Musings on VC 2006

Jeff Bussgang is at the current Harvard Business School VC conference, and he has some useful summaries:

  • Michael Porter highlighted [that] VC funds … need to be unique at something, not “the best”
  • Jay Light, Andre Perold, Mohamed El-Erian and Jeremy Grantham … observed that pundits who believe a New Era is upon us are always wrong (as Jeremy quipped after analyzing 27 asset price different bubbles over the last 100 years:  “If it were a football match, it would be Reversal to the Mean: 27, New Era:  0”. 
  • Felda Hardymon and Josh Lerner … [reminded] everyone that historical fund performance is best for small, focused firms with lots of experience — not newcomers parachuting in with large funds and overly general strategies.


  1. Vancouver, meet Seattle:
    “As of Tuesday, there had been 23 consecutive days of rain recorded at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a streak that began Dec. 19, Felton said. If the Weather Service’s forecast of at least seven more days of rain holds true and it keeps raining through the end of next week, the Seattle area could be on its way to a record.”
    From Seattle Times:
    Stay dry,

  2. Brent Buckner says:

    Re: Michael Porter’s comment
    A bunch of VC funds have made money for the GPs without offering anything notably unique. I expect that will continue to be the case. Also, the GPs will make more money on a given level of assets if they are “the best” (although being “unique” may impact the level of assets).
    Re: Light et al. comment:
    Equities now have dividend yields below the interest rates on high-grade corporate debt; in its day, that cross-over was astounding. Perhaps that should be Reversion to the Mean 27 New Era 1