone number and then during due diligence, I get a stat: The average time of their first phone call in the day. If you and your entrepreneur team are making and taking calls at 6:30 a.m PT, you’re probably talking with people back East and there’s a 50-50 shot you’re making north of a million in revenues.

So revealing data like this, that we used to W.A.G. (wild ass guess), we can now find out by using our firm’s make-shift cellphone underwriting API, which hooks in with Verizon and AT&T – the two main carriers of the iPhone. (And by “makeshift API,” I mean have our associate do it manually.)

3. How Othman Laraki are they?

Othman Laraki is a tale that is told inside of the VC community. He sold something big to Twitter. He has degrees from both MIT and Stanford, but also has a ton of street smarts. As an example of his street smarts, he squatted in 2,000 square feet of office space at Stanford’s Engineering building. That duality of street smarts coupled with academic smarts is a critical component of my firm’s algorithm.

A fund that is now underwater used to troll for deals in the basement of the CS lab at Stanford without taking into consideration the street-smart component. They failed to realize that you can’t just replicate what other people already did super long ago — you have to innovate a quarter step. That team of VCs is now begging for LP money in the pay-for-play conference known as “Venture Alpha.” (Spoiler alert: They will not make it to their next fund.)

We don’t talk about the data inputs for this street-smart metric but as a hint: Augie Garrido once said, “Question authority but follow the rules.” We are looking for entrepreneurs who question the status quo and tip-toe the fine line, but still firmly understand rules and existing hierarchies.

4. Stanford University founder team formula

If you reverse engineer the biggest exits, you can see that the whales in every fund’s portfolio had two or three founders from Stanford, with an odd-ball founder from some other school tossed into the mix. YouNoodle released public data on this observation. Our algorithm does not say “just Stanford.” It does say two or three founders from a good school with at least one in the litter that is not exactly like the others – think Cal, NYU, CMU, Illinois or MIT in a pinch.

Recently, Mark Suster, blogged about the phenomenon of overly homogenous founder teams. He argues that if teams are too similar where “all founders even have the same phone,” the founders will likely follow versus lead.

Remmy Oxley is the pseudonym of a Silicon Valley VC. Follow him on Twitter @RemmyOxley. 

  1. Tongue in Cheek, right?

    Share
  2. Age discrimination lawsuit in the making?

    Share
  3. Rolls eyes….this is really secret stuff ;)

    Share
  4. Who would want to work with this guy. Sounds like a real nightmare.

    Share
    1. By my algorithm, I would not work with this VC.

      Share
      1. Ditto

        Share
      2. Dil-Dominé Leonares Tuesday, December 25, 2012

        Same here. Sounds like a douche.

        Share
  5. Can we all be honest here? VC’s ask for way too much compared to what they bring to the table unless you are already a runaway success story.

    Share
  6. Cellphone underwriting? WTF? It’s not April 1 is it?

    If cellphone underwriting really exists and I don’t know what kind of other info you can pull from it, this is such a violation of privacy words can’t explain. And it’s legal? In a NSA sense or the public?

    If this VC actually exists, take his money and keep an eye out for a peeping Tom outside your window analyzing your stroke whilst having sex.

    Share
  7. What a nightmare. #1. Narcissism breeds success and good management skills. #2. Absolutely nonsensical. #3. Duh. #4. Cardinal colored myopia. Nice. Surely this piece is a send up. Pseudonym is a good idea. Hey, get out to Tahoe and go snowboarding.

    Share
  8. What I’d like to know is the profile of such VCs so we know who to avoid. Clearly these folks have no clue about judging the technology/product.

    Share
  9. Jonathan Beekman Sunday, December 23, 2012

    WANTED: ANGEL INVESTOR (212)772-0326
    The Great American Notebook Company Needs an Angel Investor
    to launch a new product line:.
    http://www.smartgrades.com

    Share
  10. Hey Remmy Oxley,

    Fun and informative read, I always did believe the early bird gets the worm.

    Share
    1. rattlesnakerich Saturday, December 29, 2012

      but the second mouse gets the cheese

      Share
  11. This article is incredibly dumb. The 4 reasons 95% of VCs don’t make money.

    Share
  12. Ha ha. For real, you should just use some real stats, ex Bayesian.

    Share
  13. Upstate Entrepreneur Sunday, December 23, 2012

    Yet again we have a VC looking to get attention in
    public. Since this VC is writing anonymously, he’s
    not looking for deal flow or to make money but
    likely and apparently just looking for some
    stimulation of his ego.

    Did someone mention that VCs are arrogant, regard
    themselves as the smartest guys in the room, get ego
    thrills from patronizing, insulting, and
    denigration entrepreneurs, and get more ego thrills
    by getting attention in public from even total BS?

    Right: Only a tiny fraction of all the VCs in the
    US are qualified for a slot as CTO, CIO, software
    development manager, software team leader, software
    architect, advisory programmer, senior programmer,
    or junior level coder. And the VCs rarely have good
    university technical backgrounds, and, instead, a
    major fraction majored in history and got a law
    degree. So, they are not ‘technical’. But they can
    and do drive high end BMWs and live in multi-million
    dollar houses in Silicon Valley and, clearly as in
    this thread, look down on the entrepreneurs living
    on Ramen noodles. Did I mention arrogant egos?

    Of course, they have big egos, but, we have to
    understand, technically they are just totally
    incompetent!

    And, yes, they are technically totally incompetent,
    but, we have to understand, over the past 10 years a
    large fraction of VC funds actually lost money, only
    a small fraction made more than the S&P, as in a
    Mark Suster post over the past 10 years the number
    of US venture partners fell by about 1/3rd, which
    may be worse even than residential housing
    carpenters, and on average the returns of the
    venture ‘asset class’ just sucked.

    Yes, on average their financial returns suck, but,
    we have to understand, nearly none of them have the
    qualifications to be a problem sponsor at DARPA,
    NSF, or NIH.

    And nearly none of them have ever published a
    peer-reviewed paper of original research or are
    qualified to be a tenure track professor of
    business, computer science, electrical engineering,
    or anything having to do with either technology or
    business.

    Yes, they are arrogant, incompetent, insufferable,
    useless, and losers, but otherwise maybe they are
    kind to their pets.

    Here I attempt to drive a stake through the heart of
    this VC nonsense, hopefully once and for all. I
    will explain the main points so that we can all
    understand and, hopefully, see less of this nonsense
    in the future.

    Point 1. Look for the hidden agenda.

    Long ago I heard a piece of advice, “Always look for
    the hidden agenda.” So, the advice was not to take
    too seriously a surface appearance and, instead,
    suspect that somehow there is an attempt to
    manipulate you, fool you, take your money, etc. We
    need only see the movie ‘The Music Man': He was not
    at all concerned about pool tables and instead just
    wanted to manipulate the town into buying stuff for
    a boys band and then take the money and the first
    train out of town. So, we should keep in mind that
    maybe this blog post is not what it appears and,
    instead, has a hidden agenda.

    Point 2. The Media

    When we seen what looks like nonsense in the media,
    as in this blog post, we have to wonder how this
    could be. That is, how can the media continue to
    exist passing out nonsense, blowing their
    credibility, etc.?

    Here’s an explanation: The main role of the media
    is just to get attention from people who are bored
    and want to procrastinate and be entertained and not
    receive solid information or think very much. So,
    only a tiny fraction of the media content is based
    on solid information; the rest is just to get
    attention; being absurd doesn’t much hurt; and the
    ‘credibility’ of the media was lost centuries ago
    and has not mattered much since.

    Point 3. Business

    The venture partners are supposed to be interested
    in building businesses, startups, and helping to
    handle all the really severe, obscure, and tricky
    aspects. Hmm …. Well, about business, we can
    observe: All across the US, coast to coast, big
    cities down to cross road villages, there are what
    we might call Main Street businesses often run by
    sole proprietors with no MBA or LLB degrees. We’re
    talking many millions of such entrepreneurs.

    Next we can observe that at the larger bodies of
    water, say, on the coasts or the Great Lakes, most
    of the yachts of 50′ or so are owned by some of the
    more successful such Main Street entrepreneurs,
    e.g., who might own and be doing a good job managing
    10 fast food restaurants. We will find nearly no
    yachts from anyone who ever took a check from a VC.
    So, we begin to conclude that business is not so
    obscure, and that taking a VC check is not one of
    the main ways to do well in business.

    Of course on the coasts, some of the yachts are
    owned by venture partners. So, they made their
    money based on other people’s money and other
    people’s work?

    Point 4. Dart Throwing

    Suppose we have 20 guys who actually know what they
    are doing and 1 million who are just throwing darts.
    Then we wait five years and look at the 10 most
    successful and see if those 10 knew what they were
    doing or were just throwing darts and got lucky.

    Likely most of the 10 will have just been lucky.

    So, the VC of this blog post is not looking at
    causality of business success or even correlation
    with business success. Instead he is willing to
    look at evidence no better than reading tea leaves.
    Why? Hmm …! Moving on now ….

    Point 5. Human Nature

    There are some points about human nature:

    (A) A single man of 35 successful in business will
    start to want a home and family and look for a wife
    and pay less attention to his business.

    (B) A man successful in business will want to enjoy
    the perks of his high position, that he believes
    that he so greatly deserves due to his rare business
    acumen, begin to work less hard, and hire a lot of
    employees who are eager to please him and do the
    work he used to do.

    (C) A man with a rapidly growing business can easily
    feel securely successful and, finally, less careful
    with money and be willing to take a check for equity
    funding on terms that are for him just an awful
    business deal. He can be like the Bogart character
    in ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’ eager to light
    his cigars with $100 bills.

    (D) Making a lot of money is challenging, but, then,
    keeping that money and not letting it slip through
    the fingers or blowing it on foolish nonsense can be
    comparably challenging.

    Now with these cliche points (A)-(D) on human
    nature, we see that an entrepreneur, well acquainted
    with Ramen noodles, peanut butter and jelly
    sandwiches, and canned beans, who has worked hard
    and has a successful and rapidly growing business
    could be seen as the cliche “A fool with his money
    are soon parted” and a target for a bad business
    deal with someone with a checkbook and a lot of
    vague promises about “deep domain knowledge”, a big
    Rolodex, great help with ‘recruiting’, good
    connections with the tricky investment banking crowd
    and the mysterious IPO market. Maybe they also can
    supply band uniforms.

    So, it may be that some of the venture partners are
    just looking for naive businessmen who can be talked
    into making a bad business deal. To this end, of
    course, the venture partners need to put up a big
    image, much as the Wizard in the 1939 ‘The Wizard of
    Oz’.

    Point 5. The VC Side of the Table

    Where is a venture partner going to look for deals?
    Is he going to concentrate on tiny fraction of
    entrepreneurs who really know what they are doing,
    or are the venture partners just going to wait until
    some entrepreneur, from luck or whatever, happens to
    be doing well and maybe can be talked into making a
    bad business deal and, thus, talked out of much or
    even all of their money? I’ll give you three
    guesses, but you will only need one.

    Point 6. The Entrepreneur’s Side of the Table

    The good approach to success for the entrepreneur
    can be quite different from that of the venture
    partner. E.g., a venture partner might get rich
    from entrepreneurs who were lucky from throwing
    darts although on average the people throwing the
    darts went broke. The people knowing what they were
    doing have the best chances, but they are such a
    small fraction of the entrepreneurs that the venture
    partners can make more money exploiting luck than
    smarts.

    For the entrepreneur, the basic story remains fairly
    simple:

    (A) Business. The work is business, and a good view
    of just what that is is readily available on Main
    Street in nearly any community in the US. The work
    is not a big mystery.

    (B) Information Technology (IT) Entrepreneurship.

    At one time there were big opportunities in animal
    husbandry with horses, sheep, goats, cattle, hogs,
    chickens, rabbits, falcons, etc., working silver,
    gold, copper, and tin, open ocean sailing, printing,
    iron, steel, steam, electricity, gasoline, wireless,
    radio, TV, etc. Now there are big opportunities in
    IT writing software and exploiting the hard/software
    readily available in mobile, desktops, servers, and
    the Internet. Broadly the opportunity is to deliver
    high value from inexpensive automation.

    (C) Computer Science.

    The blog post, in its attention to tea leaves, also
    hinted that a good qualification was a Stanford
    computer science background. Not really: Only a
    small fraction of computer science professors are
    well qualified for software development in an IT
    startup. The professors get paid for research in
    “fundamentals” of ‘computer science’ and have no
    hope of getting good skills with and staying up
    with, say, several thousand Web pages of
    documentation at Microsoft’s Web site on Microsoft’s
    .NET Frameworks 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, ASP.NET, ADO,NET,
    SQL Server, C#, Visual Basic, Visual Studio,
    JavaScript, HTML 5, iPhone and Android programming,
    etc.

    The entrepreneurship does require software
    development, but that doesn’t really require
    computer science.

    (D) The Problem

    Usually the best place to start is with a problem;
    find a problem where a good, new solution is, in
    total, very valuable to customers. So, might
    deliver a little value to each of 1 billion Internet
    users or a lot of value to each a 100 big
    businesses.

    For the problem, computer science may be relevant
    but is not crucial.

    (E) The Solution

    For this high value, have to deliver a solution.
    For this, the computing does the automation, but it
    is still necessary to know what work is being
    automated. Or, an automatic kitchen still needs
    some good recipes to know what to do.

    For the ‘recipe’ part of the solution, computer
    science may be helpful but is not crucial and,
    really, not the most powerful material.

    (F) The Moat

    Buffett mentions a ‘moat’ by which he means a
    barrier to entry to competition. That barrier might
    be special technology difficult to discover,
    duplicate, or equal, F. Wilson’s “large network of
    engaged users”, some patents, a brand name, a
    network effect, or more.

    Those are the main points.

    An advantage is, on the Internet no one knows if you
    are in PJs or are even a dog. That is, the
    interaction with the users and even the advertisers
    is quite simple.

    And the blog post here gave next to nothing on
    (A)-(F).

    Again, people with high promise of success with
    (A)-(F) are so rare that the venture partners mostly
    ignore them and, instead, concentrate just on people
    who have accumulated some value, via luck or
    whatever, and the venture partners don’t care and
    know that they can’t figure it out in advance, and
    might make a bad business deal. So, the venture
    partners can talk about total BS, as in this blog
    post, and still hope to do well from “A fool and his
    money are soon parted.”.

    Share
  14. According to this article, I have a rat’s chance in hell of ever being of interest to a VC.

    1. Over 50 with a really old cell phone number
    2. Female
    3. UC Santa Barbara grad (in education!), no affiliations with Stanford
    4. Tweet about edtech

    I guess I’ll have to make it on my own, yet again.

    Share
    1. What’s your twiiter? I’m @lemino

      Share
  15. I hope his LPs don’t know their money is being invested by an idiot.

    Share
  16. This is the dumbest sh*t I think I have ever read. This is exactly the kind of reach-around jerk off fest I would expect to occur if I put a bunch of fart sniffing MBA’s into a conference room and asked them to come up with a formula to invest in small companies.

    If anyone is looking for one of those red flags that gets thrown showing that something is seriously wrong in technology prior to a massive tech investment bubble explodes – this article is one of them.

    Whats next? Investing based on # of facebook friends, # of linkedin contacts times Klout score + questions answered on Quora?

    Share
  17. Ralph Barbagallo Sunday, December 23, 2012

    Sounds like the kind of scheme hatched after snorting way too much coke off of the boardroom table.

    Share
  18. I expect this kind of article on Techcrunch or Business Insider. GigaOm you are losing my respect.

    Share
  19. If this is how you screen, you’re an idiot.

    Share
  20. Varsha Adusumilli Sunday, December 23, 2012

    Aren’t these methods already there!

    Share
  21. interesting concept but my guess it’s going to take awhile to perfect as how to structure available information about the candidates relevant to the potential of their success

    Share
  22. Michael Sinsheimer Monday, December 24, 2012

    It’s very hard to use a quantitative tool in early-stage investing to predict future success. Certainly, it is possible to use some analytical tools as a screening tool to screen out some prospective investments. There are really no quantitative tools to project how a team is going to perform (diligence helps to gauge this by individual, not team), how an idea is going to be received in the market (focus groups and other market tools may give an indication), how or if competition will develop and how that will impact the idea, etc. As I’ve built my portfolio of early-stage companies, I always get a read on what others think of the technology’s potential for adding value or providing paradigm shift prior to getting involved. With my new effort at Flash Purchase, we are using the lean start-up model to get to product/market fit which will be based on actual results and not some algorithm. The market being the jury is really the best way to know whether you have something or not plus you can assess the team as it gets there.

    Share
  23. Gentlemen (and lady), GiggetyOm dot com got my article wrong in one important way: The last paragraph in my introduction should have read, “Here are the components of a secret algorithm I devalued that we used to score and rate potential investments with entrepreneurs.” Note that GiggetyOm misspelled “devalued” to read “developed” and–far worse–left off the ‘d’ in the word ‘use’. I am in virtual mourning over these egregious errors Giggety made, and my lawyers are viciously on the case from here in Uruguay to force–Force–them to make clear that my article was meant as an instructive on what does NOT work. Dangit. Thank you. -the Poser–I mean “Poster” (damn these autocotrrectors to hell!!…actually, my firm funded that program, too.)

    Share
    1. I got it! The Algorithm described would have put people like my self, and many others (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc…) just stuck out. We all have to start somewhere/somehow. The beginnings of great things usually start from something that can’t be Predicted With Math.

      Share
  24. Why not go all in and use astrological signs while you’re at it?

    Share
  25. This is all total nonsense. The average age of entrepreneurs is middle aged. Many successful entrepreneurs are over 45 when they started on their own.
    Cell phone numbers come an go now for a variety of reasons. People leaving Blackberry for Apple, etc. If you change jobs a few times, you might keep your 212 cell number before your contract ends. then change to a 408 number, etc.
    What people read about entrepreneurship is also silly since 80-95% of the books are out of date or hokum the day they come out. I’d rather an entrepreneur or partner have read classics in fiction and non fiction as well as just generally keeping abreast of the field they are in. The key is a great liberal arts education on its own or while in a science or design program as electives and later as an interest. Here is a great web site that shows how you can be incredibly innovative and read some pretty incredible no business works: http://www.designersandbooks.com/
    As far as the top schools mentioned here, yes, all great and a sort of “filter” before you look at someone. But, there are plenty of other schools out there where a partnership can arise. Ohio State, Maryland, UMBC, etc.
    What is most important is not the past schools but what might seed the *future* entrepreneur partnership. The consensus is that DESIGN is the model moving forward (and I am not talking about engineering design or, the Design MBAs out there – which has little to do with actual design innovation or creativity). Look for one or more partners from design programs (Graphic Design, Industrial Design) found in schools like RISD, Art Center, CCA, MICA, VCU, CMU (yes, they have that too), Yale (MFA GD only), University of the Arts London, and other lesser known but top design programs found around the U.S., in NYC, the UK (where did Ive go?), and the Netherlands.
    Caution: focus should be on Design. Often fine art programs sell themselves as having graduates prepared for design jobs when it was only a BA or BFA in fine art. Look for programs that offer a BFA or MFA with a portfolio admittance and/or review and rigorous sequence of design courses in the major. Resulting in a BFA or MFA in graphic design, web/interactive design, or industrial design.
    Caution also with programs from marketing, advertising, journalism that sell themselves as design. They are not nearly as rigorous as something like a design BFA or MFA from RISD, CMU, VCU, etc.

    Share
    1. Dil-Dominé Leonares Tuesday, December 25, 2012

      I totally agree with your post :)

      Share
  26. This is all total nonsense. The average age of entrepreneurs is middle aged. Many successful entrepreneurs are over 45 when they started on their own.
    Cell phone numbers come an go now for a variety of reasons. People leaving Blackberry for Apple, etc. If you change jobs a few times, you might keep your 212 cell number before your contract ends. then change to a 408 number, etc.
    What people read about entrepreneurship is also silly since 80-95% of the books are out of date or hokum the day they come out. I’d rather an entrepreneur or partner have read classics in fiction and non fiction as well as just generally keeping abreast of the field they are in. The key is a great liberal arts education on its own or while in a science or design program as electives and later as an interest. Here is a great web site that shows how you can be incredibly innovative and read some pretty incredible no business works: http://www.designersandbooks.com/
    As far as the top schools mentioned here, yes, all great and a sort of “filter” before you look at someone. But, there are plenty of other schools out there where a partnership can arise. Ohio State, Maryland, UMBC, etc.
    What is most important is not the past schools but what might seed the *future* entrepreneur partnership. The consensus is that DESIGN is the model moving forward (and I am not talking about engineering design or, the Design MBAs out there – which has little to do with actual design innovation or creativity). Look for one or more partners from design programs (Graphic Design, Industrial Design) found in schools like RISD, Art Center, CCA, MICA, VCU, CMU (yes, they have that too), Yale (MFA GD only), University of the Arts London, and other lesser known but top design programs found around the U.S., in NYC, the UK (where did Ive go?), and the Netherlands.
    Caution: focus should be on Design. Often fine art programs sell themselves as having graduates prepared for design jobs when it was only a BA or BFA in fine art. Look for programs that offer a BFA or MFA with a portfolio admittance and/or review and rigorous sequence of design courses in the major. Resulting in a BFA or MFA in graphic design, web/interactive design, or industrial design.
    Caution also with programs from marketing, advertising, journalism that sell themselves as design. They are not nearly as rigorous as something like a design BFA or MFA from RISD, CMU, VCU, etc.

    Share
  27. And they say Silicon Valley lives in a bubble.

    Share
  28. CarCzarConsulting Monday, December 24, 2012

    Nuts!

    Share
  29. Zain ul abedin Shah Monday, December 24, 2012

    We had A Great Platform For the Entrepreneur In University Nust Islammabad
    the entrepreneur Selected By there Ideas There Presentation Skill And Lot Other .

    Share
  30. This is one of the worst articles i have ever read, and I hope dearly it’s a joke. Utter nonsense. Funny, actually. I feel really bad for any VC who lives this advice. And if I pitched you… my bad.

    Share
  31. I’m amazed that Om Malik would allow this person to write such a post, its easy to see that the author is putting this anon guest post out there as bait to see what type of responses he/she gets (to illicit a reaction). Is GigaOm really this desperate for readers?

    Share
  32. But Santa does exist still right?

    Share
  33. Very interesting and contrarian thoughts compared to what is widely believed as VC investing logic. But it does reinforce one underlying message: “who you are” is more important than “what you are developing”. Not sure if it is a great concept – but exceptions are allowed!

    Share
  34. Well, they sure wouldn’t fund me.

    Share
  35. This is absolutely ridiculous and is a disgrace to the VC community.

    Share
  36. This sounds awfully naive and misguided. You’re straddling between idealism and elitism. I know several accomplished serial entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley who are neither young, Twitter fiends, Facebook users and who didn’t go to Stanford or a “top” school. And no offense to Chris Sacca, but I wouldn’t make any policies around his habits.

    Share
  37. The truth of how ventures is as quirky as this post suggests.

    But it misses one crucial point – true quality always rises. A venture with a great idea and a team capable of executing will win the day – even if they fit the cell phone/ social/ age/ training/ gender algorithm. Creating a business is a leap of faith and by definition algorithms are limited and limiting.

    I am not to be limited by such formulas They are irrelevant.

    Share
  38. This is the dumbest approach I’ve ever heard or seen, but hey, that’s what the top 5 VCs in the valley generate 90% of the returns of the entire asset class, and bozos like this are wht make the asset class negative overall.

    Share
  39. It’s always interesting to get the insights of the other party. You may not like how this VC is thinking, but that is how they are thinking. VCs by perception are meant to take high risks for a chance to get wild profits. But it makes sense to take a calculated risk and each VC is doing its own calculation. I’ve recently attended a talk by one serious American VC, considered seed investors, and he said they were looking for venture with traction, preferably in the hundreds of thousands and up. This is not risky nor is it early. Traction costs money! Where are the bold VCs that would invest in the pre-traction startups?
    So I am not sure what sort of investments this VC is doing, but if after doing their own filtering they make early seed investments in pre traction startups, then at least some startups get that so needed support.
    Older entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs who didn’t study in a top school, who may own an old mobile phone, and might not have the time to read books etc – will simply have to look for a VC that uses a different set of filters.
    Lucky for us ere are still some around…

    Share
  40. Didn’t know that recognizing existing hierarchies was an entrepreneurial attribute. I would imagine that an entrepreneur would want to destroy existing hierarchies.

    Share
  41. The first vetting point presumes a person Tweets everything of substance they read…

    Share
  42. Remmy,

    Very entertaining. However, I lead a company that performs analytics on company workforce groups/jobs/divisions/management and, far be it for a startup CEO to lecture a VC but if the shoe fits… First your data elements are what we would call biased selection, which traditional statistics/analytics methodology says not to do. Clearly you are looking for leading or predictive indicators of future entrepreneurial success but what you have done is, instead of building a predictive algorithm. You have quantified, to use a phrase from “Moneyball”, ‘the player who has the ugly girlfriend’, therefore they have no confidence, therefore they are not a good draft pick. You are doing the same with #1, #2, #3 (#4 has validity but that is not new). Selecting only data that supports gut belief and conventional/experiential wisdom sounds good but you have lost before you started. With such a model you will find what you have always found and get what you always got, because you have not opened up the analysis to new possibilities. By the way, the phone data could be good if used properly and first call is not it. Rather track total calls, the time span during the day from first to last call and the geography of all calls. This could be further enhanced with zip code or geo-metro data in the US but also globally and when combined with social media (twitter postings, blogs etc.) and email activity, reveal a much larger picture of total activitiy i.e. productivity. Then add weekend and holiday activity and stir and you just might find some really interesting stuff. By the way, just to validate, wouldn’t your model exclude Steve Jobs, (didn’t read the right books), Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg (dropped out of school) as well as all late night inventors/workers etc.. Better luck with your next model algorithm.

    Jeff

    Share
  43. The most useful nugget of information in this article, is that I know have a new TLA in my lexicon: WAG (which is probably what they do anyhow)

    Share
  44. Snooping on people’s cell phone data – infringement of privacy lawsuit in the making? Why not go the whole hog and just trawl through their garbage??

    Share
  45. Cell phone data = infringement of privacy lawsuit? Why not just go through the trash too???

    Share
  46. How about a wiff of douchiness ?

    Share
  47. Let’s be honest kids, those with the money make the rules in this game. And as one of a group of four who took VC money many years ago (in the late ’90s), we quickly learned that the game changes constantly, rules are re-written and if you take money from these people, be prepared to sell your first born, and in our case, sell out your team. At the end of the day, there were two of the original four left standing (I guess you could say I was one of the fortunate two – on which side of the equation I’m not saying), but needless to say it was a messy bloodbath. The top tier VC brought in a new team and it got even messier and nastier from there. There was a sweet exit for all of us which pretty much has us all set for life, but would I do it again – knowing what I now know? Not so sure, after watching people I thought were ethical and spoke about values like integrity, throw their values down the crapper (love that word – pretty much sums it up) just in the name of money. You want to take VC money? Just be prepared to live with the consequences.

    Share
  48. What algorithm was used by Wall Street? hmmm……..Sounds like these people are the same people that need a decision tree in order to decide if they should go to the restroom.

    Share
  49. With spy drones that start at $99 and are military grade. It will be interesting how we can repurpose this tech to help those with disabilities to view locations around the house with a computer. This is a great advancement in security. http://igg.me/p/268456/x/1289609

    Share
  50. With handheld sized drones that start at $99 and are military grade. It will be interesting how we can repurpose this tech to help those with disabilities to view locations around the house with a computer. This is a great advancement in security. http://igg.me/p/268456/x/1289609

    Share
  51. I wonder how Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas Edison ever managed to get off the ground without a cell phone or without an electric lamp? Did either of these geniuses go to university, or college? Had they had either tool, or graduated from the best universities, would they have done so? Would they have succeeded in today’s world? Are modern electronic tools absolutely essential to entrepreneurship today? Isn’t the key to entrepreneurship, innovation, and isn’t it founded on invention, and isn’t it, in turn, founded on a vision of what is not, but could be? Again, what about Jobs and Gates, to what extent did they succeed because of Angels or VCs, having dropped out of college and begun their business adventures in garages? How much energy and time should an entrepreneur invest in these helpers?

    Share
  52. Lame observations, social metric investing gets Tea Cup drippy returns. The fellow ought to go back to school and learn more about VALUE and not the age of one’s phone number, nor the school one went to, as claimed investment litmus test criteria.

    Share
  53. Andrew Shannon Tuesday, January 1, 2013

    Of the 59 comments, it seems like 90% are negative – which surprises me. Bringing quantifiable metrics into the VC equation isn’t necessarily bad, this anonymous guy didn’t say these were the exclusive basis for his decisions… just data points his firm uses. Besides, evaluating an entrepreneur’s street smarts, extrapolating what they read, and finding complementary teams isn’t novel – he’s just describing the fund’s methodology for doing so. I’ll admit, the cell phone is fishy at best – but seriously… not bad enough for the flack being dished.

    Share
  54. Wish I had not read it now….

    Share
  55. The author broke his own rule: (from his twitter) ‘never go full douchebag.’

    Share
  56. Anthony Decena Tuesday, March 19, 2013

    So if you’re up at 6am talking with people back east, there is a 50-50 chance that your revenue is on the high side of a million? That has to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post