I have to disagree with your choice of words: the investment you guys just made is the truly traditional, old-fashioned kind. Consider what John Maynard Keynes wrote about the difference between the way in which professional investors invest in a business, versus the way in which entrepreneurs since time immemorial have committed capital to business endeavors. Most professional investors, Keynes wrote:
are, in fact, largely concerned, not with making superior long-term forecasts
of the probable yield of an investment over its whole life, but with foreseeing
changes in the conventional basis of valuation a short time ahead of the
general public. They are concerned, not with what an investment is really worth
to a man who buys it "for keeps," but with what the market will value it at,
under the influence of mass psychology, three months or a year hence.[1]
Before the advent of financial markets, all investments were made "for keeps" by people looking to "stay in."Congratulations on making a traditional investment.
--
PS. FWIW, Keynes accumulated a fortune by investing his own capital during his lifetime.
--
[1] http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300071h/printall.html
--
Edits: added more context and clarified my key point.
I've updated the post to reflect more of what I meant. This isn't the type of tech investment you normally read about.
And FWIW: He also lost a fortune by investing in his own lifetime. (He was nearly wiped out in the 1929 crash, which he failed to foresee.)
The Super Myth of Keynes as a Great Stock Market Investor: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/super-myth-of-k...
He was 83% long going into the downturn that resulted in the 1929 crash (p. 21)So how could Keynes be a great investor with such a bad performance? Because Keynes, the evil bastard, along with Bernard Baruch, talked FDR into confiscating the gold owned by all Americans. He then loaded up his portfolio with gold mining stocks and then urged FDR to prop up the price of gold.
...
Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, Keynes was a terrible investor, as shown by his pre-gold mining stock losses. The only time he made real money in the markets was when he traded on inside information about FDR's plan to drive the gold price up, and loaded up on gold mining stocks. Got that? The man who called gold a "barbarous relic" in his 1924 book, Monetary Reform, had 66% of his portfolio in gold mining stocks in the 1930s.
I ask only because according to the reputable sources I've read, Keynes made a fortune from his investments, and he also made a lot of money for Cambridge University, whose portfolio he managed for a few decades. Here's some reliable information on his track record as an investor:
* The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/06/keynesia...
* The Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/31f0e3f8-eaba-11e1-984b-00144...
* University of Cambridge/London School of Economics: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2023011
I'd also recommend Lord Skidelsky's excellent book on Keynes.
I'd be surprised if the other sources failed to acknowledge that he busted badly in 1929-31.
PS. That would be like judging Warren Buffett's impressive long-term investment record based on the sharp decline in Berkshire Hathaway's share price during the financial panic of 2008!
PPS. If you think Buffett's record is explained by luck, check out the subsequent long-term record of the seven investors identified in this article he wrote for Columbia Business School's magazine in 1984: http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/null?&exclusive=filemgr.dow... -- all materially outperformed the major stock indices after being identified by Buffett -- what are the odds of that?
It makes enormous sense: He missed the biggest economic event of three generations. If you can't call the big ones, then there's very little proof his returns were something other than luck.
Look, both Keynes and Buffett (since you mentioned him) have long term positive results when there was a long term positive market. Choose a high-beta portfolio in such an environment, and voila! you beat the market. In order to show you have any actual insight and aren't just playing for luck, you need to show that you beat the market significantly in both up and down environments.
BTW, the entire mutual fund market is based on this approach, and when a fund seriously underperforms, it is conveniently removed from the portfolio of Fidelity/Janus/insert hucksters here.
Edit: Relevant http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-dont-understand-i...
Most people out there don't understand the inverse relationship of bond prices and yields, let alone beta.
DevBootcamp: http://devbootcamp.com/ http://m.techcrunch.com/2012/05/10/dev-boot-camp-is-a-ruby-s...
We teach way more than just Ruby. Our Web App Development course covers the same material as the Dev Bootcamp offering. We also have a User Experience course and two HTML/CSS classes. Over the past year our students have wanted us to teach MORE Ruby which is in part why we have finally added an Advanced Ruby offering to our lineup.
Another differentiating factor is that we are not focused on just helping our students get jobs. Students who apply to The Starter League have a lot of different goals in mind. Some want jobs, some have startups that they are looking to grow or get off the ground, and some just want the ability to take what's in their head and make it real through software. Our priority at The Starter League is to create the environment where all these goals can thrive.
For students who want jobs, we have an environment that can helps network with the local community to find those opportunities. For those who want to build companies, we are located in 1871 (http://1871.com) which is the new mecca of Chicago digital entrepreneurship.
We have a lot of respect for what Shereef has been able to do with DevBootcamp, and we wish him continued success! It's great that the software education landscape has grown this much in just a year's time.
Their classes are 96 hours, we total over 500. We also have around a minimum of an 1:8 ratio of instructor to student.
I think the last major difference is that we set up an employer day at the end and recruit companies looking to hire junior developers. Two weeks on from the graduation of the current class we've had over 13 students with offers at an average of above $83,000.
We also cost $12,000 versus their $8,000 (for the most comparable course).
I've met Neal, and some of the guys from Starter League and they're amazing. They're going to keep crushing it, now with the power of 37signals! Good job guys.
Not that the non-existence of such a program would stop me...
I took part this time, it was a good experience overall, especially considering it was their first time.
Will be there be any sort of scholarships for The Starter League?
One thing we believe is that it's important for people to make some sacrifices to be here. We want totally committed students. Figuring out how to pay is a great test to see how committed someone is.
Instead, research everything about 37Signals and Starter League (example: http://charliehoehn.com/2009/01/08/how-to-hack-someones-mind...), come up 3 ideas that benefit them, and pitch them as someone who will get it done and they won't have to manage. When contacting busy people, you'll get far better returns with this approach.
I'd go into more detail, but Charlie already wrote the roadmap for doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qUR3tpEdA
vpena.sqsp.com/perfectforstarterleague/
People from all over the world are coming to Chicago to attend The Starter League. So far people from 25 states and 12 countries have made the investment in themselves to learn what it is The Starter League teaches.
If you are getting more personally involved. How are you going to make sure that people act on your general advice instead of thinking that they have to do exactly like you?