10 comments

• 

  Jacob Levy

  3 years ago

  Dave responded to your article, go read that. Anyways, IMHO Dave gets it wrong. Its not that anyone should actively NOT listen to Dave's ideas, its that you're questioning WHY anyone should listen to Dave more than to, say, ME :) We're both not in the VC industry, we're both exactly the same age, we're both bald or balding... None of which qualifies us as experts.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  Thanks, Jacob. I updated the post to reflect Dave's comments. As I noted there (and would have on Dave's blog if he allowed comments), it's not that I think Dave's ideas should be ignored because he doesn't have experience in the field, or because he's a balding non-VC -- I think they should be ignored because they don't make any sense.
  reply
• 

  Anne Zelenka

  3 years ago

  Mathew - interesting post. Since VCs are in the middle, they influence both supply and demand. One reason there were so many dot-coms in the last bubble was the demand for them created by VCs. What do you think? Does this idea change your analysis at all? I don't completely follow why you think Dave's analysis was logically flawed, but hey, I'm no VC.
  
  It seems like some shake-up is going to happen for VCs just because start-ups can get by with so much less money these days and because it's so much easier to get noticed now without already having the right connections. I think the market will come up with a solution, but I couldn't predict what it might be.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  Thanks for the comment, Anne.
  
  I agree that VCs are in the middle, but I would disagree that they influence both supply and demand. I would argue that VCs only respond to what the market is telling them, and if the market says it wants more profitless dot-coms, then that is what VCs will put their money into. By themselves, they can't create demand
  
  The reason I think Dave's analysis is flawed is that he seems to be proposing a kind of public investment fund, and yet the investing public -- including many knowledgeable users and investors -- is what caused all the trouble last time around. One of the most dangerous things when it comes to investing is drinking your own bathwater, and I think you could argue that good VCs probably save as many startups from flaming out by going too fast as they do the opposite.
  reply
• 

  Stuart MacDonald

  3 years ago

  People are forgetting that The Bubble was our generation's Gold Rush, with all the giddiness, hope, success, wealth, failure, desperation and heartbreak that went with the *real* Gold Rush. All was possible, basic financial reality was questioned, and there was a real sense that you had to jump in because this was a Once In A Lifetime Thing. You *had* to be in - this was your brass ring, boyo, and don't you DARE miss out.
  
  For all its' seeming frothiness this go around doesn't feel ike that. Yes, it is minor-league frothy, but there aren't jillions of dotcom features-masquerading-as-companies, and seemingly pointless-unless-you-squint-really-hard "end-to-end-solutions" to a non-existant problem floating around. I mean let's cut to the chase: how many of these hot things of the moment *are there*, this time? Not too dang many. Nothing close to the last go around. I mean, it felt like a week didn't go by without some air-filled whozit going public to breathless acclaim and visions of dollar signs dancing in heads. If that stuff is happening weekly now, I am sure not seeing it.
  
  The big excitement is not really broad based this time - I mean, for the most part the action is either with GYM+aol or in their immediate orbit. The outfits getting attention are - with serious respect to those who created and drove them (I've been there, I get it, you did it, nicely done) - neither numerous, nor huge.
  
  All this to say that, for VCs, the sandbox in which they are able to play *is* smaller in many respects this go around. That said, anybody who thiks that the role of VCs is off to the dustbin doesn't get how hard it it to build a profitable, sustainable, matters-to-customers business. It is not easy, and if Big is the desired destination, *rarely* cheap. But good on anybody in VC-land who sees the emerging issue, and is thinking about how to roll with those punches.
  
  -- Stuart
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  I think you're right, Stuart. Maybe this bubble is Bubble 2.0 -- more distributed and less expensive than the original :-)
  reply
• 

  Anne Zelenka

  3 years ago

  Mathew, yeah, I see your point a bit better now. VCs didn't create the bubble, I agree with that. However, whether they acted as an accelerant or a modulator... I'm not sure. In a somewhat parallel situation the current real estate bubble has been exacerbated by new types of mortgages like interest-only and 100%, that themselves are available because hedge funds have been buying up mortgage-backed securities sometimes without attention to the risk involved. Did VCs help manage risk, like you propose, or did they make the situation worse because they were playing with other people's money? I understand other countries don't have quite extensive a VC industry as we have... I'm wondering how the presence of VCs affected the bubble.
  
  Anyway, I like looking at it through a supply-and-demand lens... that's a good thought. I blogged my own economic perspective on the current situation after reading yours.
  reply
• 

  Marina Architect

  3 years ago

  Scale out and grow at any consequence was what the VC model predicated for fueling the bubble. No denying it. Get a clue Ingram. Having said that, that approach works in the long run: look at Amazon.com: finally makin' money every 3 months(cash flow not paper). VC's are critical in idea development (our US society) but the model is beginning to fade in that software and service needs to be profitable in the near term and not the long-term. This is the difference. But then Skype sold for . . .
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  Anne:
  
  I would definitely agree that having so many VCs -- driven by the hot IPO market -- fueled the bubble... no question. I just didn't think it was fair to say that they created it.
  
  And thanks for pointing me to your post -- you did a nice job of explaining in fundamental economic terms what makes Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0, and that is a valuable thing for all of us to keep in mind.
  reply
• 

  Mark Kuznicki

  3 years ago

  Better late than never, I'll add my two cents here.
  reply