Interesting funder's point of view
I read an article about him in the Israeli "The Marker", which points out a few interesting things about the entrepreneur - funder relationship.
I've translated a saying of his that was quoted in the article:
"When I hear a pitch by an entrepreneur I look for a few things in them. First, they have to be very talented. I'm not interested in good or great entrepreneurs. I want them excellent. They have to be nice people, since some investments don't ripe in early stages. I always tell my wife that in case the investment fails in early stages, at least we gave a "scholarship" to a good guy and not to some idiot. Moreover, they have to be focused on the arena I like which is the internet. If they meet those criterias, there is a good chance I will invest in them. What exactly they are doing is less important. Business plans are a wonderful part of science-fiction. They are developed for people who love sausages and don't know what are they made of. How can one conduct a 'due diligence' on something that is only in his mind."
I would love to hear your thoughts, Tomer.
18 comments
[ 698 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] threadHe invests in great teams. That keeps it simple.
In a startup things are constantly changing so having a good team means they will do anything to overcome any obstacle. It is a quality that far exceeds any business plan.
Given how hard people find interviewing, I'm not sure it's that obvious to spot great people.
He's trying an analogous evaluation of the founder - and giving it more weight than the paper plan. Possibly quite reasonably, but it seems the success of the approach relies heavily on something people seem to find difficult.
Making the comparison: 1. great team = likeability of the singer as a person 2. great business = their ability to sing
How many singers have 1. but still fail? How many seem to have both and still fail?
I think you have to be top dog in both areas.
But then I'm not an investor :p