Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Look, I’m a savvy investor who builds marketing teams and would never fall for this, but I think other people will, so I’m going to invest.


sort by: page size:

I'm having trouble picturing any savvy investor going for something like this.

Yes, many of them are my clients. But they'll go invest $200M across 10 companies and hope one gets a 5x, 3 get 2-3x, and the rest marginal gains.

No one should ever invest in a company without knowing an accurate projection. People who do this are just playing the lottery.

Investor makes business decisions based on marketing fluff, more at 11.

You should never mislead a potential investor. Why would you want an investor who is misaligned with your core technology/strategic direction?

Personally, when it comes to investing, I'd rather be a contrarian. Out of these 40 to 50 investments, most will not fly unless they get acquired. "Hope we get bought, fingers crossed" is not a business model. It only works if you invest across a broad section and one of them hits big (which Ron is doing).

I'd rather invest in 40 to 50 simple cash-producing businesses on the web (affiliate networks, lead generation, sticky / viral apps in closed platforms, etc.)


I solve this by not wanting silly investors.

If I am an expert in my field planning to volunteer or stake the next five years of my career on a slightly crazy idea, I could do worse than attach myself to a project headed by someone who already has their foot in the door with a lot of people who can get us financing or legislative help.

And don't most investors want some solidarity with their fellow investors? Brand recognition is a built-in safety feature that might help protect my money.


This assumes you believe that investors can't help you succeed in your business. I believe our investors can help us a lot.

Dont they say you do not invest in the idea but in the team (and hope the succesful pivot makes you rich)?

You shouldn't ever invest in a company you know nothing about. If you're investing in the stock market you should do you research into the company before buying in.

I can't see how that's a bad thing in this context. The investor is fully aware that you'll take risks with his money - he's hoping that one of these risks will pay off hugely, if not with you then with some other startup he's invested in.

I generally don't design or build with outside investment in mind. Given how I've seen how bad investors make good teams crumble in short periods of time. But, I would actually consider working with people who see value in me and my team, rather than only focus on the bottom line. May you mention other investors who share this same attitude?

Yes, I did. But that does not mean they will invest in startups which they believe will bring negative returns or that don't otherwise suit their portfolio.

Or maybe.. these investors know exactly what they are getting themselves into?

How much do you trust the investor? This sounds like an obvious "nooope" to me. If your dream is to own a company, this will be unsatisfying.

I used to fall for this trap.

But now I just calculate my expected return based on a 10% chance of a buyout for $100M or so (cockily I'm assuming I can screen the obvious losers out with common sense alone though that is of course debatable) and if it's not a net uptick from the current gig, I pass on it. And up to now, I've always passed on it, and none of them succeeded.

Other than that, the only startups I'm interested in are ones where I have one of those nifty 3 letter titles and 5% of the company in my pocket.


For most of the co-investors, it's, er, not exactly their first rodeo in investing in stupid stuff, tho.

If you are the only investor in your thing, then is a warning sign to everyone else. You never sold anyone else on the vision, so either the idea is suspect or the investor is a not trustworthy (or capable). Having other investors mitigates those objections.
next

Legal | privacy