{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

Would you:

  1. Put $20m into a company that you're valuing at $75m and has no proven mainstream appeal, scalability problems or business model?
  2. Invest $25m at a $200m valuation in a company that has already raised $12.5m, has reportedly generated about $1m in revenues since its launch in 2005 and was unable to develop acquisition interest at $250m?
  3. Give $50m and a $500m valuation to a profitless company that does $10-12m in annual revenues and whose CEO has said, "We’re like a teen in our clock cycle. Now, we have to figure out how do you get a job and work in the real world"?

If you answered yes to any of the above, you should consider a career as a VC as you clearly have blind, unconditional faith in the Greater Fool Theory, or GFT.

The GFT states:

"Someone who makes a questionable investment will usually be able to sell it later to a bigger fool."

It is not new, nor is it a Web 2.0 "innovation" - many shrewd investors have used it to create vast wealth. As the saying goes, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

Of course, one must first find a fool and this is where the distinction between employing the GFT wisely and employing the GFT stupidly becomes apparent.

In my opinion, Web 2.0 has proven itself to be one of the best case studies of the stupid application of the GFT.

There are two primary requirements for leveraging the GFT successfully:

  • You must find one or more fools who have money to part with. The more the merrier and often, fooling a lot of fools a little is more rewarding than fooling one big fool a lot.
  • You must have an offer that looks credulous to the average fool. If your offer becomes too incredulous, the number of fools you can realistically "take to the cleaners" decreases.
Web 2.0 provides a less-than-compelling environment on both counts:
  • There are not enough fools to support all the Web 2.0 investments based on the GFT.

    In Bubble 1.0, the public markets were open to internet startups that, in retrospect, were not public market material.

    The public markets are the perfect platform for the GFT. On a daily basis, they are used by institutional investors to transfer wealth from the pockets of foolish retail investors into their own.

    In Web 2.0, the public markets have not been open and thus most Web 2.0 startups have been forced to look to an acquisition from the usual suspects (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, News Corp., et al.) as their only hope of cashing out.

    With dozens of funded startups in the same categories (i.e. online video) all competing for the chance to turn the small number of usual suspects into fools, simple math and common sense dictates that most won't.

  • The valuations that have been given to many Web 2.0 startups are simply so incredulous that it's increasingly difficult to find fools. A transaction like AOL's $850m acquisition of Bebo is the rare exception, not the rule.

    While the usual suspects have money to spend and have demonstrated a willingness to pay premiums, they by in large exercise reasonable judgment most of the time. Digg's difficulty in finding a buyer highlights that.

    Unfortunately, the investors who are funding these Web 2.0 startups have pushed their valuations too high. Potential acquirers recognize that there is no way to justify making an acquisition at the ever-higher valuations the investors need to generate a satisfactory return.

    Thus, an already-limited market of fools for the vast majority of Web 2.0 startups shrinks even further.

Clearly, the VCs who have been trying to make the GFT work with their Web 2.0 holdings have demonstrated that they're not good at playing the GFT game.

What amazes me most, however, is that despite the fact that the writing is now on the wall, many of these investors continue to throw good money after bad.

Take, for instance, Meebo. It's the second company in the list above. Rumors have it closing a $25m round at a $200m valuation. Even dismissing the fact that it generates no revenue of note and has no clear path to a bright financial future, it's hard to call investing in it at a $200m valuation anything but stupid when the company's investment bankers found no buyers at $250m

For GFT investors with half a brain, this type of reaction from the market indicates one thing - you're not fooling anybody and if you continue to invest, you're only fooling yourself.

Unless Meebo's backers buy into the highly-unlikely notion that Meebo is somehow going to become a ruthless machine for massive monetization within a reasonable timeframe, the odds that an interested prospective acquirer will eventually come to the table at an even higher valuation seem pretty damn low.

Ironically, perhaps, is the fact that some entrepreneurs play the GFT game better than their VC counterparts.

While the technology entrepreneur population is a lot like the general population - a few winners, a whole lot of losers (to quote George Carlin) - I have observed that there are a few entrepreneurs who appear to consciously fool investors.

Instead of hoping for a lottery ticket (i.e. a Google acquisition), they are content to jump from startup to startup raising money while living very comfortably off handsome VC-subsidized salaries.

This isn't a bad deal, but it demonstrates why I think most Web 2.0 startups, in general, are bad vehicles for the GFT theory - the players are all fools:

  • Limited partners are fooled into believing that McKinsey-types (VCs) who couldn't run a Starbucks if they were given a manual can invest their money in sexy startups to generate attractive returns.
  • Most entrepreneurs are fooled into believing that VCs are a crucial part of building successful businesses that either go public or get bought out.
  • VCs fool themselves into believing that they'll be able to find fools willing to pay ungodly amounts for their significantly overvalued portfolio companies.
  • Some wiser entrepreneurs fool the VCs into funding startups that serve as little more than lifestyle subsidies.
In other words, the whole game is little more than an orgy of fools and given the fact that most of the time, an even bigger fool is never found, it's a poor excuse for an orgy.
Drama 2.0

Published 1 May, 2008 by Drama 2.0

237 more posts from this author

Comments (3)

Avatar-blank-50x50

Matt

Although i agree to some of the points you raise, this is a rather cynical view which doesn't really touch on the merits of VC or investment. I would like to hear your definition of "web 2.0" in order to understand the context of the "web 2.0 investments" that you discuss.

Investment is a gamble, and as such requires 'fools' to take massive risks in order to return their initial investment + profit. VC's aren't suitable for every new startup, but they have been instrumental in allowing innovation on a grand scale to take place.

Sure, there are lots of bad investments, and lots of bad investors - hindsight is a wonderful thing. Use it carefully.

about 8 years ago

Drama 2.0

Drama 2.0, Chief Connoisseur at The Drama 2.0 Show

Matt: there's no doubt that VCs have historically played a role in allowing innovation to flourish, but when "Web 2.0" startups like Twitter, Meebo, Digg and all of the copycats of already-popular services like MySpace and YouTube receive exorbitant amounts of funding at outrageous valuations, it's difficult to put much faith in the modern VC market.

As it stands, there are only a handful of VC firms that one could reasonably argue have been consistent in backing "winners" and "innovators." Like Web 2.0 startups themselves, the increasing number of VC firms that have been started has created an environment where there is too much money chasing too few good ideas.

Most of these new VC firms are what I would consider "stupid money." Instead of taking risks on and making investments in innovative technologies that may or may not pan out, this "stupid money" looks to take advantage of trends (read: hype) in the hopes that it can cash in before the trend dies. One need only look at all the investment that piled on in MySpace and YouTube clones following their acquisitions to see the GFT at work on a large scale.

Unfortunately, the result of this "stupid money" herd mentality is that entrepreneurs actually have easier time raising money for startups that aren't doing anything innovative.

I'd note that the process by which great innovation typically occurrs relies on certain factors and I don't believe that easy access to excessive amounts of capital is one of them, especially when you have a market in which entrepreneurs are essentially encouraged to focus on starting new companies that can raise VC money as opposed to starting new companies that can actually solve painful problems.

In other words, a significant number of entrepreneurs think first about creating businesses that can raise capital instead of thinking first about building something useful.

While VCs have always been prone to a "herd mentality," I think the dynamic of the current market and the plethora of VC firms and big funds exacerbates it to the point where the VC system is, in many ways, completely broken.

Finally, I disagree in part with your statement that "investment is a gamble, and as such requires 'fools' to take massive risks..." VC investments are extremely risky but smart investors understand the nature of the risk they deal with and try their best to mitigate it by evaluating their positions carefully and applying a sensible methodology to their investing activities.

"Investing" and "gambling" are two very different things. While the outcome of both can be the same, the process by which they occur is very different.

about 8 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

FC 2.0

I lived and worked (often 10 hour days) through bubble 1.0. Had multi-million dollar offers for my internet company, met with former CEO of apple computer - at his request, so he could put in an offer for my company - and also had offers from lifestyle focused not-so-much-wiser entrepreneur coke addict. My company had lots of "members" and no "customers". What's funny is that in bubble 2.0, "member" sites are cropping up again, generating no real revenues, and not coverting members into customers.

Is bubble 2.0 inevitable... yes. Will there be as much VC caught up in the mix, I don't think so. Will there be more focus on application development in web 2.0.... yes. Will "so-and-so is twittering" slowly be eliminated from facebook... yes. Clearly, there will be winners and losers. But to say that everyone is a fool is to ignore some of the CONCRETE progress that is being made in the online mortar - links between human beings that are real, that facilitate interaction, collaboration, advertising opportunities - and ultimately may lead to direct selling opportunities.

Will your applications someday sit on the web? Yes... many of mine already do - email, search, web analytics, reference library, crm, travel booking, investing, etc. more and more, what we do is moving online - and web 2.0 is facilitating ease of use in these applications. This is REAL progress. These aren't fools that are developing these applications. Yes, twitter doesn't seem to me to be a great investment - but some of the online mapping applications that integrate service locations on the map and link deaper down are saving me lots of time these days. I can't remember the last time I looked at a paper version of a map to figure out where I needed to go. In a couple years, I'll download the map to my cell phone via bluetooth, and my cell phone will serve as my GPS.

Don't think that the technocrats are Fools... Actually, they have a pretty good handle on how advancements are made - and they are stepwise, with plenty of hops, skips and jumps - both forwards and backwards. Progress, as the word implies, however, is generally forwards.

about 8 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.