Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧: “We have a long list of companies we don’t invest in… banks, commodity businesses, most manufacturing industries, fossil fuels, utilities, airlines, wireless telecom, advertising agencies… Why? Because they’re competitive. And the most important thing I’ve learned in... investing is that investors underestimate the forces of competition and disruption.” _ 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘏𝘰𝘩𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥𝘴: • Banks • Commodity businesses / manufacturing • Insurance • Tobacco • Fossil fuels • Utilities • Airlines • Wireless telecom • Advertising agencies • Most traditional manufacturing _ Hohn’s point isn’t that money can’t be made in these areas — plenty of investors have done well in some of them. The deeper lesson: 𝙄𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙨 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙬𝙣. Highly competitive industries tend to: • Erode returns on capital • Compress margins over time • Require constant reinvestment Contrast that with businesses that have: • Pricing power • High switching costs • Network effects • Structural barriers to entry Those are the environments where 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 compounding becomes far more predictable. _ Another subtle takeaway: Most investors focus heavily on upside narratives. Great investors spend just as much time thinking about downside structures. _ Source: In Good Company | Norges Bank Investment Management (05/14/2025)show more

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®

20,781 subscribers

78,952 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

All-In Liquidity: The Ultimate Investor Conference 🍷 Where: Napa, CA 🌳 When: May 31-June 3 ✅ Apply: Chamath Palihapitiya explains the concept: “ There are a handful of conferences that happen every year where money is made.” “I'll give you a couple of examples: All the top market traders have been invited to this thing called Ira Sohn every year. Where you go in front of a large audience, present your best long or short idea, and if you take those portfolios, they tend to do really well.” “Separately, there are conferences that investment banks organize that are off the record, not publicly accessible, where they ask their biggest traders to present their best long and short ideas of public stocks.” “Then, there are these equivalent conferences that investment banks do for private companies, where the best fast growing private companies show up and the CEOs get on stage and they give presentations.” “All of these things have been closed. I would like to blow that wide open.” “So what will we do?” “We will convene the best investors in public markets, the best hedge fund managers, the best private market investors, the best growth investors, the best credit investors, and the largest cohort of LPs, representing trillions of dollars of capital, and the CEOs of the fastest growing and most important companies in technology.” “And what we will do over the course of a few days is, we'll have some presentations, we'll have best ideas, we'll build relationships. There may be some investments that happen as a result of that.” “We're going to shut down all of Yountville, we're going to shut down The French Laundry, we're going to shut down all of it, and it'll be ours for a two-day playground where we will build relationships, allocate capital, and maybe make some money as a result.” “We'll make some allocations to emerging managers, who may need to raise capital and scale up, but can show us good returns.” “We are going to take all of these things that I've been a part of that have been in closed rooms, and we're going to put them together and open it up.” Join us:

All-In Liquidity: The Ultimate Investor Conference 🍷 Where: Napa, CA 🌳 When: May 31-June 3 ✅ Apply: Chamath Palihapitiya explains the concept: “ There are a handful of conferences that happen every year where money is made.” “I'll give you a couple of examples: All the top market traders have been invited to this thing called Ira Sohn every year. Where you go in front of a large audience, present your best long or short idea, and if you take those portfolios, they tend to do really well.” “Separately, there are conferences that investment banks organize that are off the record, not publicly accessible, where they ask their biggest traders to present their best long and short ideas of public stocks.” “Then, there are these equivalent conferences that investment banks do for private companies, where the best fast growing private companies show up and the CEOs get on stage and they give presentations.” “All of these things have been closed. I would like to blow that wide open.” “So what will we do?” “We will convene the best investors in public markets, the best hedge fund managers, the best private market investors, the best growth investors, the best credit investors, and the largest cohort of LPs, representing trillions of dollars of capital, and the CEOs of the fastest growing and most important companies in technology.” “And what we will do over the course of a few days is, we'll have some presentations, we'll have best ideas, we'll build relationships. There may be some investments that happen as a result of that.” “We're going to shut down all of Yountville, we're going to shut down The French Laundry, we're going to shut down all of it, and it'll be ours for a two-day playground where we will build relationships, allocate capital, and maybe make some money as a result.” “We'll make some allocations to emerging managers, who may need to raise capital and scale up, but can show us good returns.” “We are going to take all of these things that I've been a part of that have been in closed rooms, and we're going to put them together and open it up.” Join us:

The All-In Podcast

151,501 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The Musk-Led Manufacturing Revolution Nobody Is Talking About | ZeroHedge When most analysts discuss Tesla, they focus on new vehicles or the electric vehicle company’s advancements in autonomy. Yet, according to Launch i/o CEO Jeff Lutz, one of the most significant—and under-discussed—developments at Tesla is happening not in its design studios or on the road, but in its factories. Lutz, a former executive at Google and Motorola, argues that Tesla’s true innovation isn’t just the electric vehicles or robots it’s building, but how those products are being made. The company’s first-principles approach to manufacturing is a radical departure from the industry norm, focusing not just on cheap labor or existing models, but on rethinking the entire production process. Tesla is creating factories that are the product—designing, testing, and perfecting every element just as they do with their cars. This focus on manufacturing efficiency, Lutz believes, will lead to a dramatic reduction in production costs, potentially bringing them closer to zero. And this shift in how products are built—rather than merely assembled—could set a new standard for the entire manufacturing world. FARZAD MESBAHI: It's no wonder that innovation has been lacking so much it's because we've brute forced essentially manufacturing by leveraging globalization because we had that $2 an hour rate in China or Mexico wherever else like we're not like well we have to just get really good at building stuff to be competitive I was like nah just let him do it like we'll get get our margins just let them do it. JEFF LUTZ: The most under-discussed thing in the analyst world about Tesla is not the new vehicles coming, nor the growing discussions about autonomy, but rather Tesla's next product: their new way of manufacturing. It's a big deal, a huge step in how products are made today, and I don't think many investment firms have the right research people actually looking into what this impact is and what it's going to enable. It's going to enable the variable cost to build products to shrink further and further, approaching zero. This is the step function needed for cost reduction to achieve further scale, and I don’t think enough people are talking about it. It’s going to be how the Cybertruck is made, how Optimus will be made. Tesla versions its factories like they version their product. They spend time perfecting it and have design reviews of their factory designs just as they do with their products. They have specs and performance attributes they are trying to meet. This is very different from what happens at other companies at the executive level. FARZAD MESBAHI: This is such a profound statement because a lot of the stories that I hear are related to, like, say Tesla capitalizing on making manufacturing the product—really just honing in so much on the factory that it becomes the product, the you know, and where we throw around 2 million cars per year, five million cars per year per factory, tens of millions of bots per year sooner than people think. The usual narrative is crazy, pie-in-the-sky; they can't do that, look at Ford, look at BYD, they can only do so much. But what we're missing here is that we've had decades of just sitting on our asses, leveraging cheaper labor versus going out of our way to really push the boundaries of engineering and manufacturing. And now that we have a company that's willing to do that because the leader is viewing that as a first principles approach to manufacturing, right? Instead of like, okay, cheap labor is good, but why aren’t we pushing manufacturing and engineering as much as we can to make this as efficient and as productive as possible? Of course they’re extremely talented, they’re doing something very unique, but it’s also on the backs of 30-40 years of, I’m going to call it laziness. Like, you're just taking the easy way out, and I get it, more profits, you're taking care of shareholders—I get it—but you're not really pushing the boundaries of manufacturing. I think what this leads to is, if companies and leaders truly take this to heart, we’re going to see an explosion in manufacturing across the board. It’s not just going to be a Tesla thing; I think we’re going to see it all over the place. JEFF LUTZ: I’m advising companies on this now, you're going to see massive localization of manufacturing. People think costs just instantly go up when you do that. They do unmitigated, but if you're a company like Tesla and you're thinking about it the way they do, they're actually focused on localizing and making costs go down. Think of it, how many auto factories are expanding in Germany? Just answer that question. Read more:

The Musk-Led Manufacturing Revolution Nobody Is Talking About | ZeroHedge When most analysts discuss Tesla, they focus on new vehicles or the electric vehicle company’s advancements in autonomy. Yet, according to Launch i/o CEO Jeff Lutz, one of the most significant—and under-discussed—developments at Tesla is happening not in its design studios or on the road, but in its factories. Lutz, a former executive at Google and Motorola, argues that Tesla’s true innovation isn’t just the electric vehicles or robots it’s building, but how those products are being made. The company’s first-principles approach to manufacturing is a radical departure from the industry norm, focusing not just on cheap labor or existing models, but on rethinking the entire production process. Tesla is creating factories that are the product—designing, testing, and perfecting every element just as they do with their cars. This focus on manufacturing efficiency, Lutz believes, will lead to a dramatic reduction in production costs, potentially bringing them closer to zero. And this shift in how products are built—rather than merely assembled—could set a new standard for the entire manufacturing world. FARZAD MESBAHI: It's no wonder that innovation has been lacking so much it's because we've brute forced essentially manufacturing by leveraging globalization because we had that $2 an hour rate in China or Mexico wherever else like we're not like well we have to just get really good at building stuff to be competitive I was like nah just let him do it like we'll get get our margins just let them do it. JEFF LUTZ: The most under-discussed thing in the analyst world about Tesla is not the new vehicles coming, nor the growing discussions about autonomy, but rather Tesla's next product: their new way of manufacturing. It's a big deal, a huge step in how products are made today, and I don't think many investment firms have the right research people actually looking into what this impact is and what it's going to enable. It's going to enable the variable cost to build products to shrink further and further, approaching zero. This is the step function needed for cost reduction to achieve further scale, and I don’t think enough people are talking about it. It’s going to be how the Cybertruck is made, how Optimus will be made. Tesla versions its factories like they version their product. They spend time perfecting it and have design reviews of their factory designs just as they do with their products. They have specs and performance attributes they are trying to meet. This is very different from what happens at other companies at the executive level. FARZAD MESBAHI: This is such a profound statement because a lot of the stories that I hear are related to, like, say Tesla capitalizing on making manufacturing the product—really just honing in so much on the factory that it becomes the product, the you know, and where we throw around 2 million cars per year, five million cars per year per factory, tens of millions of bots per year sooner than people think. The usual narrative is crazy, pie-in-the-sky; they can't do that, look at Ford, look at BYD, they can only do so much. But what we're missing here is that we've had decades of just sitting on our asses, leveraging cheaper labor versus going out of our way to really push the boundaries of engineering and manufacturing. And now that we have a company that's willing to do that because the leader is viewing that as a first principles approach to manufacturing, right? Instead of like, okay, cheap labor is good, but why aren’t we pushing manufacturing and engineering as much as we can to make this as efficient and as productive as possible? Of course they’re extremely talented, they’re doing something very unique, but it’s also on the backs of 30-40 years of, I’m going to call it laziness. Like, you're just taking the easy way out, and I get it, more profits, you're taking care of shareholders—I get it—but you're not really pushing the boundaries of manufacturing. I think what this leads to is, if companies and leaders truly take this to heart, we’re going to see an explosion in manufacturing across the board. It’s not just going to be a Tesla thing; I think we’re going to see it all over the place. JEFF LUTZ: I’m advising companies on this now, you're going to see massive localization of manufacturing. People think costs just instantly go up when you do that. They do unmitigated, but if you're a company like Tesla and you're thinking about it the way they do, they're actually focused on localizing and making costs go down. Think of it, how many auto factories are expanding in Germany? Just answer that question. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

58,478 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Jessica Livingston on investing in Stripe when the Collison Brothers were teenagers Jessica reflects on a 19-year old Patrick Collison telling her and the other co-founders of Y Combinator that he wanted to take on the financial industry with his younger brother John. “We were like, ‘Do you realize how hard this is? And you don’t have connections.’ But they were intrepid. They were like, ‘Well, we don’t have connections, but we’ll find connections.’” She recalls their determination and focus: “You think the head of a bank is going to take a 19-year old startup founder seriously? It seems pretty implausible, right? But they were good enough that they were able to convince these banks to work with them.” Determination, Jessica argues, is “by far the most important quality. More than intelligence. More than previous success in school.” When she co-founded Y Combinator, the hypothesis was that they’d just fund all the best hackers from MIT and Harvard and they’d turn out to be great startup founders. But that turned out to not be true. “Determination is the most important thing. Understanding your users and building a product with a great user experience is second most important.” Jessica also believes being flexible minded is very important: “You have this idea, you test it out, and it doesn’t always work the first time. You have to be able to say, ‘Okay, I thought I was going to do this, but let’s try this, even though I have a lot of energy vested in this, let’s try this direction. You really have to be open minded.” And then you have to be convincing and a good leader: “You are going to be convincing employees to join you. You’re going to be convincing investors to invest in you. When you get to the point where you’re doing deals with bigger companies, you have to convince them. Your whole world is convincing people, and so you have to be able to communicate your idea and convince people why they should care about you more than any of the other hundreds of startups out there.” Video source: Y Combinator (2016)

Jessica Livingston on investing in Stripe when the Collison Brothers were teenagers Jessica reflects on a 19-year old Patrick Collison telling her and the other co-founders of Y Combinator that he wanted to take on the financial industry with his younger brother John. “We were like, ‘Do you realize how hard this is? And you don’t have connections.’ But they were intrepid. They were like, ‘Well, we don’t have connections, but we’ll find connections.’” She recalls their determination and focus: “You think the head of a bank is going to take a 19-year old startup founder seriously? It seems pretty implausible, right? But they were good enough that they were able to convince these banks to work with them.” Determination, Jessica argues, is “by far the most important quality. More than intelligence. More than previous success in school.” When she co-founded Y Combinator, the hypothesis was that they’d just fund all the best hackers from MIT and Harvard and they’d turn out to be great startup founders. But that turned out to not be true. “Determination is the most important thing. Understanding your users and building a product with a great user experience is second most important.” Jessica also believes being flexible minded is very important: “You have this idea, you test it out, and it doesn’t always work the first time. You have to be able to say, ‘Okay, I thought I was going to do this, but let’s try this, even though I have a lot of energy vested in this, let’s try this direction. You really have to be open minded.” And then you have to be convincing and a good leader: “You are going to be convincing employees to join you. You’re going to be convincing investors to invest in you. When you get to the point where you’re doing deals with bigger companies, you have to convince them. Your whole world is convincing people, and so you have to be able to communicate your idea and convince people why they should care about you more than any of the other hundreds of startups out there.” Video source: Y Combinator (2016)

Startup Archive

163,490 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Investor Chris Hohn (2,924% returns since 2004) on 7 types of "moats" as Warren Buffett calls them: First Hohn clarifies that a "moat" means a business that is difficult to replace & compete with: "Those are…two risks: substitution risk & competition risk. They become very difficult to overcome long-term. And why is that so important? Competition kills profits…Substitution eliminates your business." Next, Hohn on the 7 moats: 1. Irreplaceable Physical Assets "One which most people don't look at—most investors don't really look at, interestingly—is irreplaceable physical assets. We're in a world where people just look at earnings. They don't look at asset value or physical assets. So we like quite a bit of infrastructure. Airports, for example, one of our investments has been the airport group in Spain that the government privatized, AENA. You can never build a second airport in Madrid or anywhere else. These are natural monopolies. That also applies to toll roads, railroads, and telecom towers." 2. Intellectual Property "A second [moat] is Intellectual Property that is so advanced it's very difficult to replicate. One space we like is aircraft engines. It's a very complicated product: the materials complexity, the temperatures these engines run at, the metals that would otherwise melt, the thousands of complex parts that all have to come together. That's a business where there are only two players in narrowbody engines and two in widebody, and there have been no new entrants for more than 50 years. The last new entrant was GE. It's a big industry, but it's so complex it's very hard to enter." 3. "Installed Base" "Another barrier to entry is Installed Base, which also applies to the aircraft engine business. Once those engines are there, you get the spare parts business that comes with them." 4. Scale "Scale is another barrier, though that's not a guarantee of a competitive moat." 5. Network Effects "Network Effects are another important barrier. You can see this in assets like Visa and Meta." 6. Brands "And Brands are another barrier to entry, though not every brand is powerful. A McDonald's has real value. Some brands are powerful and sustainable, but not all." 7. Customer Switching Costs "One more moat worth mentioning: Customer Switching costs. Take mission-critical software. Once it's installed, companies are very reluctant to mess with it and switch because of the complexity."

Investment Wisdom

26,399 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Bill Ackman is quietly building the next Berkshire Hathaway In a recent interview, he laid out how he plans to deliver 20%+ returns - using Warren Buffett’s blueprint Here’s how he’s doing it: "So our day job, as a firm, is buying minority stakes in companies and helping make them more successful. We like to own them for long periods of time — typically 2%, 5%, or 10% positions. While we don’t have control, we’re often influential shareholders. I’ve always admired Mr. Buffett. If you look at his history: in 1955, he started a small partnership. By 1962, he began buying into a struggling textile company because it was cheap. By 1968, he had control — but of a not-so-great business. He eventually wound down his hedge fund, tired of the volatility of outside capital, and shifted to building a permanent capital vehicle. Buffett was essentially an activist hedge fund manager early on. He took control of Berkshire, bought an insurance company and a bank, and over time built what’s now a trillion-dollar business. He’s been an unofficial mentor of mine. In our case, we own 47% of Howard Hughes Corp — a very different kind of public company. It builds and owns cities. It’s underappreciated by the market and, like early Berkshire, trades cheaply. We’re also in the process of either buying or building an insurance company. The goal is long-term compounding by owning businesses, not just stocks. The insurance company will hold stock investments, much like Berkshire does. What’s unique about Berkshire is that it combines a world-class insurance operation with a high-performing investment arm. Most insurance companies focus only on underwriting. Most investment firms only manage capital. Berkshire does both. And the structure matters. A standalone insurance company faces tighter investment regulations. But if it's owned by a well-capitalized holding company, you get more flexibility. Rating agencies care more about the parent company's strength than just capital levels. Credit ratings are critical — no one buys insurance from a poorly rated firm. Buffett's insurance companies benefit from being owned by a diversified, non-insurance parent with strong credit and low leverage. That gives him more freedom to invest insurance assets in equities — not just bonds. Our plan is similar. Pershing Square is very well-capitalized, with ~$30 billion in assets. That supports our 47% stake in Howard Hughes. HHC benefits from having a financially strong parent. It’s already a solid business, with about $5 billion in equity. We’ve also started an insurance subsidiary within HHC. Thanks to the structure, we’ll have similar investment flexibility as Berkshire — using insurance float to compound returns. Pershing Square has compounded at ~23% annually over 21 years (pre-fees). Since we raised permanent capital, returns have been ~27–28% over the last eight years. So the business model is this: Use a profitable insurance company to generate low-cost liabilities Invest those assets at high returns Compound capital over the long term That’s the blueprint — and we’re using Howard Hughes to follow it."

Bill Ackman is quietly building the next Berkshire Hathaway In a recent interview, he laid out how he plans to deliver 20%+ returns - using Warren Buffett’s blueprint Here’s how he’s doing it: "So our day job, as a firm, is buying minority stakes in companies and helping make them more successful. We like to own them for long periods of time — typically 2%, 5%, or 10% positions. While we don’t have control, we’re often influential shareholders. I’ve always admired Mr. Buffett. If you look at his history: in 1955, he started a small partnership. By 1962, he began buying into a struggling textile company because it was cheap. By 1968, he had control — but of a not-so-great business. He eventually wound down his hedge fund, tired of the volatility of outside capital, and shifted to building a permanent capital vehicle. Buffett was essentially an activist hedge fund manager early on. He took control of Berkshire, bought an insurance company and a bank, and over time built what’s now a trillion-dollar business. He’s been an unofficial mentor of mine. In our case, we own 47% of Howard Hughes Corp — a very different kind of public company. It builds and owns cities. It’s underappreciated by the market and, like early Berkshire, trades cheaply. We’re also in the process of either buying or building an insurance company. The goal is long-term compounding by owning businesses, not just stocks. The insurance company will hold stock investments, much like Berkshire does. What’s unique about Berkshire is that it combines a world-class insurance operation with a high-performing investment arm. Most insurance companies focus only on underwriting. Most investment firms only manage capital. Berkshire does both. And the structure matters. A standalone insurance company faces tighter investment regulations. But if it's owned by a well-capitalized holding company, you get more flexibility. Rating agencies care more about the parent company's strength than just capital levels. Credit ratings are critical — no one buys insurance from a poorly rated firm. Buffett's insurance companies benefit from being owned by a diversified, non-insurance parent with strong credit and low leverage. That gives him more freedom to invest insurance assets in equities — not just bonds. Our plan is similar. Pershing Square is very well-capitalized, with ~$30 billion in assets. That supports our 47% stake in Howard Hughes. HHC benefits from having a financially strong parent. It’s already a solid business, with about $5 billion in equity. We’ve also started an insurance subsidiary within HHC. Thanks to the structure, we’ll have similar investment flexibility as Berkshire — using insurance float to compound returns. Pershing Square has compounded at ~23% annually over 21 years (pre-fees). Since we raised permanent capital, returns have been ~27–28% over the last eight years. So the business model is this: Use a profitable insurance company to generate low-cost liabilities Invest those assets at high returns Compound capital over the long term That’s the blueprint — and we’re using Howard Hughes to follow it."

Triple Net Investor

103,422 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

INTRODUCTION TO THE STOCK MARKET The stock market is a place where individuals and institutions buy and sell ownership in companies (called shares or stocks). When you buy a share, you’re essentially buying a small piece of that company and participating in its growth, profits, and risks. People invest in the stock market to grow wealth over time, earn dividends, protect against inflation, and build long-term financial security. Unlike short-term trading, investing focuses on patience, discipline, and owning quality businesses. --- INTRODUCTION TO THE NIGERIAN STOCK MARKET (NGX) The Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) is Nigeria’s official stock exchange, where publicly listed Nigerian companies trade their shares. It hosts banks, telecoms, industrial firms, consumer goods companies, oil & gas firms, and more. Through the NGX, everyday Nigerians can own parts of companies like banks, manufacturing firms, telecom operators, and other major businesses driving the economy. Returns come from: Capital appreciation (share price increases) Dividends (cash payouts from profits) The NGX is regulated, structured, and accessible to both local and foreign investors through licensed platforms. --- HOW TO GET STARTED INVESTING IN NGX (TWO SIMPLE WAYS) Today, you don’t need to walk into a stockbroking office. You can get started fully online using digital investment platforms. Below are two popular and easy options that I personally use; --- 1) GETTING STARTED WITH BAMBOO Bamboo Bamboo is a digital investment app that allows Nigerians to invest in Nigerian stocks (NGX) and foreign stocks. Steps to get started: 1. Download the Bamboo app from the App Store or Google Play. 2. Create an account with your email and phone number. 3. Complete KYC verification Input your BVN Provide personal details 4. Fund your wallet via bank transfer. 5. Search for Nigerian stocks listed on NGX and place your first buy order. 👉 Referral code: ngxinvestor Bamboo is beginner-friendly and suitable for people who want a simple interface and access to both local and global markets. When done with registration to buy stocks on Bamboo,select the " Invest " icon on the bottom part of the screen,you will see that you can invest in USD or Naira assets,click on Naira,then select NG stocks,search for the stock of your choice and buy --- 2) GETTING STARTED WITH I-INVEST i-invest I-Invest is an official platform that allows Nigerians to invest in Nigerian stocks, Commercial Papers,Mutual Funds,USD Bonds etc... Steps to get started: 1. Visit the I-Invest website or download the app on App Store or Google Play. 2. Create an account 3. Complete required KYC documentation: BVN Valid ID Bank details Proof of Address etc... 4. Fund your account. 5. Start buying NGX-listed stocks directly through the app. 👉 Referral code: 22406 I-Invest is ideal for investors who want more Investment options because you can also invest in fixed deposit notes, commercial papers,USD Bonds ,life insurance etc.. After registration to buy shares ,click on " Invest " then select " Equities " ,then search the company of your choice then select "buy equities" --- FINAL NOTES FOR BEGINNERS Start small and grow with experience. Focus on learning before chasing quick profits. Invest in businesses you understand. Think long-term, not overnight success. The most important step is starting — clarity and confidence come with time and consistency. The first video is for bamboo Bamboo The second video is for I-Invest i-invest Please if anyone has any more questions please comment and I'll try to reply,and if you can DM I'll appreciate if you guys can use my referral codes

INTRODUCTION TO THE STOCK MARKET The stock market is a place where individuals and institutions buy and sell ownership in companies (called shares or stocks). When you buy a share, you’re essentially buying a small piece of that company and participating in its growth, profits, and risks. People invest in the stock market to grow wealth over time, earn dividends, protect against inflation, and build long-term financial security. Unlike short-term trading, investing focuses on patience, discipline, and owning quality businesses. --- INTRODUCTION TO THE NIGERIAN STOCK MARKET (NGX) The Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) is Nigeria’s official stock exchange, where publicly listed Nigerian companies trade their shares. It hosts banks, telecoms, industrial firms, consumer goods companies, oil & gas firms, and more. Through the NGX, everyday Nigerians can own parts of companies like banks, manufacturing firms, telecom operators, and other major businesses driving the economy. Returns come from: Capital appreciation (share price increases) Dividends (cash payouts from profits) The NGX is regulated, structured, and accessible to both local and foreign investors through licensed platforms. --- HOW TO GET STARTED INVESTING IN NGX (TWO SIMPLE WAYS) Today, you don’t need to walk into a stockbroking office. You can get started fully online using digital investment platforms. Below are two popular and easy options that I personally use; --- 1) GETTING STARTED WITH BAMBOO Bamboo Bamboo is a digital investment app that allows Nigerians to invest in Nigerian stocks (NGX) and foreign stocks. Steps to get started: 1. Download the Bamboo app from the App Store or Google Play. 2. Create an account with your email and phone number. 3. Complete KYC verification Input your BVN Provide personal details 4. Fund your wallet via bank transfer. 5. Search for Nigerian stocks listed on NGX and place your first buy order. 👉 Referral code: ngxinvestor Bamboo is beginner-friendly and suitable for people who want a simple interface and access to both local and global markets. When done with registration to buy stocks on Bamboo,select the " Invest " icon on the bottom part of the screen,you will see that you can invest in USD or Naira assets,click on Naira,then select NG stocks,search for the stock of your choice and buy --- 2) GETTING STARTED WITH I-INVEST i-invest I-Invest is an official platform that allows Nigerians to invest in Nigerian stocks, Commercial Papers,Mutual Funds,USD Bonds etc... Steps to get started: 1. Visit the I-Invest website or download the app on App Store or Google Play. 2. Create an account 3. Complete required KYC documentation: BVN Valid ID Bank details Proof of Address etc... 4. Fund your account. 5. Start buying NGX-listed stocks directly through the app. 👉 Referral code: 22406 I-Invest is ideal for investors who want more Investment options because you can also invest in fixed deposit notes, commercial papers,USD Bonds ,life insurance etc.. After registration to buy shares ,click on " Invest " then select " Equities " ,then search the company of your choice then select "buy equities" --- FINAL NOTES FOR BEGINNERS Start small and grow with experience. Focus on learning before chasing quick profits. Invest in businesses you understand. Think long-term, not overnight success. The most important step is starting — clarity and confidence come with time and consistency. The first video is for bamboo Bamboo The second video is for I-Invest i-invest Please if anyone has any more questions please comment and I'll try to reply,and if you can DM I'll appreciate if you guys can use my referral codes

Emmanuel Essien

20,432 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Founder and CEO of Cassator Corp, Dmytro Ivanov, addressed the community and shared the latest news about the Sl8 project. For your convenience, a text version of the video message has also been added below. © Hi everyone! I finally had a chance to record a few video messages for you, especially for those who are upset about the price drop or feel that nothing is happening with the project. I want to explain what is happening now and what we are planning to do next. Once again, greetings from Austin, Texas! Let me start with the most obvious point: the price has indeed fallen, and quite significantly. I do not know who is selling tokens at such a price, but I have also occasionally had to sell some of my own tokens when I needed money for various expenses. So I understand why people do it, although, of course, I now regret my own sales. Now let me tell you what we continue to work on and what comes next. First, we are preparing our company to attract traditional investment from angel investors and venture capital firms. Over the past few months, we have significantly updated our website and prepared a professional pitch deck. We are now finalizing a detailed financial model, projections, and other materials required for due diligence and for having meaningful discussions with potential investors in a language they understand. I also want to tell you why I feel that I have been very lucky lately. I live in a skyscraper where several concierges work. I became good friends with one of them. I told him about my company and what we are working on. I also helped him send money to his relatives who live far away through Binance without spending a large amount on fees. That is how we started talking more and became friends. A few months ago, I was picking up some packages from him when he suddenly asked me, “Listen, there are some investor events taking place here. Would you be interested in meeting the people who attend them?” I replied, “Of course I’m interested. Tell me more.” He then sent me the contact details of the person who organizes these events. I reached out to him, and we arranged a meeting. During our conversation, it turned out that we not only lived in the same building, but also on the same floor, just a couple of doors apart. We immediately found common ground and got along very well. I told him what we were working on and why our project was interesting. He was very impressed because our startup is truly unusual and stands out from the other local projects. In terms of scale, we are dozens of times larger than many of them. We met several more times, and eventually invited him to join our team. He is now our Head of Fundraising. He helps us prepare all the necessary documents and build the entire investor relations process: how we will organize meetings, present the company, and position the project to potential investors in Texas and beyond. That is the latest news. I believe we were genuinely very lucky because he is extremely proactive and has direct, personal connections with real investors rather than just remote contacts. His network includes millionaires and even several billionaires. One of them has a net worth of around four billion dollars, and he knows these people personally. I have already attended one of these events. We are now in discussions with several potential investors and have already made some promising progress that could bring us strong results. So we continue moving forward in this direction. We already have potential candidates to launch on our human tokenization platform. These could be truly large and significant launches, but bringing them to life will require a substantial budget. After the launch of my token, we understand that every new project must be prepared and executed at the highest possible level. We cannot allow a situation where something goes wrong or the launch fails to gain proper momentum. That is why every new launch must be thoroughly prepared and have the strongest possible chance of success. So we already have promising candidates to launch, and now we are preparing to raise funding. The last time we raised money from traditional investors in exchange for equity, rather than through crypto, was more than four years ago, almost five. Wish us luck. I believe we will have great news very soon, and it will be important for you as well.

Founder and CEO of Cassator Corp, Dmytro Ivanov, addressed the community and shared the latest news about the Sl8 project. For your convenience, a text version of the video message has also been added below. © Hi everyone! I finally had a chance to record a few video messages for you, especially for those who are upset about the price drop or feel that nothing is happening with the project. I want to explain what is happening now and what we are planning to do next. Once again, greetings from Austin, Texas! Let me start with the most obvious point: the price has indeed fallen, and quite significantly. I do not know who is selling tokens at such a price, but I have also occasionally had to sell some of my own tokens when I needed money for various expenses. So I understand why people do it, although, of course, I now regret my own sales. Now let me tell you what we continue to work on and what comes next. First, we are preparing our company to attract traditional investment from angel investors and venture capital firms. Over the past few months, we have significantly updated our website and prepared a professional pitch deck. We are now finalizing a detailed financial model, projections, and other materials required for due diligence and for having meaningful discussions with potential investors in a language they understand. I also want to tell you why I feel that I have been very lucky lately. I live in a skyscraper where several concierges work. I became good friends with one of them. I told him about my company and what we are working on. I also helped him send money to his relatives who live far away through Binance without spending a large amount on fees. That is how we started talking more and became friends. A few months ago, I was picking up some packages from him when he suddenly asked me, “Listen, there are some investor events taking place here. Would you be interested in meeting the people who attend them?” I replied, “Of course I’m interested. Tell me more.” He then sent me the contact details of the person who organizes these events. I reached out to him, and we arranged a meeting. During our conversation, it turned out that we not only lived in the same building, but also on the same floor, just a couple of doors apart. We immediately found common ground and got along very well. I told him what we were working on and why our project was interesting. He was very impressed because our startup is truly unusual and stands out from the other local projects. In terms of scale, we are dozens of times larger than many of them. We met several more times, and eventually invited him to join our team. He is now our Head of Fundraising. He helps us prepare all the necessary documents and build the entire investor relations process: how we will organize meetings, present the company, and position the project to potential investors in Texas and beyond. That is the latest news. I believe we were genuinely very lucky because he is extremely proactive and has direct, personal connections with real investors rather than just remote contacts. His network includes millionaires and even several billionaires. One of them has a net worth of around four billion dollars, and he knows these people personally. I have already attended one of these events. We are now in discussions with several potential investors and have already made some promising progress that could bring us strong results. So we continue moving forward in this direction. We already have potential candidates to launch on our human tokenization platform. These could be truly large and significant launches, but bringing them to life will require a substantial budget. After the launch of my token, we understand that every new project must be prepared and executed at the highest possible level. We cannot allow a situation where something goes wrong or the launch fails to gain proper momentum. That is why every new launch must be thoroughly prepared and have the strongest possible chance of success. So we already have promising candidates to launch, and now we are preparing to raise funding. The last time we raised money from traditional investors in exchange for equity, rather than through crypto, was more than four years ago, almost five. Wish us luck. I believe we will have great news very soon, and it will be important for you as well.

Cassator Corp.

19,088 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

Bill Gurley on what he learned from his mistake of not investing in Google’s Series A “The biggest mistake I ever made is I met Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] when they had 25 employees at Google and had them present to my partnership, and we didn’t follow through and try to invest.” Bill reflects on what he learned from this: “A lot of people talk about this in venture, but you have asymmetric returns — you can lose 1x your money, but when you miss on [a Google], you can miss out on 10,000x your money. So we had a saying internally, ‘What could go right?’ We never sweated a zero… But when we miss big winners, we talk about that frequently…. And one interesting thing about venture is it’s a complex system and there are no rules… I’ve often thought about it as: You develop a set of pattern recognition, which is enhanced if you’re working with a partnership because everybody has their own. And then you have like 10 loose rules that you apply when you see a company. But a lot of the times when you make a great investment, it’s because decide to relax one or two of those rules.” He emphasizes that Google wasn’t an obvious winner at the time: “Yahoo had fallen from $82 to $10 as a public company. Excite was in bankruptcy. These were the other search companies at the time. Larry and Sergey both wanted to be CEO and they were PhD students at Stanford. Co-CEO PhD students is not on the checklist. And they wanted a really high price.” But what Bill finds most interesting is that two of the all-time great venture capitalists were able to look past these problems: “Two of the very best venture capitalists of all time — John Doerr and Mike Moritz — did the deal. So they had a superior mental framework in that situation and broke a lot of the rules. Another thing was they split the deal at a really high price so their ownership was much lower than they traditionally get. But they knew to break that rule at the time.” Bill gives Tesla as another example of an investment that “likely violated most people’s entire rule set” but being contrarian is what made the return so high. Video source: Texas McCombs (2025)

Bill Gurley on what he learned from his mistake of not investing in Google’s Series A “The biggest mistake I ever made is I met Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] when they had 25 employees at Google and had them present to my partnership, and we didn’t follow through and try to invest.” Bill reflects on what he learned from this: “A lot of people talk about this in venture, but you have asymmetric returns — you can lose 1x your money, but when you miss on [a Google], you can miss out on 10,000x your money. So we had a saying internally, ‘What could go right?’ We never sweated a zero… But when we miss big winners, we talk about that frequently…. And one interesting thing about venture is it’s a complex system and there are no rules… I’ve often thought about it as: You develop a set of pattern recognition, which is enhanced if you’re working with a partnership because everybody has their own. And then you have like 10 loose rules that you apply when you see a company. But a lot of the times when you make a great investment, it’s because decide to relax one or two of those rules.” He emphasizes that Google wasn’t an obvious winner at the time: “Yahoo had fallen from $82 to $10 as a public company. Excite was in bankruptcy. These were the other search companies at the time. Larry and Sergey both wanted to be CEO and they were PhD students at Stanford. Co-CEO PhD students is not on the checklist. And they wanted a really high price.” But what Bill finds most interesting is that two of the all-time great venture capitalists were able to look past these problems: “Two of the very best venture capitalists of all time — John Doerr and Mike Moritz — did the deal. So they had a superior mental framework in that situation and broke a lot of the rules. Another thing was they split the deal at a really high price so their ownership was much lower than they traditionally get. But they knew to break that rule at the time.” Bill gives Tesla as another example of an investment that “likely violated most people’s entire rule set” but being contrarian is what made the return so high. Video source: Texas McCombs (2025)

Startup Archive

170,985 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Elon Musk just explained why the most important AI company on Earth might be a rocket company. The human brain is 2% of body mass. It burns 20% of the body’s total energy. Intelligence has always been an energy problem disguised as an information problem. The entire tech industry missed this. Musk: “Those who have lived in software land don’t realize that they’re about to have a hard lesson in hardware.” Every new model is hungrier than the last. Every training run devours more electricity than the one before. The grid was not built for this. Utility companies move at geological speed. Interconnection takes years. Permitting takes years. Construction takes years. AI moves in months. Musk: “You’re going to hit the wall big time on power generation. They already are.” The obvious answer is private power plants next to data centers. Musk: “Where do you get the power plants? Where do you get the power plants from?” You cannot will a turbine into existence with venture capital. Every atom on Earth is bound by friction, gravity, and regulation. Most people stare at this wall and see the ceiling on intelligence. They are looking in the wrong direction. In orbit there is no night. No clouds. No seasons. No permitting. No grid. Unfiltered solar energy feeding silicon every hour of every day. Musk: “It’s 10 times cheaper because you don’t need any batteries.” That single number rewrites the entire economics of intelligence. Musk: “The moment your cost of access to space becomes low, by far the cheapest and most scalable way to generate tokens is space.” SpaceX is not a rocket company. It is quietly becoming the most important energy infrastructure play on the planet. Starship is not about Mars. It is about making orbit so cheap that building on the ground becomes the irrational choice. Every major leap in intelligence followed the same pattern. Not a smarter algorithm. A bigger energy source. Fire grew the human brain. Fossil fuels built the computer. The next source isn’t on this planet. The ceiling on intelligence was never artificial. It was always gravitational. The future will not be decided by who builds the best model. It will be decided by who builds the cheapest rocket.

Elon Musk just explained why the most important AI company on Earth might be a rocket company. The human brain is 2% of body mass. It burns 20% of the body’s total energy. Intelligence has always been an energy problem disguised as an information problem. The entire tech industry missed this. Musk: “Those who have lived in software land don’t realize that they’re about to have a hard lesson in hardware.” Every new model is hungrier than the last. Every training run devours more electricity than the one before. The grid was not built for this. Utility companies move at geological speed. Interconnection takes years. Permitting takes years. Construction takes years. AI moves in months. Musk: “You’re going to hit the wall big time on power generation. They already are.” The obvious answer is private power plants next to data centers. Musk: “Where do you get the power plants? Where do you get the power plants from?” You cannot will a turbine into existence with venture capital. Every atom on Earth is bound by friction, gravity, and regulation. Most people stare at this wall and see the ceiling on intelligence. They are looking in the wrong direction. In orbit there is no night. No clouds. No seasons. No permitting. No grid. Unfiltered solar energy feeding silicon every hour of every day. Musk: “It’s 10 times cheaper because you don’t need any batteries.” That single number rewrites the entire economics of intelligence. Musk: “The moment your cost of access to space becomes low, by far the cheapest and most scalable way to generate tokens is space.” SpaceX is not a rocket company. It is quietly becoming the most important energy infrastructure play on the planet. Starship is not about Mars. It is about making orbit so cheap that building on the ground becomes the irrational choice. Every major leap in intelligence followed the same pattern. Not a smarter algorithm. A bigger energy source. Fire grew the human brain. Fossil fuels built the computer. The next source isn’t on this planet. The ceiling on intelligence was never artificial. It was always gravitational. The future will not be decided by who builds the best model. It will be decided by who builds the cheapest rocket.

Dustin

50,186 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Warren Buffett on why having less money can be one of the biggest advantages in investing: When asked about the best period of his investing career, Warren Buffett pointed to his early years — not because he had more resources, but because he had far less capital to manage. "My best period was right after I met Ben Graham in early 1951. From the end of 1950 through the next 10 years, returns averaged about 50% a year... but I was working with a tiny tiny tiny amount of money." Buffett explained that he spent countless hours searching for overlooked opportunities, reviewing thousands of pages of company information by hand. "I went through the pages of the manuals page by page. I probably went through 20,000 pages in the Moody's industrial, transportation, banks and finance manuals. And I did it twice. I actually looked at every business." Because he was investing relatively small amounts, he could buy into tiny, deeply undervalued companies that would have been too insignificant for large investment firms. The result? He'd find one or two businesses he could put $10,000 or $15,000 into that were 'ridiculously cheap. As Buffett's capital grew, however, those opportunities became less meaningful. "As soon as you start getting the money up into the millions, many millions, the curve on expectable results falls off just dramatically." He argues that individual investors with small portfolios and a willingness to do the research can often access opportunities that are unavailable to large institutions. "If you're working with a small sum of money and you're really interested in the business and willing to do the work, there's no question in my mind. You will find some things that promise very large returns compared to what we will be able to deliver with large sums of money." Charlie Munger added that investors with limited capital should embrace areas of the market that large firms often ignore. "A brilliant man who can't get any money from other people and is working with a very small sum probably should work in very obscure stocks searching out unusual mispriced opportunities." Buffett also observed that many talented people on Wall Street choose a different path — not by seeking exceptional investment performance, but by managing other people's money. "Most smart people in Wall Street figure that they can make a lot more money, a lot easier, by getting an override on other people's money... the monetization of hope and greed is a way to make a huge amount of money." To illustrate the point, he recalled a friend with little investing success who was nevertheless planning to launch a large hedge fund. "If you looked at this fellow's schedule D on his 1040 for the last 20 years, you'd think he ought to be mowing lawns. But he may get his 125 million." Buffett concluded by arguing that, on Wall Street, marketing often earns more than investment skill. "The biggest money made in Wall Street in recent years has not been made by great performance, but has been made by great promotion." Source: Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger at the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting

Warren Buffett on why having less money can be one of the biggest advantages in investing: When asked about the best period of his investing career, Warren Buffett pointed to his early years — not because he had more resources, but because he had far less capital to manage. "My best period was right after I met Ben Graham in early 1951. From the end of 1950 through the next 10 years, returns averaged about 50% a year... but I was working with a tiny tiny tiny amount of money." Buffett explained that he spent countless hours searching for overlooked opportunities, reviewing thousands of pages of company information by hand. "I went through the pages of the manuals page by page. I probably went through 20,000 pages in the Moody's industrial, transportation, banks and finance manuals. And I did it twice. I actually looked at every business." Because he was investing relatively small amounts, he could buy into tiny, deeply undervalued companies that would have been too insignificant for large investment firms. The result? He'd find one or two businesses he could put $10,000 or $15,000 into that were 'ridiculously cheap. As Buffett's capital grew, however, those opportunities became less meaningful. "As soon as you start getting the money up into the millions, many millions, the curve on expectable results falls off just dramatically." He argues that individual investors with small portfolios and a willingness to do the research can often access opportunities that are unavailable to large institutions. "If you're working with a small sum of money and you're really interested in the business and willing to do the work, there's no question in my mind. You will find some things that promise very large returns compared to what we will be able to deliver with large sums of money." Charlie Munger added that investors with limited capital should embrace areas of the market that large firms often ignore. "A brilliant man who can't get any money from other people and is working with a very small sum probably should work in very obscure stocks searching out unusual mispriced opportunities." Buffett also observed that many talented people on Wall Street choose a different path — not by seeking exceptional investment performance, but by managing other people's money. "Most smart people in Wall Street figure that they can make a lot more money, a lot easier, by getting an override on other people's money... the monetization of hope and greed is a way to make a huge amount of money." To illustrate the point, he recalled a friend with little investing success who was nevertheless planning to launch a large hedge fund. "If you looked at this fellow's schedule D on his 1040 for the last 20 years, you'd think he ought to be mowing lawns. But he may get his 125 million." Buffett concluded by arguing that, on Wall Street, marketing often earns more than investment skill. "The biggest money made in Wall Street in recent years has not been made by great performance, but has been made by great promotion." Source: Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger at the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting

Black Edge

13,003 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

In 2015, David Ulevitch (David Ulevitch 🇺🇸) sold OpenDNS to Cisco for $635M, now he co-leads the $600M AD fund at a16z "It took me 10 years to basically have my overnight success" With a hard-earned operator background David shares his 3 key lessons 1.) Magnetic teams win. 2.) Capital flows to magnetic founders. 3.) Government & enterprise customers require deep, long-term (non-transactional !!) partnerships. & how its reflected in their portfolio among big names like Anduril, Base Power, Radiant, Castelion, & more BTW - While at Cisco, David was Senior VP & GM of Cisco Security, a $2.4 billion annual revenue business w/ more than 5K+ team members . . . "1.) I think the first thing is it starts with team & talent. The best companies in our portfolio have the best performing teams. And you know it's very easy in venture to fall in love with an idea, but what really matters is like is there a team there that can execute? Can that team magnetically the best talent in the world and get people to come work for them? People love working for Brian Schimpf (Brian Schimpf) at Anduril (Anduril Industries), they love working for Palmer Luckey (Palmer Luckey), they love working for Matt Grimm (Matt Grimm). Like they they just they love that team and they're able to magnetically attract the absolute best talent. Chris Brose (Chris Brose) is probably the most in-demand person in the like the defense space today and he's worked at Anduril since the very beginning. You have to be able to magnetically attract the best talent and and every company we look at whether it's Base Power (Base Power) whether it's Saronic (Saronic) it doesn't matter, Radiant Nuclear (Radiant) they just become magnetic attractors of talent. 2.) The second thing is these companies are expensive & you know we've learned that they have to be able to magnetically attract capital.. And it sometimes it sounds dumb to say 'cause like we're investing in these companies so obviously they got capital but they need to be able to attract capital from other people as well. And we found that these companies are so capital-intensive & sometimes the curve to revenue takes a little bit longer 'cause you're doing manufacturing and doing all these other things. ..nothing matters more than the talent at the top the founders of the company. Can they magnetically attract capital? Can they magnetically attract talent? Those 2 things matter the most. And then I think what I've learned and I learned that in my own experiences, and you know it took me 10 years to basically have my overnight success ..and if I think about the years that were not that last night before we sold the company.. like the lessons I learned were like every time I had to change the way the company was operating.. it always started with talent. I had to change out the executive team, change out the leadership team that we had, at one point we were a consumer company, we pivoted to enterprise halfway through 5 years in and totally rebuilt the team. Because the kind of people that were building a consumer company were totally different than building an cybersecurity company. 3.) I think the last thing I learned that was really important, especially to help me set me up for the American Dynamism practice, is at Cisco, at that point I was running one of the largest cybersecurity companies in the world, and I recognized at Cisco that like when you sell to the government you need to have the people that know how to interface with the government, know how to sell the government. These are very very strategic sales processes. They're not transactional. Oftentimes the customer on the other side of the table is sometimes betting their career on picking your solution. The same thing is true now with government. When somebody who's a procurement officer, or a program officer, is betting on a defense startup to provide some solution they're really betting on their career in many cases to say like "I hope that Anduril or Saronic, or whoever, Castelion () can deliver this solution for me." And so I think you need to recognize & appreciate, and this is what I learned at Cisco that these partnerships are just not transactional. They're deep relationships. You're gonna work with these people for years on these complex large you know $10 million plus deals & I learned that on the enterprise side at Cisco I see it now over & over in the AD portfolio. I think those are some of the biggest lessons that that I learned talent & then really partnership with your customers."

In 2015, David Ulevitch (David Ulevitch 🇺🇸) sold OpenDNS to Cisco for $635M, now he co-leads the $600M AD fund at a16z "It took me 10 years to basically have my overnight success" With a hard-earned operator background David shares his 3 key lessons 1.) Magnetic teams win. 2.) Capital flows to magnetic founders. 3.) Government & enterprise customers require deep, long-term (non-transactional !!) partnerships. & how its reflected in their portfolio among big names like Anduril, Base Power, Radiant, Castelion, & more BTW - While at Cisco, David was Senior VP & GM of Cisco Security, a $2.4 billion annual revenue business w/ more than 5K+ team members . . . "1.) I think the first thing is it starts with team & talent. The best companies in our portfolio have the best performing teams. And you know it's very easy in venture to fall in love with an idea, but what really matters is like is there a team there that can execute? Can that team magnetically the best talent in the world and get people to come work for them? People love working for Brian Schimpf (Brian Schimpf) at Anduril (Anduril Industries), they love working for Palmer Luckey (Palmer Luckey), they love working for Matt Grimm (Matt Grimm). Like they they just they love that team and they're able to magnetically attract the absolute best talent. Chris Brose (Chris Brose) is probably the most in-demand person in the like the defense space today and he's worked at Anduril since the very beginning. You have to be able to magnetically attract the best talent and and every company we look at whether it's Base Power (Base Power) whether it's Saronic (Saronic) it doesn't matter, Radiant Nuclear (Radiant) they just become magnetic attractors of talent. 2.) The second thing is these companies are expensive & you know we've learned that they have to be able to magnetically attract capital.. And it sometimes it sounds dumb to say 'cause like we're investing in these companies so obviously they got capital but they need to be able to attract capital from other people as well. And we found that these companies are so capital-intensive & sometimes the curve to revenue takes a little bit longer 'cause you're doing manufacturing and doing all these other things. ..nothing matters more than the talent at the top the founders of the company. Can they magnetically attract capital? Can they magnetically attract talent? Those 2 things matter the most. And then I think what I've learned and I learned that in my own experiences, and you know it took me 10 years to basically have my overnight success ..and if I think about the years that were not that last night before we sold the company.. like the lessons I learned were like every time I had to change the way the company was operating.. it always started with talent. I had to change out the executive team, change out the leadership team that we had, at one point we were a consumer company, we pivoted to enterprise halfway through 5 years in and totally rebuilt the team. Because the kind of people that were building a consumer company were totally different than building an cybersecurity company. 3.) I think the last thing I learned that was really important, especially to help me set me up for the American Dynamism practice, is at Cisco, at that point I was running one of the largest cybersecurity companies in the world, and I recognized at Cisco that like when you sell to the government you need to have the people that know how to interface with the government, know how to sell the government. These are very very strategic sales processes. They're not transactional. Oftentimes the customer on the other side of the table is sometimes betting their career on picking your solution. The same thing is true now with government. When somebody who's a procurement officer, or a program officer, is betting on a defense startup to provide some solution they're really betting on their career in many cases to say like "I hope that Anduril or Saronic, or whoever, Castelion () can deliver this solution for me." And so I think you need to recognize & appreciate, and this is what I learned at Cisco that these partnerships are just not transactional. They're deep relationships. You're gonna work with these people for years on these complex large you know $10 million plus deals & I learned that on the enterprise side at Cisco I see it now over & over in the AD portfolio. I think those are some of the biggest lessons that that I learned talent & then really partnership with your customers."

Molly O’Shea

73,555 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

We raised a $135M Series A! 8090’s Series A was led by Salesforce Ventures and joined by WNDR, Craft Ventures, The Production Board, and LAUNCH. We also had the support of a group of esteemed angels including Nikesh Arora, Cliff Robbins, Adam D’Angelo, Shyam Ravindran, Abhi Arun, and Thomas Laffont. We’re grateful for their support. It validates 8090’s mission and traction so far, but mostly it accelerates the work ahead. The capital will go to two places. The first is hiring more people, because the demand we have is accelerating rapidly. The second is investing in the compute and infrastructure needed to keep delivering our solutions at high quality and reliability. 8090 works with the biggest, hardest, most demanding customers in the most regulated industries: healthcare, insurance, life sciences, aerospace, energy, manufacturing, financial services, and the United States government. We help them win by using our AI-enabled Software Factory to design and build entire new systems, refactor old ones, and find and accelerate their edge. Our view is that as Software Factory is used more and more to do mission-critical work inside industries with the least tolerance for error and the most oversight, it will be used to bring transparency, consistency and control to work everywhere. And as we expand the potential of the biggest organizations, we are also building a playbook and a series of network effects into Software Factory that will be valuable to everyone, from SMBs to solo founders. With much gratitude, back to work… PS - A note on why I am doing this as CEO, rather than from the board. This is one of those rare moments when the technological ground is moving so ferociously underneath all of us that the decisions made in the next few years will set the stage for the next twenty. AI can be the grand equalizer. It is the thing that can give everybody a shot, and I would like to help it achieve that potential. Since I left Facebook, I was waiting for a moment like this to return to a full-time operating role. I was a demanding manager back then, but I felt I had no choice given how powerful and undeniable what we were building was. I am convinced that what we are building now is even more important, so there was no decision to make except to be all in.

We raised a $135M Series A! 8090’s Series A was led by Salesforce Ventures and joined by WNDR, Craft Ventures, The Production Board, and LAUNCH. We also had the support of a group of esteemed angels including Nikesh Arora, Cliff Robbins, Adam D’Angelo, Shyam Ravindran, Abhi Arun, and Thomas Laffont. We’re grateful for their support. It validates 8090’s mission and traction so far, but mostly it accelerates the work ahead. The capital will go to two places. The first is hiring more people, because the demand we have is accelerating rapidly. The second is investing in the compute and infrastructure needed to keep delivering our solutions at high quality and reliability. 8090 works with the biggest, hardest, most demanding customers in the most regulated industries: healthcare, insurance, life sciences, aerospace, energy, manufacturing, financial services, and the United States government. We help them win by using our AI-enabled Software Factory to design and build entire new systems, refactor old ones, and find and accelerate their edge. Our view is that as Software Factory is used more and more to do mission-critical work inside industries with the least tolerance for error and the most oversight, it will be used to bring transparency, consistency and control to work everywhere. And as we expand the potential of the biggest organizations, we are also building a playbook and a series of network effects into Software Factory that will be valuable to everyone, from SMBs to solo founders. With much gratitude, back to work… PS - A note on why I am doing this as CEO, rather than from the board. This is one of those rare moments when the technological ground is moving so ferociously underneath all of us that the decisions made in the next few years will set the stage for the next twenty. AI can be the grand equalizer. It is the thing that can give everybody a shot, and I would like to help it achieve that potential. Since I left Facebook, I was waiting for a moment like this to return to a full-time operating role. I was a demanding manager back then, but I felt I had no choice given how powerful and undeniable what we were building was. I am convinced that what we are building now is even more important, so there was no decision to make except to be all in.

Chamath Palihapitiya

1,107,170 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Over the last decade, a consensus has grown on the Left and Right that the US needs to be more self-sufficient when it comes to manufacturing. During Covid, we discovered we didn’t make much of the equipment we needed to deal with a pandemic and were thus dependent on other nations, and so Congress passed and Trump signed the CARES Act in part to spend money to support domestic manufacturing of medical supplies. In 2022, a bipartisan majority in Congress passed the CHIPS Act to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S. out of the recognition that we had become dangerously dependent on foreign nations for microchips, which have become general-purpose technologies, necessary for national security, and upon which the AI revolution will be built. Where America had a $38 billion trade surplus in 1991 on advanced technology manufacturing, today it has a $299 billion deficit. Liberals and conservatives, Leftists and Rightists, have long shared a broad agreement that manufacturing and its knock-on industries are an essential source of employment for non-college-educated working-class people, and that the loss of manufacturing contributed to social fragmentation, family breakdown, and the drug addiction and death crisis. In a 2024 survey, Americans agreed ten to one that “we need a stronger manufacturing sector; 47% said America suffered from globalization, while 33% said it benefited. It is partly for that reason that Joe Biden, in perhaps the most bipartisan and non-ideological decision of his presidency, kept in place the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump during his first term as president. And yet both liberals and many conservatives are reacting with outrage as President Donald Trump puts in place precisely the trade tariffs needed to reduce our dangerous dependency on other nations and increase our manufacturing of the goods we need for national security, economic security, and societal wellbeing. The China tariffs, the CARES Act, and the CHIPS Act did not result in the return of much manufacturing, much less the rebalancing of trade. Total manufacturing jobsare 12.8 million in December 2019 and are 12.8 million today. The US still depends on China and other nations for active pharmaceutical ingredients, personal protective equipment, microchips, and critical minerals. Suffice to say, we are a very long way from a manufacturing renaissance sufficiently robust to revitalize the communities that have lost good, high-wage jobs to China and other competitors and even rivals internationally. The reason is clear. The average tariff level globally is 6.7% compared to America’s 2.7%. And simply subsidizing industries may not be enough for two major semiconductor manufacturers, Intel and TSMC, to produce domestically without tariffs. US President Donald Trump delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs during an event in the Rose Garden entitled "Make America Wealthy Again" at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2025. Trump geared up to unveil sweeping new "Liberation Day" tariffs in a move that threatens to ignite a devastating global trade war. Key US trading partners including the European Union and Britain said they were preparing their responses to Trump's escalation, as nervous markets fell in Europe and America. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)📷 Anti-tariff liberals and conservatives say Trump’s actions will destroy people’s retirement savings by crashing the stock market, and will undermine the comparative advantage of other nations producing products we shouldn’t. And, they say, our goal should not be to return manufacturing to the United States, except for a few exceptions, which Congress has already made. For centuries, economists have argued that some nations, such as poorer ones, are more suited to produce many products than richer ones. Americans making t-shirts at $20 per hour are less efficient than the Vietnamese making them for $3 per hour. And the US should not be trying to replace perfectly reasonable products to import, like aluminum from Canada, which we have no reason to ever go to war with, and which has access to cheap hydroelectricity to make it. Over half of American families have money in the stock market, and they will all suffer, anti-tariff liberals and conservatives say. The economic system we have had since World War II has worked to maximize win-win relationships that result in poorer nations climbing the development ladder with manufacturing and wealthier nations like the US focused on services. But it’s unwise to evaluate policies based on the short-term impact of the stock market. Anti-tariff voices grossly overstate the comparative advantage when it comes to manufacturing, and the postwar system, economically and militarily, is no longer in the interests of non-college-educated Americans, who are both more vulnerable and more numerous than the college-educated elite. There is no need to bring back a significant amount of low-skill and nonstrategic manufacturing like T-shirts, and Trump has not advocated that. America may need to bring back some low-skill jobs, such as manufacturing protective gear. But our priority should rightly be high-skill manufacturing, and CARES, CHIPS, and the Trump-Biden China were, obviously, not enough. It may be fine to rely on Canada for aluminum. But the tariffs against it and Mexico, as well as Trump’s stated desire to make it the 51st state, should be viewed as the president negotiating in preparation for upcoming trade talks between the three countries. While offshoring manufacturing policies benefited multinational corporations, bankers, and consumers, they often devastated communities built on manufacturing, mining, and manual labor. US companies moved production to countries with lower labor costs, fewer regulations, and subsidized exports. Economists calculate that just the so-called “China Shock,” that country’s entry into the World Trade Organization, alone cost the U.S. 2.4 million jobs and had ripple effects across entire communities. The average manufacturing wage is $103,000 per year compared to $37,000 per year for the average service sector wage. And where a service sector job supports 2 to 3 jobs, a manufacturing job supports nine jobs. Continuing with a system that is fundamentally advantageous to a minority of the country and disadvantageous to a majority is not sustainable and unwise to prop up. Trump’s trade actions are part of a broader return to nationalism underway globally, and they can’t be understood on economic grounds alone. Regarding priorities, we should put the two-thirds of the country that is non-college educated working-class ahead of the 50% of the country who own stocks, for moral and democratic reasons. America is deeply divided. While there are many proximate reasons for this, including geographic sorting, cable TV, and social media, the underlying reasons are economic. The gulf between the educated elites and the non-educated working class has grown dangerously large. Many critics of the tariffs are well-intentioned. They are right to worry that they could come with significant economic costs and disruption. The concern of many of them is genuinely for the working class and poor, who higher prices for imported goods would most harm. However, many American elites today identify more with their global counterparts than their fellow Americans. And that’s a huge problem. In his study of 21 civilizations, British historian Arnold J. Toynbee found that civilizations collapse not simply from external invasion but from internal decay, precisely when their elites stop identifying with the people. “Civilizations die from suicide,” he famously wrote, “not murder.” Civilizations all depend on their elites, Toynbee noted, or the people he called the “creative minority.” But rising success creates decadence, complacency, and eventually contempt toward their people, and they start to identify with elites in other nations. This is all a natural outgrowth of trade, cosmopolitanism, and snobbery. It starts to view the ordinary people as “deplorables.” At this point, the elite lose their creativity and become simply the “dominant minority,” one that rules no longer by example but rather by manipulation or force. Toynbee could be describing America in the 21st Century. College-educated elites look down on the American working class and identify with other professional and managerial elites in Europe and other nations. They sympathize less with the low-skilled American citizen born here and more with the low-skilled foreign migrant here illegally. Such elites are more concerned with tariffs' impact on their stock portfolio and the cost of their gadgets than they are with the downward pressure illegal migrants put on wages or with how nations manipulate their currency to retain manufacturing. Toynbee said that, at this stage of development, a nation’s elites become “parasites or renegades,” alienated and contemptuous toward the culture that produced them. Civilizations at this late stage are morally hollow and thus fragile and prone to abuses of power, like censorship, lawfare, and the weaponization of government agencies. And these civilizations disparage their traditions in ways that the American elites have disparaged America’s founding and its history as essentially evil, due to the unavoidable tragedy of indigenous genocide and slavery, even though a civil war that killed over 600,000 people was fought to end it. But Toynbee didn’t believe that civilizational collapse was inevitable; some societies can snap back.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Over the last decade, a consensus has grown on the Left and Right that the US needs to be more self-sufficient when it comes to manufacturing. During Covid, we discovered we didn’t make much of the equipment we needed to deal with a pandemic and were thus dependent on other nations, and so Congress passed and Trump signed the CARES Act in part to spend money to support domestic manufacturing of medical supplies. In 2022, a bipartisan majority in Congress passed the CHIPS Act to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S. out of the recognition that we had become dangerously dependent on foreign nations for microchips, which have become general-purpose technologies, necessary for national security, and upon which the AI revolution will be built. Where America had a $38 billion trade surplus in 1991 on advanced technology manufacturing, today it has a $299 billion deficit. Liberals and conservatives, Leftists and Rightists, have long shared a broad agreement that manufacturing and its knock-on industries are an essential source of employment for non-college-educated working-class people, and that the loss of manufacturing contributed to social fragmentation, family breakdown, and the drug addiction and death crisis. In a 2024 survey, Americans agreed ten to one that “we need a stronger manufacturing sector; 47% said America suffered from globalization, while 33% said it benefited. It is partly for that reason that Joe Biden, in perhaps the most bipartisan and non-ideological decision of his presidency, kept in place the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump during his first term as president. And yet both liberals and many conservatives are reacting with outrage as President Donald Trump puts in place precisely the trade tariffs needed to reduce our dangerous dependency on other nations and increase our manufacturing of the goods we need for national security, economic security, and societal wellbeing. The China tariffs, the CARES Act, and the CHIPS Act did not result in the return of much manufacturing, much less the rebalancing of trade. Total manufacturing jobsare 12.8 million in December 2019 and are 12.8 million today. The US still depends on China and other nations for active pharmaceutical ingredients, personal protective equipment, microchips, and critical minerals. Suffice to say, we are a very long way from a manufacturing renaissance sufficiently robust to revitalize the communities that have lost good, high-wage jobs to China and other competitors and even rivals internationally. The reason is clear. The average tariff level globally is 6.7% compared to America’s 2.7%. And simply subsidizing industries may not be enough for two major semiconductor manufacturers, Intel and TSMC, to produce domestically without tariffs. US President Donald Trump delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs during an event in the Rose Garden entitled "Make America Wealthy Again" at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2025. Trump geared up to unveil sweeping new "Liberation Day" tariffs in a move that threatens to ignite a devastating global trade war. Key US trading partners including the European Union and Britain said they were preparing their responses to Trump's escalation, as nervous markets fell in Europe and America. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)📷 Anti-tariff liberals and conservatives say Trump’s actions will destroy people’s retirement savings by crashing the stock market, and will undermine the comparative advantage of other nations producing products we shouldn’t. And, they say, our goal should not be to return manufacturing to the United States, except for a few exceptions, which Congress has already made. For centuries, economists have argued that some nations, such as poorer ones, are more suited to produce many products than richer ones. Americans making t-shirts at $20 per hour are less efficient than the Vietnamese making them for $3 per hour. And the US should not be trying to replace perfectly reasonable products to import, like aluminum from Canada, which we have no reason to ever go to war with, and which has access to cheap hydroelectricity to make it. Over half of American families have money in the stock market, and they will all suffer, anti-tariff liberals and conservatives say. The economic system we have had since World War II has worked to maximize win-win relationships that result in poorer nations climbing the development ladder with manufacturing and wealthier nations like the US focused on services. But it’s unwise to evaluate policies based on the short-term impact of the stock market. Anti-tariff voices grossly overstate the comparative advantage when it comes to manufacturing, and the postwar system, economically and militarily, is no longer in the interests of non-college-educated Americans, who are both more vulnerable and more numerous than the college-educated elite. There is no need to bring back a significant amount of low-skill and nonstrategic manufacturing like T-shirts, and Trump has not advocated that. America may need to bring back some low-skill jobs, such as manufacturing protective gear. But our priority should rightly be high-skill manufacturing, and CARES, CHIPS, and the Trump-Biden China were, obviously, not enough. It may be fine to rely on Canada for aluminum. But the tariffs against it and Mexico, as well as Trump’s stated desire to make it the 51st state, should be viewed as the president negotiating in preparation for upcoming trade talks between the three countries. While offshoring manufacturing policies benefited multinational corporations, bankers, and consumers, they often devastated communities built on manufacturing, mining, and manual labor. US companies moved production to countries with lower labor costs, fewer regulations, and subsidized exports. Economists calculate that just the so-called “China Shock,” that country’s entry into the World Trade Organization, alone cost the U.S. 2.4 million jobs and had ripple effects across entire communities. The average manufacturing wage is $103,000 per year compared to $37,000 per year for the average service sector wage. And where a service sector job supports 2 to 3 jobs, a manufacturing job supports nine jobs. Continuing with a system that is fundamentally advantageous to a minority of the country and disadvantageous to a majority is not sustainable and unwise to prop up. Trump’s trade actions are part of a broader return to nationalism underway globally, and they can’t be understood on economic grounds alone. Regarding priorities, we should put the two-thirds of the country that is non-college educated working-class ahead of the 50% of the country who own stocks, for moral and democratic reasons. America is deeply divided. While there are many proximate reasons for this, including geographic sorting, cable TV, and social media, the underlying reasons are economic. The gulf between the educated elites and the non-educated working class has grown dangerously large. Many critics of the tariffs are well-intentioned. They are right to worry that they could come with significant economic costs and disruption. The concern of many of them is genuinely for the working class and poor, who higher prices for imported goods would most harm. However, many American elites today identify more with their global counterparts than their fellow Americans. And that’s a huge problem. In his study of 21 civilizations, British historian Arnold J. Toynbee found that civilizations collapse not simply from external invasion but from internal decay, precisely when their elites stop identifying with the people. “Civilizations die from suicide,” he famously wrote, “not murder.” Civilizations all depend on their elites, Toynbee noted, or the people he called the “creative minority.” But rising success creates decadence, complacency, and eventually contempt toward their people, and they start to identify with elites in other nations. This is all a natural outgrowth of trade, cosmopolitanism, and snobbery. It starts to view the ordinary people as “deplorables.” At this point, the elite lose their creativity and become simply the “dominant minority,” one that rules no longer by example but rather by manipulation or force. Toynbee could be describing America in the 21st Century. College-educated elites look down on the American working class and identify with other professional and managerial elites in Europe and other nations. They sympathize less with the low-skilled American citizen born here and more with the low-skilled foreign migrant here illegally. Such elites are more concerned with tariffs' impact on their stock portfolio and the cost of their gadgets than they are with the downward pressure illegal migrants put on wages or with how nations manipulate their currency to retain manufacturing. Toynbee said that, at this stage of development, a nation’s elites become “parasites or renegades,” alienated and contemptuous toward the culture that produced them. Civilizations at this late stage are morally hollow and thus fragile and prone to abuses of power, like censorship, lawfare, and the weaponization of government agencies. And these civilizations disparage their traditions in ways that the American elites have disparaged America’s founding and its history as essentially evil, due to the unavoidable tragedy of indigenous genocide and slavery, even though a civil war that killed over 600,000 people was fought to end it. But Toynbee didn’t believe that civilizational collapse was inevitable; some societies can snap back.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

56,885 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

SHORT POST: Time for contra #SIPs? Since SIP has become the new LIC. A herd behavior Quoting from the movie “Drishyam 2” “Sawaal ye nahin hai ke aapke ankhoon ke saamne kya hai. Sawaal ye hai ki aap dekh kya rahe hain ? “ #FIIs don’t matter anymore in Indian markets as they hold just 15% of market now. However, FIIs are speaking with their money. They’re selling. They see these prices as an opportunity to exit. But the focus on FIIs is a distraction. With 85% of Indian markets held by domestic money, the valuation is purely a function of how domestic investors value India. It is also a function of fund flows & your SIPs. Indian markets have capital controls. So money can’t freely invest outside. This makes the market overvalued compared to other developed peers like UK, Korea, Japan, etc where investors don’t have such restrictions. Promotor holdings have dropped from 48% to 40% in last few years. This should make investors think. While you’re buying, the owners are selling. Why ? Even the erstwhile US registered firms are now registering in India to list on #NSE. It’s not out of patriotism. It is because India is now listing the most expensively priced #IPOs. Everyone wants that. Real money is made by going against the herd. #SIPs are now a popular herd strategy. Hypothetical SIP works as nobody was doing that before. Now that everyone does that, it may not work anymore. A herd strategy doesn’t make money. Popular strategy becomes a #LIC. A generation invested there building dream castles. Nothing happened. These policies provided 5% returns when FDs were at 15% interest. SIPs are being used to buy expensive new #IPOs that is being leveraged by private equity players for smarter exits. This strategy can never make money for retail. Everyone is trying to time the listings here. Isn’t it fair for the investors also to “time the SIPs”?. Five years later, probably by 2030, most of us would realize that SIPs at these high valuations were poor investments. They are unlikely to provide the 15% to 25% returns that most are secretly plugging into their excel sheets. It has not worked anywhere outside the US market. How are you so sure? What will work is being smart about the strategy. Stop SIPs when markets are expensive & do a FD SIP. But when ,markets drop 20% or more, pull the funds into equity. This could be the only way to make more than 12% to 15% returns. It’s not for everyone but this is the only strategy. FIIs are timing. Promotors are timing. IPOs are timing. Everyone is timing the markets. Why shouldn’t you do the same?

SHORT POST: Time for contra #SIPs? Since SIP has become the new LIC. A herd behavior Quoting from the movie “Drishyam 2” “Sawaal ye nahin hai ke aapke ankhoon ke saamne kya hai. Sawaal ye hai ki aap dekh kya rahe hain ? “ #FIIs don’t matter anymore in Indian markets as they hold just 15% of market now. However, FIIs are speaking with their money. They’re selling. They see these prices as an opportunity to exit. But the focus on FIIs is a distraction. With 85% of Indian markets held by domestic money, the valuation is purely a function of how domestic investors value India. It is also a function of fund flows & your SIPs. Indian markets have capital controls. So money can’t freely invest outside. This makes the market overvalued compared to other developed peers like UK, Korea, Japan, etc where investors don’t have such restrictions. Promotor holdings have dropped from 48% to 40% in last few years. This should make investors think. While you’re buying, the owners are selling. Why ? Even the erstwhile US registered firms are now registering in India to list on #NSE. It’s not out of patriotism. It is because India is now listing the most expensively priced #IPOs. Everyone wants that. Real money is made by going against the herd. #SIPs are now a popular herd strategy. Hypothetical SIP works as nobody was doing that before. Now that everyone does that, it may not work anymore. A herd strategy doesn’t make money. Popular strategy becomes a #LIC. A generation invested there building dream castles. Nothing happened. These policies provided 5% returns when FDs were at 15% interest. SIPs are being used to buy expensive new #IPOs that is being leveraged by private equity players for smarter exits. This strategy can never make money for retail. Everyone is trying to time the listings here. Isn’t it fair for the investors also to “time the SIPs”?. Five years later, probably by 2030, most of us would realize that SIPs at these high valuations were poor investments. They are unlikely to provide the 15% to 25% returns that most are secretly plugging into their excel sheets. It has not worked anywhere outside the US market. How are you so sure? What will work is being smart about the strategy. Stop SIPs when markets are expensive & do a FD SIP. But when ,markets drop 20% or more, pull the funds into equity. This could be the only way to make more than 12% to 15% returns. It’s not for everyone but this is the only strategy. FIIs are timing. Promotors are timing. IPOs are timing. Everyone is timing the markets. Why shouldn’t you do the same?

Anurag Singh

277,223 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Powerful speech by Naturalist Chris Packham speaking alongside Zack Polanski on the subject of Climate Change, "To the disappointment of many, football didn’t come home this summer, but to the pain and suffering of millions, climate breakdown has. And our government and media response has displayed a total dereliction of duty in a time of extreme crisis." "As we’ve heard, in May and June there were 3,000 deaths attributed to the heat domes that have hung over the UK. Heat exhaustion, heat stroke, stress on the heart and kidneys, and of course those mental health issues that you’ve just talked about." "In Europe, the figure is somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000 up until the end of July, and it’s expected to double by the end of this summer. So we’re looking at potentially 50,000 deaths across Europe." "If these deaths had been the result of terrorism or a pandemic, the government would have cancelled its summer holiday, it would have held COBRA meetings, and there would be public information campaigns the likes of which we saw during COVID, designed to protect us in this time of crisis." "And yet what do we get? We get rumours of possibly more drilling for oil and gas, and we get articles in the Telegraph which suggest that we ought to adapt to a Mediterranean climate. If that isn’t reckless and irresponsible, I don’t know what is." "What we do need at this point is to listen to the science, not to the ongoing malevolent raft of mis- and disinformation that’s perpetuated in politics, in public life and certainly across social media." "If we listen to the science, we see that the climate models that were devised in the 1990s have actually proved to be pretty accurate. But those who do try and transmit the information to us, people like the IPCC, which are often derided as alarmists by the right and the far right, have actually been too cautious." "What we see, for instance, when it comes to the heatwaves, is that they are occurring more quickly and more regularly than those models suggest. We’re updating the science as it happens. What we also see is that it’s not just a lack of water which is leading to the drought, although that might seem painfully obvious. It’s actually being exacerbated by extremely high temperatures." "And that has an impact on the environment, the environment that I care so much about and we are all dependent upon. Across the world, there have been 35,000 wildfires. In the UK, there have been 66 major wildfires. But let’s not focus on 66, because that sounds quite a small number. In one fire and rescue service, Berkshire, they’ve attended over 250 outdoor fires so far this summer. So the number of grass fires and so forth is going to be significantly higher than that." "Drawing upon an underfunded, under-resourced organisation at the front line of dealing with a crisis that is impacting all of us. So lives have been lost, homes have been destroyed, businesses have been ruined. The clean-up cost – just look at Palisades in America – is incomprehensible. We simply can’t afford it." "And then from my perspective, the damage to wildlife, which has got scant mention, of course, because as ever we put human interest first because they’re most immediate. And you might think, well, Chris is bound to bang on about the wildlife because he loves the birds and the bees. Yes, the birds and the bees, which form resilient ecosystems which allow us to produce the food that we eat. We have to protect nature in order to protect ourselves." "So you might think, okay, the UK, the wildfires – they’ve all been out there on the heaths in Suffolk, they’ve been burning patches of heathland on the Isle of Wight. Not many homes have been destroyed. Well, the Ordnance Survey say that 1.8 million homes are at risk in the UK by looking at their maps and seeing which homes are adjacent to areas which have significant wildfire risk. 1.8 million homes at risk. So far, compared to Europe, we’ve just got away lightly and we’ve just been lucky." "How many firefighting planes do you think that we’ve got in the UK? How many firefighting planes in the UK, exactly? Zero planes. Which is why, as Zack said, when that fire was burning at Dunwich, the National Trust had to hire a helicopter and pay for it to drag water out of the sea and dump it on that precious piece of habitat, because there are no firefighting planes." "Is there a public warning system in place which will tell people when there’s a risk of wildfire so that they can be prepared to evacuate and have evacuation plans in place? Well, do you know what? There is. It’s available to the fire and rescue service, but it isn’t available to the public because it’s deemed to be unreliable. Is it unreliable, or is it just a bit too scary? We couldn’t even instigate a ban on disposable barbecues." "Okay, there are the problems. What about the solutions? Because look, there’s no point in just pointing out the problems. What we must do at this point is offer people real and accessible opportunities to be part of a solution rather than an ongoing part of the problem." "Well, the first thing already: we’ve got to enact far more rapidly that transition to renewable energy for energy security, to reduce the cost of energy and its volatility that we’ve seen constantly across the world this year, which is having a significant impact not just on the cost of oil, but on the cost of living and global economic stability. It would also generate jobs, as it has in those countries that have invested significantly in those industries, most notably China. Talk of drilling oil – Rosebank, Blackbird, Jackdaw – is simply madness. We’ve got to just stop oil." "We also need a transition in the way that we eat. This is intricately important when it comes to protecting the environment, everything that lives there, and ourselves. We need a transition to a plant-based diet. It’s healthier for people. If any of you have had bacon or sausage for breakfast this morning, do you know that you’ve ingested a category A carcinogen? That’s it – as toxic as tobacco. You may not. You may have just enjoyed your sausage and bacon. Why do you not know that processed red meat is actually really bad for you?" "Animal agriculture is responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. It is also the leading driver of biodiversity loss. That biodiversity, that richness of life, that resilience in those ecological communities which we use to produce our food – we’ve got to change the way that we eat and produce that food, and we’ve got to provide sufficient support for farmers through that transition. And at the moment, they’re not getting that. In fact, they’re getting less and less and their life is becoming increasingly difficult." "We’ve got to address the mis- and disinformation, and we’ve got to do that with positive information campaigns. We’ve got to have people’s minds on the front foot so they know what’s true before they hear the lies. Then they will question the lies. Otherwise we know what happens. If you tell a lie frequently enough, it eventually becomes the truth, and that’s what we’re suffering from. We can’t afford net zero? We can’t not afford net zero. And we’re beginning to see that that’s the case." "We’ve got to sort out the media. I’ve been fantasising this year that we could perhaps criminalise climate denial. We should certainly criminalise irresponsible journalism. I’ve highlighted the Telegraph, but I’m going to leave you with something that I read on the BBC yesterday: ‘How to survive a heatwave wedding.’ How to survive a heatwave wedding. Point number five: beware of buttercream. This popular wedding cake ingredient is likely to melt if not kept cool. Likely to melt? A bit like my patience and all of our hope." "It’s time for bold, brave, informed leadership. And we are not getting it. We need Andy Burnham to step up before we and our only home burn down. Thank you."

Powerful speech by Naturalist Chris Packham speaking alongside Zack Polanski on the subject of Climate Change, "To the disappointment of many, football didn’t come home this summer, but to the pain and suffering of millions, climate breakdown has. And our government and media response has displayed a total dereliction of duty in a time of extreme crisis." "As we’ve heard, in May and June there were 3,000 deaths attributed to the heat domes that have hung over the UK. Heat exhaustion, heat stroke, stress on the heart and kidneys, and of course those mental health issues that you’ve just talked about." "In Europe, the figure is somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000 up until the end of July, and it’s expected to double by the end of this summer. So we’re looking at potentially 50,000 deaths across Europe." "If these deaths had been the result of terrorism or a pandemic, the government would have cancelled its summer holiday, it would have held COBRA meetings, and there would be public information campaigns the likes of which we saw during COVID, designed to protect us in this time of crisis." "And yet what do we get? We get rumours of possibly more drilling for oil and gas, and we get articles in the Telegraph which suggest that we ought to adapt to a Mediterranean climate. If that isn’t reckless and irresponsible, I don’t know what is." "What we do need at this point is to listen to the science, not to the ongoing malevolent raft of mis- and disinformation that’s perpetuated in politics, in public life and certainly across social media." "If we listen to the science, we see that the climate models that were devised in the 1990s have actually proved to be pretty accurate. But those who do try and transmit the information to us, people like the IPCC, which are often derided as alarmists by the right and the far right, have actually been too cautious." "What we see, for instance, when it comes to the heatwaves, is that they are occurring more quickly and more regularly than those models suggest. We’re updating the science as it happens. What we also see is that it’s not just a lack of water which is leading to the drought, although that might seem painfully obvious. It’s actually being exacerbated by extremely high temperatures." "And that has an impact on the environment, the environment that I care so much about and we are all dependent upon. Across the world, there have been 35,000 wildfires. In the UK, there have been 66 major wildfires. But let’s not focus on 66, because that sounds quite a small number. In one fire and rescue service, Berkshire, they’ve attended over 250 outdoor fires so far this summer. So the number of grass fires and so forth is going to be significantly higher than that." "Drawing upon an underfunded, under-resourced organisation at the front line of dealing with a crisis that is impacting all of us. So lives have been lost, homes have been destroyed, businesses have been ruined. The clean-up cost – just look at Palisades in America – is incomprehensible. We simply can’t afford it." "And then from my perspective, the damage to wildlife, which has got scant mention, of course, because as ever we put human interest first because they’re most immediate. And you might think, well, Chris is bound to bang on about the wildlife because he loves the birds and the bees. Yes, the birds and the bees, which form resilient ecosystems which allow us to produce the food that we eat. We have to protect nature in order to protect ourselves." "So you might think, okay, the UK, the wildfires – they’ve all been out there on the heaths in Suffolk, they’ve been burning patches of heathland on the Isle of Wight. Not many homes have been destroyed. Well, the Ordnance Survey say that 1.8 million homes are at risk in the UK by looking at their maps and seeing which homes are adjacent to areas which have significant wildfire risk. 1.8 million homes at risk. So far, compared to Europe, we’ve just got away lightly and we’ve just been lucky." "How many firefighting planes do you think that we’ve got in the UK? How many firefighting planes in the UK, exactly? Zero planes. Which is why, as Zack said, when that fire was burning at Dunwich, the National Trust had to hire a helicopter and pay for it to drag water out of the sea and dump it on that precious piece of habitat, because there are no firefighting planes." "Is there a public warning system in place which will tell people when there’s a risk of wildfire so that they can be prepared to evacuate and have evacuation plans in place? Well, do you know what? There is. It’s available to the fire and rescue service, but it isn’t available to the public because it’s deemed to be unreliable. Is it unreliable, or is it just a bit too scary? We couldn’t even instigate a ban on disposable barbecues." "Okay, there are the problems. What about the solutions? Because look, there’s no point in just pointing out the problems. What we must do at this point is offer people real and accessible opportunities to be part of a solution rather than an ongoing part of the problem." "Well, the first thing already: we’ve got to enact far more rapidly that transition to renewable energy for energy security, to reduce the cost of energy and its volatility that we’ve seen constantly across the world this year, which is having a significant impact not just on the cost of oil, but on the cost of living and global economic stability. It would also generate jobs, as it has in those countries that have invested significantly in those industries, most notably China. Talk of drilling oil – Rosebank, Blackbird, Jackdaw – is simply madness. We’ve got to just stop oil." "We also need a transition in the way that we eat. This is intricately important when it comes to protecting the environment, everything that lives there, and ourselves. We need a transition to a plant-based diet. It’s healthier for people. If any of you have had bacon or sausage for breakfast this morning, do you know that you’ve ingested a category A carcinogen? That’s it – as toxic as tobacco. You may not. You may have just enjoyed your sausage and bacon. Why do you not know that processed red meat is actually really bad for you?" "Animal agriculture is responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. It is also the leading driver of biodiversity loss. That biodiversity, that richness of life, that resilience in those ecological communities which we use to produce our food – we’ve got to change the way that we eat and produce that food, and we’ve got to provide sufficient support for farmers through that transition. And at the moment, they’re not getting that. In fact, they’re getting less and less and their life is becoming increasingly difficult." "We’ve got to address the mis- and disinformation, and we’ve got to do that with positive information campaigns. We’ve got to have people’s minds on the front foot so they know what’s true before they hear the lies. Then they will question the lies. Otherwise we know what happens. If you tell a lie frequently enough, it eventually becomes the truth, and that’s what we’re suffering from. We can’t afford net zero? We can’t not afford net zero. And we’re beginning to see that that’s the case." "We’ve got to sort out the media. I’ve been fantasising this year that we could perhaps criminalise climate denial. We should certainly criminalise irresponsible journalism. I’ve highlighted the Telegraph, but I’m going to leave you with something that I read on the BBC yesterday: ‘How to survive a heatwave wedding.’ How to survive a heatwave wedding. Point number five: beware of buttercream. This popular wedding cake ingredient is likely to melt if not kept cool. Likely to melt? A bit like my patience and all of our hope." "It’s time for bold, brave, informed leadership. And we are not getting it. We need Andy Burnham to step up before we and our only home burn down. Thank you."

Farrukh

170,537 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

Building on wetlands is a very dangerous criminal enterprise because wetlands are natural water holding and drainage systems, and once they are built over, the water has nowhere to go, leading to frequent flooding, permanent waterlogging, and rising damp in buildings. The soil in such areas is soft and unstable, which causes foundations to sink or crack over time, resulting in serious structural damage and very high maintenance costs. So all those involved in this criminal enterprise are either ignorant, criminal, or both. Destroying wetlands removes their natural function of filtering water and controlling floods, increases health risks such as cholera from stagnant water, and often creates legal, insurance, and resale problems, making such developments risky both environmentally and financially. All this water that you are seeing in this video is the result of the criminality and ignorance of building on wetlands. When the colonial government left these wetlands untouched, it was not because they did not have any use for that land. It was because they understood the danger of building on such land. They were responsible. Fast forward to 1980, and we have a ZANUPF government that allows people to build on wetlands because of corruption, criminality, greed and sheer ignorance. Instead of expanding the city, they do the most idiotic thing imaginable and build on wetlands. If you look at a city like Johannesburg, it started small and then expanded. That expansion came with employment, industries, malls, and businesses being established. Harare by now, under normal circumstances, should perhaps be halfway to Marondera going east. That would have meant that along that growth we would have industries, businesses, schools, and public enterprises, and, more importantly, a great deal being contributed to the economy through that expansion. But because the regime and its corrupt cronies are obsessed with squeezing into the small city that the colonial government left behind, there is no real expansion taking place. People end up using residential homes as offices. People end up bringing offices into areas that are not meant or zoned for offices. This is tragic. I do not know what it will take for us as black people to understand that when we do these kinds of things, we are hating ourselves, we are damaging ourselves, and we are destroying the future of our OWN children and the ability of future generations to inherit a functional city. Right now, when you get to Harare, when it rains even a little, the whole city is flooded, not just because of poor drainage, but because wetlands have been built on. Water has nowhere to go, so it floods and causes enormous problems. You cannot even drive. Imagine an investor flying into Harare and driving into the city only for their car to be submerged in water. This is basic common sense. It should be common sense not only to the ruling elites in ZANUPF, but to every Zimbabwean. Even those who are building on these wetlands are damaging themselves. They are destroying their own future and that of their children for a quick buck, motivated by greed. It makes no sense whatsoever. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that what the government is doing is criminal, ignorant, and that it will cost generations to come. The irony of this video is that it was produced by the Environmental Management Authority, EMA, the very institution that should be ensuring that these things do not happen. Yet it is the same authority that neglects its duty and allows them to happen. It is the same authority that has been infiltrated by corrupt businessmen masquerading as land and housing developers, who pay kickbacks and are then allowed to build on wetlands. It makes us look profoundly irresponsible and foolish. When future generations look back at these episodes, they will wonder what kind of people we were, people so greedy and so driven by money that we chose it over a sustainable environment in which people can live in peace without constantly worrying about flash floods. The amount of property lost to these floods is staggering. Yet it is a small group of men, and some women, who are making money from this illegality and criminality, becoming filthy rich without any sense of community or responsibility. They continue to do these things in order to make even more corrupt money. These are multimillionaires. They are reckless. They do not care about today. They do not care about the poor, because it is the poor who are forced to bear the brunt of this. Look at Zengeza and Budiriro. These are poor communities, yet they are the ones who suffer most from these illegalities that are taking place in our country. I appeal to all Zimbabweans, regardless of political party or ideology, to think about the future of your grandchildren who are yet to be born, and the future of your great grandchildren who are yet to be born. Do you want to be remembered as cruel, criminal, fraudulent people who did not care about the future of those who came after you? Is that the kind of memory you want to leave? Do you want future generations to say that the post war, post liberation generation was selfish, self centred, corrupt, and did not care about what came after them? Is that how you want to be remembered? That is how we are going to be remembered if we continue on this path, as a senseless, greedy, corrupt generation that allowed this to happen. This is sad. Let us think about the future. Let us think about the legacy we are going to leave and how we are going to be remembered. Do we really want to continue destroying our country and be remembered as selfish, destructive people? Are we so stupid that we do not understand the most basic concept of what wetlands are? Are we so idiotic that we cannot see that we are actively harming ourselves by building properties on top of what should be a living ecosystem that protects our suburbs from flooding? Are we really that irresponsible as Zimbabweans? Is it truly that hard to understand? Do we have to be so primitive and so backward that we end up destroying ourselves, destroying our capital city, just so a few men can make money, while we also destroy the future of our children, and then turn around and claim that we are patriots? What kind of patriotism destroys its own environment, the very place where its own people are supposed to live? That is not patriotism. That is idiocy.

Building on wetlands is a very dangerous criminal enterprise because wetlands are natural water holding and drainage systems, and once they are built over, the water has nowhere to go, leading to frequent flooding, permanent waterlogging, and rising damp in buildings. The soil in such areas is soft and unstable, which causes foundations to sink or crack over time, resulting in serious structural damage and very high maintenance costs. So all those involved in this criminal enterprise are either ignorant, criminal, or both. Destroying wetlands removes their natural function of filtering water and controlling floods, increases health risks such as cholera from stagnant water, and often creates legal, insurance, and resale problems, making such developments risky both environmentally and financially. All this water that you are seeing in this video is the result of the criminality and ignorance of building on wetlands. When the colonial government left these wetlands untouched, it was not because they did not have any use for that land. It was because they understood the danger of building on such land. They were responsible. Fast forward to 1980, and we have a ZANUPF government that allows people to build on wetlands because of corruption, criminality, greed and sheer ignorance. Instead of expanding the city, they do the most idiotic thing imaginable and build on wetlands. If you look at a city like Johannesburg, it started small and then expanded. That expansion came with employment, industries, malls, and businesses being established. Harare by now, under normal circumstances, should perhaps be halfway to Marondera going east. That would have meant that along that growth we would have industries, businesses, schools, and public enterprises, and, more importantly, a great deal being contributed to the economy through that expansion. But because the regime and its corrupt cronies are obsessed with squeezing into the small city that the colonial government left behind, there is no real expansion taking place. People end up using residential homes as offices. People end up bringing offices into areas that are not meant or zoned for offices. This is tragic. I do not know what it will take for us as black people to understand that when we do these kinds of things, we are hating ourselves, we are damaging ourselves, and we are destroying the future of our OWN children and the ability of future generations to inherit a functional city. Right now, when you get to Harare, when it rains even a little, the whole city is flooded, not just because of poor drainage, but because wetlands have been built on. Water has nowhere to go, so it floods and causes enormous problems. You cannot even drive. Imagine an investor flying into Harare and driving into the city only for their car to be submerged in water. This is basic common sense. It should be common sense not only to the ruling elites in ZANUPF, but to every Zimbabwean. Even those who are building on these wetlands are damaging themselves. They are destroying their own future and that of their children for a quick buck, motivated by greed. It makes no sense whatsoever. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that what the government is doing is criminal, ignorant, and that it will cost generations to come. The irony of this video is that it was produced by the Environmental Management Authority, EMA, the very institution that should be ensuring that these things do not happen. Yet it is the same authority that neglects its duty and allows them to happen. It is the same authority that has been infiltrated by corrupt businessmen masquerading as land and housing developers, who pay kickbacks and are then allowed to build on wetlands. It makes us look profoundly irresponsible and foolish. When future generations look back at these episodes, they will wonder what kind of people we were, people so greedy and so driven by money that we chose it over a sustainable environment in which people can live in peace without constantly worrying about flash floods. The amount of property lost to these floods is staggering. Yet it is a small group of men, and some women, who are making money from this illegality and criminality, becoming filthy rich without any sense of community or responsibility. They continue to do these things in order to make even more corrupt money. These are multimillionaires. They are reckless. They do not care about today. They do not care about the poor, because it is the poor who are forced to bear the brunt of this. Look at Zengeza and Budiriro. These are poor communities, yet they are the ones who suffer most from these illegalities that are taking place in our country. I appeal to all Zimbabweans, regardless of political party or ideology, to think about the future of your grandchildren who are yet to be born, and the future of your great grandchildren who are yet to be born. Do you want to be remembered as cruel, criminal, fraudulent people who did not care about the future of those who came after you? Is that the kind of memory you want to leave? Do you want future generations to say that the post war, post liberation generation was selfish, self centred, corrupt, and did not care about what came after them? Is that how you want to be remembered? That is how we are going to be remembered if we continue on this path, as a senseless, greedy, corrupt generation that allowed this to happen. This is sad. Let us think about the future. Let us think about the legacy we are going to leave and how we are going to be remembered. Do we really want to continue destroying our country and be remembered as selfish, destructive people? Are we so stupid that we do not understand the most basic concept of what wetlands are? Are we so idiotic that we cannot see that we are actively harming ourselves by building properties on top of what should be a living ecosystem that protects our suburbs from flooding? Are we really that irresponsible as Zimbabweans? Is it truly that hard to understand? Do we have to be so primitive and so backward that we end up destroying ourselves, destroying our capital city, just so a few men can make money, while we also destroy the future of our children, and then turn around and claim that we are patriots? What kind of patriotism destroys its own environment, the very place where its own people are supposed to live? That is not patriotism. That is idiocy.

Hopewell Chin’ono

64,570 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

I asked anamitra why every VC is starting an accelerator: "As more traditional venture funds become stage agnostic, they don't want to lose sight of the formation stage companies. If you lose that, then you become one of 20 VC's trying to invest in any one round. In the past, they've had seed programs for this. And Seed programs historically have been promoted by younger people at those funds, because they're closer to the metal. And seed funds have gone through cycles. They grow, and then they collapse when founders realize Seed deals at these stage agnostic fund don't convert. So they got disintermediated, and the best founders all go to the angels and the seed funds. And then they grow again, and then they collapse again. And every time, all the young people leave the big funds. And that has happened over cycles for a long time. The Series A funds have been trying to penetrate Seed for a long time. And even if you didn't have a good Seed program, you had YC, and Techstars, and all the other accelerators, which would give you great deal flow. And you could go to the demo days and pick up the good ones. And the cool thing, back in the day, was you didn't actually have to wait for the demo day. You could access the companies before demo day, and make the deals beforehand. Even if you wait until demo day, it's wasn't that bad. You could still get decent ownership at $15m or $10m post-money valuations. And then, YC made two changes to their program. One of the big changes that they made sure companies wait until demo day. And the second was introducing the $375k uncapped MFM SAFE. Which incentivized founders to raise their next round at as high a price as possible. So now, founders were incentivized to raise at demo day, and at as high a price as possible. What used to be $10-15m valuation, are now $20m, $25m, and even up to $40m. And so, many funds were who were reliant on deals from YC saw their entry prices suddenly shoot up. And the question for them became, what do we do? If your average entry point was $10 million on a YC deal, it suddenly went up to $40m. You basically cut your returns by 75%. So if your strategy was doing all these YC deals, and getting a 4x return on your fund, everything was good. Suddenly with the new entry prices, you're getting 1x on your fund. And that's not good. For founders, YC gives you a halo, some brand value. They do a ton of programming and help you learn about building a company. Every founder wants to be part of that. No question about it. Look at the roster of companies that they've invested in. At the same time, there are some founders who may want a better option. Who may believe that their company is worth more than $1.8 million. And they should have an option. So I think, investors saw that their entry prices at demo day were going up. And founders are entering these accelerators at $1.8m post. And investors thought, there has to be a price in the middle that we can offer and give founders another option. And that's why they've all started accelerators. And as a result, what's happening is founders now have more choice. So the question now becomes, what do the best founders decide to do? Now that they have more options, what are they going to pick? And so, it makes a lot of sense to me to see these other funds try their own programs. And if they are committed, and focused, and they're able to source and market well, they're going to do really well. As they do really well, that's going to create a positive virtual cycle for future founders to decide which one should they pick. And they'll all have better options. So it's just going to get more competitive. And I would argue, this might have all been started because of the change in the YC deal. If the deal hadn't changed, would we have seen so much downstream impact?"

The Peel

28,637 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

If this weren’t so tragic, it would be hilarious. This regime just can’t help itself when it comes to blame shifting. When the US was the manufacturing powerhouse of the world and was getting exponentially richer each year, providing Europe with the materials to rebuild after WWII, the greed of the rich dictated that they wanted yet more profit. Human labour was their biggest cost and as such was inhibiting their bottom line. So under Reagan, they decided to throw American workers under the bus and ship jobs and in some cases whole manufacturing plants to China. That was a conscious and deliberate decision. This accelerated under Clinton, as the sole focus of American corporations was on profit. They were happy to destroy US manufacturing to simply make more money. China said ‘Thanks very much’ and used the American investment to lift 850 million Chinese out of absolute poverty and build the most advanced infrastructure in the world. They did that with greedy American’s money because they don’t have a shareholder class. As a result, China now has the most advanced automated manufacturing systems and are now the manufacturing capital of the world. The American response? Play the victim, impose tariffs and attempt to choke Chinese progress and innovation by taxing Americans to do it. The result? China has a $1.2 trillion trade surplus, as well as infrastructure across Africa, Europe and South America. It controls 80% of global rare earth processing and owns almost $700 billion of U.S. sovereign debt. That’s before we talk about them seeking to dominate the global AI Tech Stack and robotics space, all while leading the world in nuclear technology and cheap renewable energy, outpacing US energy generation capacity. Don’t blame China for the biggest economic fuck up in history. As a result of Trump’s short sighted imbecilic policies, is far from hot, it’s simply a legend it its own lunch break. His obsession with power and stuffing his own pockets with money is breaking America. The American people deserve better and above all deserve to know the truth, that this corrupt regime is NOT winning on anything except economic and geopolitical incompetence at which they have become world champions. Trump’s delusional belief that the U.S. is respected is embarrassing. The world is laughing, in the knowledge that it is rewiring trade and security ties quietly in the background. Inside a decade the U.S. is facing irrelevance in what will be a new world order in which they no longer call the shots. Empires rise and fall as do reserve currencies. China can smell blood in the water and if it’s one thing China excels at, it’s playing the long game. It doesn’t have to worry about four year election cycles or a fickle voting public. It can wait as the economic lifeblood is drained from a nation eating itself alive. They’re happy to wait, because they have global infrastructure in place, highly advanced manufacturing and AI capable economy with a pipeline of highly educated graduates. Their shift away from fossil fuel imports dependency with an objective to electrify the nation using low cost renewable and next generation nuclear energy, is all baked into their roadmap. The days of America dictating the future are receding. The change will not happen overnight, and China is fine with that. They’re prepared to wait as long as it takes for the U.S. to slowly self suffocate. The sad thing is, because of Trump, and his treatment of longstanding allies, nobody will lift a finger to help the U.S. without the kind of concessions that will further diminish American standing on the world stage. If Democrats think it just needs a change of government to make things better, those days are long gone. It will take a generation to repair the damage done. People don’t easily forget extortion attempts and arrogant posturing. We are at a true inflection point, sadly it’s not one recognised by the delusional convicted criminal in the White House.

If this weren’t so tragic, it would be hilarious. This regime just can’t help itself when it comes to blame shifting. When the US was the manufacturing powerhouse of the world and was getting exponentially richer each year, providing Europe with the materials to rebuild after WWII, the greed of the rich dictated that they wanted yet more profit. Human labour was their biggest cost and as such was inhibiting their bottom line. So under Reagan, they decided to throw American workers under the bus and ship jobs and in some cases whole manufacturing plants to China. That was a conscious and deliberate decision. This accelerated under Clinton, as the sole focus of American corporations was on profit. They were happy to destroy US manufacturing to simply make more money. China said ‘Thanks very much’ and used the American investment to lift 850 million Chinese out of absolute poverty and build the most advanced infrastructure in the world. They did that with greedy American’s money because they don’t have a shareholder class. As a result, China now has the most advanced automated manufacturing systems and are now the manufacturing capital of the world. The American response? Play the victim, impose tariffs and attempt to choke Chinese progress and innovation by taxing Americans to do it. The result? China has a $1.2 trillion trade surplus, as well as infrastructure across Africa, Europe and South America. It controls 80% of global rare earth processing and owns almost $700 billion of U.S. sovereign debt. That’s before we talk about them seeking to dominate the global AI Tech Stack and robotics space, all while leading the world in nuclear technology and cheap renewable energy, outpacing US energy generation capacity. Don’t blame China for the biggest economic fuck up in history. As a result of Trump’s short sighted imbecilic policies, is far from hot, it’s simply a legend it its own lunch break. His obsession with power and stuffing his own pockets with money is breaking America. The American people deserve better and above all deserve to know the truth, that this corrupt regime is NOT winning on anything except economic and geopolitical incompetence at which they have become world champions. Trump’s delusional belief that the U.S. is respected is embarrassing. The world is laughing, in the knowledge that it is rewiring trade and security ties quietly in the background. Inside a decade the U.S. is facing irrelevance in what will be a new world order in which they no longer call the shots. Empires rise and fall as do reserve currencies. China can smell blood in the water and if it’s one thing China excels at, it’s playing the long game. It doesn’t have to worry about four year election cycles or a fickle voting public. It can wait as the economic lifeblood is drained from a nation eating itself alive. They’re happy to wait, because they have global infrastructure in place, highly advanced manufacturing and AI capable economy with a pipeline of highly educated graduates. Their shift away from fossil fuel imports dependency with an objective to electrify the nation using low cost renewable and next generation nuclear energy, is all baked into their roadmap. The days of America dictating the future are receding. The change will not happen overnight, and China is fine with that. They’re prepared to wait as long as it takes for the U.S. to slowly self suffocate. The sad thing is, because of Trump, and his treatment of longstanding allies, nobody will lift a finger to help the U.S. without the kind of concessions that will further diminish American standing on the world stage. If Democrats think it just needs a change of government to make things better, those days are long gone. It will take a generation to repair the damage done. People don’t easily forget extortion attempts and arrogant posturing. We are at a true inflection point, sadly it’s not one recognised by the delusional convicted criminal in the White House.

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

80,713 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Video source: a16z (2026)

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Video source: a16z (2026)

Startup Archive

422,892 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Source: a16z (Jan 2026)

Marc Andreessen: “I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices.” “We spend a lot of time working with our companies on pricing,” a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen explains. “It’s really this magical art and science that a lot of companies don’t take seriously enough.” Marc continues: “A core principle of pricing is that you don’t want to price by cost if you can avoid it. You want to price by value. Especially when you’re selling to businesses, you want to price as a percentage of the business value you’re creating.” He gives the example of building an AI that can do the job of a programmer, a lawyer, or a radiologist: “Can you price by value and get a percentage of what otherwise would’ve literally been a person? Or equivalently can you price by marginal productivity? If you can take a human doctor and make them much more productive because you give them AI, can you price as a percentage of the productivity uplift?” Marc argues that high prices are under-appreciated by founders: “The naive view on pricing is the lower the pricing, the better it is for the customer. The more sophisticated way of looking at it is that higher prices are often good for the customer because the higher price means the vendor can make the product better, faster. Companies with higher prices and higher margins can actually invest more in R&D and make the product better. Most people who buy things aren’t just looking for the cheapest price. They want something that’s going to work really well.” Marc also emphasizes this point in an interview in Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook: “What I hear from companies is, ‘Oh, we have an awesome moat, and we’re still going to price our product cheap, because we think that’s somehow going to maximize our business.’ I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. I’m always urging founders to raise prices, raise prices, raise prices. First of all, raising prices is a great way to flesh out whether you actually do have a moat. If you do have a moat, the customers will still buy, because they have to. The definition of a moat is the ability to charge more. And so number one, it’s just a good way to flesh out that topic and really expose it to sunlight. And then number two, companies that charge more can better fund both their distribution efforts and their ongoing R&D efforts. Charging more is a key lever to be able to grow. And the companies that charge more therefore tend to grow faster. That’s counterintuitive to a lot of engineers. A lot of engineers think there’s a one-dimensional relationship between price and value. They have this mental model of commerce like they’re selling rice or something. It’s like, “My product is magical and nobody can replicate it, and I need to price it like it’s a commodity.” No, you don’t. In fact, quite the opposite. If you price it high, then you can fund a much more expensive sales and marketing effort, which means you’re much more likely to win the market, which means you’re much more likely to be able afford to do all the R&D and acquisitions you’re going to want to do. And so we always try to snap people into a two-dimensional mindset, where higher prices equals faster growth.” Source: a16z (Jan 2026)

Startup Archive

162,274 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen