Hanging up my spurs
lowercasecapital.com
lowercasecapital.com
> During law school, Sacca used his student loans to start a company which was unsuccessful and used what was left to start trading on the stock market. By leveraging trades for significant amounts (discovering a flaw in the software of online trading brokers)[15] he managed to turn 10–20 thousand dollars into 12 million dollars.[15] Eventually, when the market crashed, Sacca found himself in debt with a four million dollar negative balance. He negotiated to have it reduced to just under 3 Million and by February 2005 it was completely repaid. [15]
[15] http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/chris-saccathe-...
> He says he managed to graduate without attending class. In order to obtain class notes, he threw an annual keg party where entry required classmates to dump their notes in a bin.
I sure wouldn't want that guy as my lawyer.
I don't think he meant using the money he was loaned to pay for classes but using the money the loan provides for living expenses. That money is completely up to you to figure out what to spend it on.
I could be wrong about that though...
There isn't a lot of policing of what students use their student loan living expenses for, but I don't think that means you're free to do whatever you want with it legally.
Also, it's amazing how the child a doctor and a professor would be praised for cheating the government at a grand scale while our society is busy watching what poor people buy with EBT (food stamps) at the grocery store.
I don't find these details of Sacca's story admirable.
The former happens so rarely it doesn't get much attention at all.
Also, ten minutes after reading the article, I just realized the pun in the name "Lowercase Capital."
I'm certain there might be more people.
I remember he was talking about those protein bars made out of crickets. And there is valid concerns about the future of food with synthetic meats etc. But cricket bars... I mean we are so far off from that being a mass selling product.
Can you elaborate on that? He's spoken about his startup portfolio being a disturbingly high portion of his net worth because it's grown rapidly and is illiquid.
Too many startup people worship someone, someone they don't really know anything about, like a god just because they can project their hopes and desires on someone whom has mantained their vagueness with elusiveness and seductive propaganda. Like a pied piper for the purposes of manufacturing memes for profit.
Good on him. I sometimes wonder why more people who are insanely rich don't just retire and spend the rest of their lives doing something else...or doing nothing. I think of the C-level execs in my own company--they each have so much that they and their families for generations could literally do nothing for the rest of their lives and still continue to get richer via interest. Why go on working?
Money isn't everything.
Now, whether "investing skill" is something that can be meaningfully distilled and taught to others is a whole different question. I think the answer is closer to "no" than "yes". The industry-wide distribution of the long term performance of fund managers seems to provide cursory evidence to support this.
Chris made a lot of money and he did a lot of interesting things. He's interesting and a lot was luck and a lot was skill. That said, Twitter (if he exited a bit post IPO was the companies big win. You only need one though.
Edit: Forgot about Instagram. He crushed it. Point is more Uber might not be as big, but his track record is amazing compared to other shops
I don't have any affection for Sacca, don't know him, don't care about him, etc. But he's factually been an incredible investor and it's just weird to see concerted effort to dispute that for no reason. He could be all sorts of negative things but he was a hell of a seed investor and that's in the books and he's got the receipts.
The one thing I would say is that he is pretty flashy and a bit of a braggard which many are; but going on SharkTank was a bit much. Guy has been super successful objectively my point was just that (to me, subjectively) it sort of feels like he's an entertainer more than an investor and values the fame and spotlight more than tech. Obviously his motivation doesn't matter vs. The track record but if I am critical of him it's just that it feels off vs. people like Steve Jurvetson or Horowitz who value innovation, technology and are happy to promote that above themselves
I think it's been pretty established he got in super early on Twitter and made a ton of money, but I don't know about the Uber or Instagram.
I sound like a hater, but just because you "invested in" those companies doesn't mean you made money or were a smart investor.
http://fortune.com/2015/01/08/exclusive-is-this-the-best-per...
Possibly the best VC fund of all time.
When the smart big players start to take their chips off the table you can be sure this thing has peaked.
As for the other two categories, only SpaceX is relevant in the spacelaunch world, and I don't think they're going public anytime soon. I don't know of any startups that I would say have a decent chance in commercial aviation.
Of course, there's all sorts of machine learning and related AI-ish things that are potentially useful in the interim.
Fully agree on the other points.
My understanding is that Chris isn't the nicest guy in the world, so perhaps he's doing entrepreneurs a favor by backing other VC's. Some of his capital will still be out backing startups, but their founders won't have to put up with him personally.
Does anyone know where (or how) to find these organizations?
I'd love to get involved in some of these organizations that are trying to build a better future for our country, and try to contribute/help in any way that I can.
I've noticed that my liberal friends have even gravitated toward this leftist propaganda that the other side is made up of bad people. It's part of their core and part of their strategy to divide and conquer. If the other side is made of bad people - then your side will never leave you. In fact they won't even engage in discussion with opposing viewpoints.
We have historical examples of evil and destructive regimes being legitimately elected. It's not impossible.
Sacca claims we are observing another example, right now, in America.
Your comment says destructive and evil in the same sentence. Again - being destructive or making bad calls - doesn't make you a bad person or evil. Incompetent yes; evil probably not. Every politician does destructive things, especially when those things are often subjective based on your philosophy.
The equivalent on the right is when they say that their opposition hates America because they have different perspectives and want to drastically change things. That's not cool either.
What's interesting is that if you look at history, the leftists are by far the most evil (Mao, Stalin, etc) and it's not even close. Evil is not a word that should be thrown around loosely like the leftists do daily.
"These oppressive zealots in the White House"
"fighting a despotic regime"
Of course he can have an opinion, and it seems like everyone's got one. It's less clear why the reader should care. And statements like this:
"My career would not have progressed without the leadership and contributions of immigrants of virtually every race, ethnicity, and faith. Period."
I mean, there are a lot of races, ethnicities, and faiths in the world, and not all of them care to immigrate. The hyperbole just smacks of virtue signaling, which some people enjoy and others don't. Depends on how you react to the signal, I suppose.
Why is everything that democrats/liberal say deemed "virtue signaling" now? Do liberals have any genuine principles at all? Are some liberals signaling these virtues to other liberals who genuinely have principles, or is "virtue signaling all the way down"?
(BTW, I'm not American and don't identify neither as liberal or conservative)
The principle they adhere to most strongly is that the ends justify the means. Virtually everything they do flows from that.
Of course, that leaves the questions of what the ends are, and whether their means will effect them. From recent history, it would seem that the answer to the latter is, to some degree, yes. However, there is now significant pushback, leading to further polarization on both sides. The two sides do not ultimately desire the same ends, although many politicians claim that they do in order to establish a "moderate" position and retain their seats.
We may be in for some rough times ahead, politically. However, the Constitution has seen us through worse; as long as it is respected by those in office, we will ultimately come out intact. But I'm afraid that is not a given, since one side now sees the Constitution as "living" and evolving to meet the interpretations that will help effect their ends. If only they would pursue the amendment process instead of...creative interpretation.
You'd rather he signaled vice?
That said, I feel getting involved in political issues is mostly a losing situation because your power (even the power of the president as we've seen perhaps thankfully in the past 90 days is highly limited) to get something accomplished is so limited. Also, the solution to most problems is not new laws or new politics. I remember a professor at my college spent years getting the exam dates shifted three days earlier from a Tuesday to a Friday...that's the speed & work of politics, frustrating.
I don't really understand why this is so objectionable.
> You mean beyond fighting a despotic regime...
> I assure you, that’s not going to happen. Nevertheless, I am spending a great deal of time meeting with all of the beautifully spontaneous and decentralized organizations that have been popping up in the wake of our electoral calamity as well as dozens of candidates at all levels of government. I find so much hope in the new wave of leaders and builders who are standing up during these times and I want to be there to support them. I will have more to say about this in the days ahead, but, you know the drill.
I'm sure that this is a common sentiment out in the Valley, but it's really kinda distressing to see people with access to so much capital writing with such melodrama.
There's so much wrong at the local level--homelessness, education, people broke with medical problems--and yet these folks seem a lot more concerned with a strawman oppression.
However, Chris' access to capital, which equates to power in America, makes it more successful for him to fight on the federal level. trump in the white house has emboldened local behavior that threatens our education/healthcare systems, the homeless and countless other social safety net related issues. There are plenty of us left who can bring the fight on the local level. I'm coming around to the idea that winning the larger fights is also important.
I've not heard of Chris Sacca before reading this article. He appears to be that rare person with an understanding of the social obligations of wealth and the means to build some larger communities around that.
Action at the large levels is remote and indistinct, and boils down to status signalling and rich people games.
Paying for housing and food and shelter and schooling and grants and libraries and hospitals goes a hell of a lot farther...just see the good works of Carnegie and Kaiser, to name two.
Here's an interesting read you may enjoy along similar lines: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-dem...
This is not a strawman, this is real and it's worth fighting.
So are the other things you mention, but everyone is free to pick their fight.
And if these people come from a philosophical and cultural and political monoculture, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious about them. FWIW, I feel the same way about the energy execs and crooked politicians--except in the case of at least Trump, there is at least a mandate of government granted by the people that voted for him.
Who, exactly, voted for these millionaires? Nobody.
At the end of the day, I personally care about actions and how they stack up against my personal ethical and moral compass. You are obviously free to use whatever method you want to decide if someone is doing good in the world. And yes, Sacca is free to spend his money however he likes. I also support Rebekah Mercer's right to spend her money on vicious attack ads. I don't have to respect her for it -- regardless of who won the election -- and you don't have to respect Chris Sacca.
Regarding monocultures -- circumscribe a set tightly enough and everyone comes from a monoculture. I don't think Sacca is any less exposed to divergent viewpoints than the Mercer's are, to use a relevant example.
And finally, just to respond to your overarching argument that Sacca has some responsibility to use his money in a particular way. He may believe so, and that wouldn't make it any more your business how he does it. And if he chooses to spend it on wine, art, and yacht collecting because that's what he wants to do with it we can both believe he can do better (Larry Ellison, if you're reading this: you can do better) -- but the society we live in hasn't made us the arbiters of good billionaire behavior, more's the pity. :)
My overarching argument is not quite that Sacca has a responsibility to use his money in a particular way--it's more that I find it distressing that powerful people (that arguably should know better) seem to have gotten caught up in the zeitgeist of the times and aren't being more conservative (in the "wait, let's stop and think about what we're actually advocating and how that could play out") and open-minded (in the "wait, maybe these other points of view are simply different and not always wrong").
I feel the same way about folks on the other side--they just tend not to show up on HN as much.
More people voted for Not Trump than voted for Trump.
For that reason, I don't disagree that there's a lot wrong at the local level, and in many ways any action you could personally take would be better taken at such a level where you can create real impact.
That said, I'm not sure it's at all melodramatic when you consider the tone that the "leader of the free world" sets in terms of what's socially acceptable, how to treat others, and so on. And I don't mean in the sense of "oh, anti-Semitic attacks are up 13.5%!" -- there is SO much that can be fudged in compiling this kind of data. I mean more in the sense of "suddenly it's acceptable to be an unrepentant outright liar every hour of the day, and people will not just look past it, but literally disbelieve their own ears."
Different things concern different people.
Then again, how much progress did SF make on homelessness under Obama?
edit: oooh, definitely a touchy subject around here ;)
Bubble prediction is a difficult game to play.
Read Antifragile book
How did the Koolaid taste? You certainly must have drunk enough of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T
"It is generally regarded as the first affordable automobile, the car that opened travel to the common middle-class American; some of this was because of Ford's efficient fabrication, including assembly line production instead of individual hand crafting."
If you don't think every major corporation doesn't have quite a few technological gems hidden up their sleeves you're fooling yourself.
Mark Markkula funded Apple.
Andy Bechtolsheim funded Google.
These didn't happen by accident. They weren't inevitable.
But now you're just arguing that companies build the products we use and companies start small which, while overwhelmingly true, is hardly a statement about the output of technology startups specifically.
(I'm not saying I completely buy this definition but some people insist on using it.)
He, along with Mark Cuban & potentially a few others will likely be part of the few of this era remembered many decades from now when history gets consolidated into a few figures, much like Gordon Moore of Intel & William Shockley of the Mountain View of the 1950's.
You have to give Mark credit for doing a good job of snowing and playing Yahoo that does take skill.
Look if Steve Jobs had grown up in, say, Iowa USA, had strong family ties that prevented him from even thinking about moving to Silicon Valley, where would he be today?
If Bill Gates's mother wasn't on the board of the Red Cross he'd never have the IBM connection that gave him the contract. (Forget as well that he was the right age at the right time as well).
Notoriety and wealth is always outsized relative to actual capabilities.
Was watching Bloomberg on 60 minutes. Sure Mike is a really smart guy. Worth 40 billion or whatever. But compared to a smart guy who is worth 3 million or in debt he isn't that much smarter (Edit: I mean as a percentage ..). It's always been like this.
I am not ever jealous that people have luck and great success. But I am typically annoyed at how other people (press, pundits, media, bloggers) give them accolades that essentially reduce to 'wow this guy is really smart capable' w/o acknowledging any luck at all.
How unsuccessful could someone be if they were extremely talented and hard-working, but had little luck. How far can luck push someone with no ability or desire? I suspect luck plays a greater role in our lives then we are willing to admit, even though it can be mitigated to some effect.
Homeless level bad.
> How far can luck push someone with no ability or desire?
Extremely far.
I have seen examples of both, luck is a huge factor, and it comes in many guises (timing, circumstances, meeting the right person and so on).
> How unsuccessful could someone be if they were extremely talented and hard-working, but had little luck.
Warren Buffet has a concept called the Ovarian Lottery. Why should someone's kid get gobs of money simply for being born into that family? He hates it, and for that reason isn't leaving billions for his kids, just handfuls of millions.
By being born in the US, you've already basically won, as your poverty line would be luxurious in many other countries. If he wasn't born in the US or a handful of other countries, even with the same drive and motivation he had, he wouldn't have been able to be successful like he has been because far more time would be spent seeking out food and basics of living.
I wish he would just shut up sometimes and stop being so avuncular and precocious.
He is leaving enough money to his kids to be able to have no financial issues and not having to work and be able to enjoy a nice life. And they are also getting a big halo boost just because they are his kids. Make no mistake about that. (I'd take that over $5 million in cash easily..)
Also he himself doesn't appear to see much value in all of his billions other than the fame that it gets him. He appears to enjoy it nominally and likes being well know and doing business much better. So he is making a value judgement as well based on what 'floats his boat' personally and marrying it to some concept that makes him appear to be so much like a common man.
If money is not that important to him, then why not give it away now and not just to charity?
Please get me a couple billion dollars if it's so easy. Thanks.
What is the last time you went to 'broadcast.com'?
That deal shouldn't have happened because there was no substance to what was sold (ok, fault of the buyer, a certain company whose name starts with Y).
For some more background:
Regardless of net contribution to the good of society, one deal is one deal. Cuban wouldn't have gotten rich if he didn't have stock to sell to Yahoo (one deal), Brin/Page wouldn't have gotten rich if they didn't have and continue to have stock in Google (one deal). Everything any of them did afterwards is leverage the success of the first deal.
Broadcast.com was an unprofitable sham with around half a million users. It only got bought because it was 1999 and people were acting crazy. It was shut down completely within 3 years.
Comparing the two is silly.
That's not what they said. They said that there was no substance to Broadcast.com specifically.
What is staggering about that list? It looks pretty much like any list of a VC that has survived. One or two big but not tremendous plays like Dropbox and a lot of companies I haven't heard of before.
Sorry to snark, but the ability to vet opportunities isn't necessarily a skill that allows individuals to gain such a staggering list of investments. It's worth noting he improperly "vetted" Snapchat[0]. On the other hand, getting proprietary deal flow is. It would be easy to rank him at the top on that.
Are there places that track this info among VCs?
Generally speaking, the institutional limited partners (LPs; pension funds, endowments, family offices, etc.) that invest in venture and private equity incur pretty significant costs to get third-party information about actual performance by managers (i.e. VCs). From largest to smallest, LPs might generally: subscribe to Cambridge's data and use it in-house with full time staff, or hire a consultant (like Cambridge) to assess and help select their managers, or pay a fund-of-funds a fee (on the order of 1%) to do likewise.
The point of all that is: figuring out who is actually making money in VC, and guessing who is likely to continue doing so, is very non-trivial. It can't be done with publicly available, Crunchbase / Angel.co type data, much less a VC's own statements or portfolio listing page.
Don't get me wrong; Pitchbook is good and I pay $$$$ for it. But it serves a company-centric intel need, not an investment performance measurement need.
Can you please expand on this? Genuinely curious as to what the metrics are in this case.
We need someone with the ambition Paul Graham had when he launched Y Combinator.
Silicon Valley is still not a meritocracy. There are still tens of thousands of ambitious people not receiving funding. There's still no way for the early users of massive products to buy equity and lift themselves from the lower class.
There is no greater lever in the world than technology, no better way to create technology than startups, and no more sure way to create great startups than by funding them.
"With great power comes great responsibility."
"To whom much is given, much is required."
That kind of thing.
It's amazing how few people in Silicon Valley make a billion dollars and then go on to do anything useful with it at all.
This criticism applies to the ten thousand people, like Sacca, that made a fortune off Silicon Valley and then "called in rich."
What would you think of Bill Gates had he not put his fortune to good use?
When you achieve a position by working very hard and risking nearly everything you have, I wouldn't consider that a "privilege". He earned the right to do whatever he wants.