DISQUS

Simon Cast · 1 year ago

I agree with Umair that good DNA is crucial to have a long term successful business and I think it would be an excellent idea to seek out these companies as part of your investment strategy.

I am disappointed in the companies that were successful at TechCrunch50, DEMO and seedcamp this year. Not because I don't think they can't be successful or might be useful, but they are nibbling at problems around the edges. Is Yammer really going to produce an order of magnitude in productivity benefits to companies? I don't think so. Its benefit for companies lies in giving them control over the conversation.

Somewhat preachy sorry, but I share Umair's frustration. The turbulence and chaos of the current climate is probably the best time to companies with good DNA to solve real problems as the barriers for these companies are weakened. It is much easier for these companies to establish themselves, upend the status quo and make real inroads to the problem those companies are trying to solve.

nic · 1 year ago

Hi Simon - I share the thought, and we did have a couple of companies that more obviously have strong DNA in the mix at Seedcamp, but ultimately the winners were felt to have better commercial prospects - which is often the case. Nobody will win if investment discipline is lost due to our desire to embrace the sort of shifts I have been writing about.

Hoover · 1 year ago

Hello. I take issue with some of the post you link to. I don't think investment banks failed. For years they succeeded in making markets more liquid.

To my mind, that's a success. It releases capital which can be used, among other things, for lending to startups.

Money's a commodity. Bank lending is money rental. If you can supply people who want to hire a car with a cheaper rate in a more convenient location, so much the better. Likewise if you can supply people with money at a cheaper rate, you open up opportunities for them to do interesting things, if they're able.

Other criticisms are valid - particularly the problem of transparency...

Your point about funding companies that aim to change the world for the better is interesting. It's potentially so complex I don't quite know how to tackle it.

We didn't always see a distinction between making profits and bettering the world. Keynes quotes the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1850: "It is curious to observe how, through the wise and beneficent arrangement of Providence, men thus do the greatest service to the public, when they are thinking of nothing but their own gain."

I wonder if we should think otherwise nowadays...

Anyway. Thanks for the interesting questions you raise in your blog.

nic · 1 year ago

Tks Hoover. I guess I feel that the asset bubbles we have seen in last few years have ultimately destroyed value and that the financial system (aka banks) has facilitated them rather than mitigated against them.

To your second point - I am a believer in market forces, but they don't work well on their own. Social mores are an important part of defining what is acceptable and encouraged in business - and I think they will become more so as people choose to buy from companies they perceive as having a net positive impact on the world - beyond simple shareholder value creation.