Tag: social capital

• What are bubbles?

  Social Capital (Silicon Valley VC firm) recently published an interesting series on (economic) bubbles: what they are, how they form, when they are useful, and so on. It’s worth a read – you can start here.

  Here’s a taste:

  “Prices in markets turn out to have two roles: they tell us something about the past, and they influence our actions — and therefore, their own price — in the future. Sometimes, in a big way, this dual role makes a particular asset class — tulip bulbs, railway stock, Canadian real estate, a digital token — become attractive solely because its price is going up. George Soros characterized and mastered this phenomenon, known as Reflexivity: when our views and our actions reinforce each other. If an expensive price means that something is high quality or otherwise attractive, we will tend to buy more of it and drive the price higher, independently of whether or not the thing is any good. It’s true for sunglasses, it’s true for ICOs, and a whole lot more.”

  For obvious reasons I couldn’t resist posting this quote. Notwithstanding the shot at Canadian real estate, bubbles are a fascinating topic. They happen time and time again because we are greedy.

  2017.09.14

• Coastal dilettantes and venture capital

  Chamath Palihapitiya – founder and CEO of a VC firm called Social Capital – recently penned an op-ed in The Information called: “The Sunk Cost Fallacy and the Future of Silicon Valley.”

  Chamath is one of the most outspoken voices in Silicon Valley and is openly critical about the way the industry generally functions today. Here are two excerpts from his op-ed piece:

  “Chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes and heart disease are ravaging much of the U.S. and the world. Automation is eliminating the jobs of millions of well-meaning, law-abiding men and women. Weather patterns are increasingly unpredictable, disrupting water and food supplies and displacing millions of people. But despite this trail of breadcrumbs of big problems and big markets, we still find it difficult to fund potentially big solutions. Instead, we keep doubling down on the easy things.”  
  

  “Easy short-term growth is now so highly valued in Silicon Valley that we often overlook technical innovation, sustainable long-term growth and meaningful progress in markets that matter. Every week adds to the corpus of press releases from companies with quick, fleeting growth overcapitalized beyond rationalization. And after too many years of this, Silicon Valley is now typecast as a monoculture of coastal dilettantes who float from one meaningless endeavor to another, tone deaf to real problems.”

  Social Capital was founded in response to these criticisms. Their mission is to improve society by using technology to solve big problems – problems like the ones mentioned above.

  Another firm with a similar mission is Obvious Ventures. They call what they do #worldpositive investing. Their goal is to only fund companies that deliver social and environmental benefits along with every dollar earned.

  It’s interesting to think about how capital gets allocated and whether or not it will result in meaningful benefits to the world. Because this is not just about venture capital. You could substitute venture capital for many other asset classes and ask similar questions.

  2016.12.15

• Is venture-based real estate development coming to the Bay Area?

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  Chamath
  Palihapitiya is a Sri Lanka born, Canada educated, venture capitalist in
  Silicon Valley, who made a boatload of money as one of the early employees of
  Facebook. He now runs a VC firm called Social +
  Capital and owns part of the Golden State Warriors.

  The other
  night he was interviewed at a StrictlyVC event in San Francisco and I think
  that many of his comments would also be of real interest to the Architect This City
  community. He’s super passionate in interviews and always fun to listen to.

  Below is what
  he had to say about the San Francisco startup scene. It really speaks volumes
  about what people will put up with in order to live in an awesome place/city that they love. All of his responses below are from this
  TechCrunch article.

  “The city has to be doing more, around
  transportation, around housing… You have to get rid of the nimbyism and you
  need to quadruple, if not quintuple, the amount of housing. You need to tell
  that engineer from the University of Michigan that he can live here on a salary
  of $80,000.

  [In the meantime], we look at our startups, and
  the minute that they start to spend more than 15 percent of their burn – good
  money that we give them – on rent, a huge red flag goes up. When they, on a
  per-head-count basis, are spending so much, we start looking at the
  productivity of the technical team. And if it’s good but not great and they’re
  spending this insane amount of money [versus] a different team in Redwood City,
  we start to ask ourselves: “Are you so convinced that success is going to
  happen in this city at 1.5x the cost?”

  Because for every dollar that someone in
  Mountain View or Redwood City is raising, you [in San Francisco] have to raise
  one-and-a-half to two times that just to get to the same point. So you’re cutting
  your half life in half. To prove that you can take an Uber from some fuckin’
  shitty bar to another shitty bar? Like, I don’t understand.”

  And here he
  talks about the possibility of his venture firm also getting into the real
  estate development business. I couldn’t resist blogging about this.

  “We made a big
  decision with our last fund to build an organization that looks really
  different than a venture firm, and that organization is going to be this
  hybrid, bastard stepchild of Berkshire Hathaway and Blackstone and BlackRock.

  What I mean by this is
  that we want to have a large permanent capital base and we want to make really
  long, discontinuous bets on companies and sectors and trends.

  And one of the things
  we talked about was having a real estate fund …[because] we owe it to our
  companies to alleviate some of these problems when no one else is going to. If
  we went and built one million square feet somewhere of mixed use, where you
  work and live, and we rethink what it means to have a modular living environment
  for a millennial cohort that wants to work at companies and doesn’t necessarily
  have kids, we can do that in a way and give that back to our CEOs as a benefit
  of working with us.

  And you can probably
  make the economics work. Because we only really care about the equity of the
  company anyways. And the equity in the real estate will take care of itself if
  you take the 30-year view. So we’re at the point now where we’re like, wow, we
  should raise a few billion dollars and get into the real estate business and
  solve this problem systematically for our companies. And maybe in that, it
  becomes a blueprint for how others should do it. We’re just basically going to
  act as our own city-state and decide how to do it ourselves.”

  It’s
  interesting to think about what the economics might look like if your primary goal is
  simply to provide space to your portfolio companies (entrepreneurs) so that
  they get more (financial) runway and, therefore, have a greater chance of success. I’d love to see that pro forma.

  2015.09.18