Root for the Uber IPO to Fail(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Root for the Uber IPO to Fail
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/uber-ipo.html
7 comments
tl;dr Cut off my nose to spite my face
The NYT paywall seems to have gotten more stringent. Guess I'll pass: I already subscribe to the local paper, the Washington Post and The Economist.
I usually just enable reader mode and refresh — seems to still work for this article.
Then you should root for their secondary public offerings to fail.
uBlock Origin + Javascript blocker works for me.
.
I don't see how this opinion piece is 'anit-big-tech', it's anti smoke and mirrors.
> Finally, the venture capital world will become even more clubby. That clubbiness has its virtues: strong networks of successful investors and entrepreneurs help ensure that the best opportunities are funded.
Does it? I can't think of many things less meritocratic than not being able to fund your idea because you don't happen to know any millionaires. How exactly do we know that these networks aren't letting the best opportunities fall through the cracks?
Does it? I can't think of many things less meritocratic than not being able to fund your idea because you don't happen to know any millionaires. How exactly do we know that these networks aren't letting the best opportunities fall through the cracks?
Having a good idea is only one piece of the puzzle. You need to be able to recruit talented employees and advisors. If someone is unable to network so that they can get access to these "millionaires" that's a pretty strong signal that they will probably be bad at recruiting talented employees and advisors.
Basically, the lack of a network that includes millionaires that could fund their idea is a signal telling me to be cautious about investing in someone and their idea.
Basically, the lack of a network that includes millionaires that could fund their idea is a signal telling me to be cautious about investing in someone and their idea.
Or since venture capitalist love to “pattern match”, it could be just a sign that you aren’t a person who “looks like” other entrepreneurs.
Are talented employees and advisors mostly people who have gotten rich from IPOs and acquisitions? Or is it possible that there talented people entirely shut off (or shut out) from the world of startups and venture capital?
This also predictably entrenches existing imbalances. Consider for example that 70% of VCs are white [1], and that three quarters of white people don't have any black friends [2]. That's over half of VCs that are significantly less accessible to black founders, simply because so much investment happens via this "club".
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/14971/who-are-venture-capital...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/25/three...
This also predictably entrenches existing imbalances. Consider for example that 70% of VCs are white [1], and that three quarters of white people don't have any black friends [2]. That's over half of VCs that are significantly less accessible to black founders, simply because so much investment happens via this "club".
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/14971/who-are-venture-capital...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/25/three...
> three quarters of white people don't have any black friends
Kind of an irrelevant statistic in this context. Where do these 3/4 of white people live? Do they live in places where there are few or no black people?
What's the statistic for white people who live in San Francisco, San Mateo and Alameda? (These are the three counties where most software engineers in the SF Bay Area live)
> That's over half of VCs that are significantly less accessible to black founders
Which black founders? All of them? Just the ones that live in these three counties?
Being concerned that many VCs are white is like being concerned that many producers in Hollywood are Jewish. There's nothing wrong with either. Both are historical accidents and testaments that social networks matter in many contexts. If I wanted to succeed in the movie industry, it would not be unreasonable to expect me to move to Los Angeles, take acting classes, join the Screen Actors Guild and network socially with producers or at least people that can introduce me to producers. If I don't do all three, that's a pretty strong signal that I'm probably a risky bet to invest in.
The percent of VCs that are white is actually less than the percent of Americans that are white (77%) but more than the percent of SF, San Mateo and Alameda county residents that are white (~50%). Likewise, most VCs in China are Chinese. Most Chinese in China have no white friends.
You know what's a better predictor of getting VC funding in tech than race? Living in the SF Bay Area and being an engineer. If you do those two things, you're already far closer to being able to get VC funding that most people. Doing those two things also put you in the position to network socially with VCs or those that can introduce you to VCs.
I honestly don't understand why people always make things about race first and foremost when there are tons of factors that have a far greater impact.
Kind of an irrelevant statistic in this context. Where do these 3/4 of white people live? Do they live in places where there are few or no black people?
What's the statistic for white people who live in San Francisco, San Mateo and Alameda? (These are the three counties where most software engineers in the SF Bay Area live)
> That's over half of VCs that are significantly less accessible to black founders
Which black founders? All of them? Just the ones that live in these three counties?
Being concerned that many VCs are white is like being concerned that many producers in Hollywood are Jewish. There's nothing wrong with either. Both are historical accidents and testaments that social networks matter in many contexts. If I wanted to succeed in the movie industry, it would not be unreasonable to expect me to move to Los Angeles, take acting classes, join the Screen Actors Guild and network socially with producers or at least people that can introduce me to producers. If I don't do all three, that's a pretty strong signal that I'm probably a risky bet to invest in.
The percent of VCs that are white is actually less than the percent of Americans that are white (77%) but more than the percent of SF, San Mateo and Alameda county residents that are white (~50%). Likewise, most VCs in China are Chinese. Most Chinese in China have no white friends.
You know what's a better predictor of getting VC funding in tech than race? Living in the SF Bay Area and being an engineer. If you do those two things, you're already far closer to being able to get VC funding that most people. Doing those two things also put you in the position to network socially with VCs or those that can introduce you to VCs.
I honestly don't understand why people always make things about race first and foremost when there are tons of factors that have a far greater impact.
Because it's a particularly clear and egregious form of bias. We can keep making our demographics more and more specific to explain away confounding factors, but it won't result in this club being an overall good thing.
So if the data doesn't support your conclusion, dismiss the data, riiiiiight....
is there a rebuttal to this?
would be interested in reading something that addresses the authors points directly.
would be interested in reading something that addresses the authors points directly.
> Winning requires one of the deep-pocketed players, so companies are competing on funding rather than through their products.
This is the crux of the article. The author suggests that a failed IPO would break SoftBank and those trying to be like it and return us to a time where VCs chase good products instead big deals and so the companies will need better products.
This is the crux of the article. The author suggests that a failed IPO would break SoftBank and those trying to be like it and return us to a time where VCs chase good products instead big deals and so the companies will need better products.
"Best" for whom?
Would it be unfair to think of VCs as 'People who already have money, wanting to make even more money'?