"Anybody who's studied the capital asset pricing model understands the joke of that. The reason I came up with this is, if you look at the history of venture capital, it's an asset that's uncorrelated with other asset classes."
"In my opinion, throwing more money into Silicon Valley doesn't yield more great companies. It actually dilutes that; it actually makes it harder for us to get that small number of special companies to flourish,"
"Cloud computing didn't exist. There were maybe 300 million people on the planet that had access to the internet. So the scale of the opportunity today is completely different. If you look technically at the numbers, I think for the last 20 years, there's roughly been 380 billion-dollar-plus outcomes in the industry"
Investing in venture is characterized as a return-free risk and largely uncorrelated with other asset classes. Allocators historically treated venture as a dedicated portfolio allocation, expecting more capital to generate more winners. There are only a limited number of companies that materially matter, and pouring additional capital into Silicon Valley can dilute quality and hinder the emergence of special companies. The U.S. venture landscape has grown to roughly 3,000 firms from about 1,000 two decades ago. Technological scale today is vastly different, with roughly 380 billion-dollar-plus outcomes over the past 20 years.
Read at TechCrunch
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]