This analysis is probably way too sensitive to investment price and all sorts of hidden causal relationships.
This analysis is probably way too sensitive to investment price and all sorts of hidden causal relationships. The biggest problem is that "performs better" is thrown around a lot but never defined. My hunch is that performance is measured as a return on investment. For instance if First Round invested in a company at a $5M valuation and the company is now worth $100M, that's a 20x return. If they had invested at a $10M valuation, the return would only be 10x. So I suspect in their eyes the "performance" of the first investment is better. Could be wrong, but my point is there's no way to know. Without knowing that it's hard not to look at their conclusions such as young founders do better and repeat founders cost more with a large helping of grains of salt. A young founder is less likely to be a repeat founder. Therefore these founders will cost less, per the conclusion they reached. And if performance is measured as ROI then they will "perform" better even if underlying talent or company growth is constant. So it looks as though there's just a lot of observational data without much insight.
Posted by stanleydrew on Jul 29, 2015, 8:11 PM
Tags
Related issues
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,000 issues0 comments
pricing (Other)
Well, actually not.
NewI have a 2022 mini that I use constantly.
NewTwo observation: 1.
NewCautiously optimistic for them.
NewI have two televisions - living room TV with an AppleTV and bedroom TV with some Roku device.
NewI hate that they claim the pricing like that.
NewEverything is too expensive for European bureaucrats.
Yeah, the plan is far too expensive for what it provides.
This analysis is probably way too sensitive to investment price and all sorts of hidden causal relationships.
This analysis is probably way too sensitive to investment price and all sorts of hidden causal relationships. The biggest problem is that "performs better" is thrown around a lot but never defined. My hunch is that performance is measured as a return on investment. For instance if First Round invested in a company at a $5M valuation and the company is now worth $100M, that's a 20x return. If they had invested at a $10M valuation, the return would only be 10x. So I suspect in their eyes the "performance" of the first investment is better. Could be wrong, but my point is there's no way to know. Without knowing that it's hard not to look at their conclusions such as young founders do better and repeat founders cost more with a large helping of grains of salt. A young founder is less likely to be a repeat founder. Therefore these founders will cost less, per the conclusion they reached. And if performance is measured as ROI then they will "perform" better even if underlying talent or company growth is constant. So it looks as though there's just a lot of observational data without much insight.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.