Most popular posts
- What makes great boards great
- The fate of control
- March Madness and the availability heuristic
- When business promotes honesty
- Due diligence: mine, yours, and ours
- Alligator Alley and the Flagler (?!) Dolphins
- Untangling skill and luck in sports
- The Southeastern Growth Corridors
- Dead cats and iterative collaboration
- Empirical evidence: power corrupts?
- A startup culture poses unique ethical challenges
- Warren Buffett and after-tax returns
- Is the secret to national prosperity large corporations or start-ups?
- This is the disclosure gap worrying the SEC?
- "We challenged the dogma, and it was incorrect"
- Our column in the Tampa Bay Business Journal
- Our letter in the Wall Street Journal
Other sites we recommend
Category Archives: Boards of Directors
Fast Company has a piece on The Hidden Power In Trusting Your Gut Instincts in which the author argues that your gut can be trusted:
Why is trusting your gut so powerful? Because your gut has been cataloging a whole lot of information for as long as you’ve been alive. “Trusting your gut is trusting the collection of all your subconscious experiences,” says Melody Wilding, a licensed therapist and professor of human behavior at Hunter College.
“Your gut is this collection of heuristic shortcuts. It’s this unconscious-conscious learned experience center that you can draw on from your years of being alive,” she explains. “It holds insights that aren’t immediately available to your conscious mind right now, but they’re all things that you’ve learned and felt. In the moment, we might not be readily able to access specific information, but our gut has it at the ready.”
The piece suggests four strategies to enhance your gut decisions:
1. Carve out time to reflect
2. Give yourself constraints (e.g., time)
3. Be aware of your feelings
4. List every time your gut instinct served you.
#4 is the one we’d like to recommend, because studies show that those who rely on intuition alone tend to overestimate its effectiveness. They recall the times it served them well and forget the times it didn’t. Keeping a list of every time intuition is your only guide might be eye-opening.
“Common sense” justifications can be found for almost any conclusion, and as a result it can be shockingly unreliable and something that we over-rely on to the exclusion of other methods of reasoning. Here’s how we put it in Everything is obvious once you know the answer:
It is “rarely practical to run the perfect experiment” before making a decision but we can be “more deliberative and reflective as we gather and analyze facts to inform our decisions.” When we over-rely on common sense alone, we risk “rejecting a more thorough effort to solve a problem and settling for an easy one.”
We think the article in Fast Company overstates its case. In our experience the best results often come from a combination of deliberation and intuition.
If the subject interests you as much as it does us, please check out these related posts:
- Thinking consciously, unconsciously, and semi-consciously Part I, Part II, Part III
- Inside the mind of great entrepreneurs
- It’s unwise to rely on one’s instincts to decide when to rely on one’s instincts
Our regular readers know that we often cogitate over the roles both skill and luck play in sports and business. The eve of the baseball postseason feels like a good time to revisit the subject.
Especially since we’ve found new data, even in an admittedly a small sample size.
In The Ultimate October Blueprint, David Schoenfield studies the past 5 post seasons (“when the strike zone started increasing in size and offense began to decline“) and draws a few tentative conclusions:
- Don’t strike out – even though you’re facing better pitching!
- Contact trumps power, although “the weird thing is that home runs in the playoffs have matched the frequency of home runs in the regular season.” But none of the teams who led all playoff teams in HRs – in either league – have won the World Series in the past 5 seasons.
- Use your bullpen, early and often. Starting pitchers don’t fare as well as they start going through the lineup a second and third time, so don’t let them lose a game in the middle innings. “Go to the bullpen. Hope they do the job.”
However… all of the past 10 World Series teams had a starter step up in the postseason:
The thing is, sometimes that starter is a Bumgarner or Verlander or Lincecum, but sometimes it’s an untested rookie like Wacha, a veteran having a so-so season like Lester (he had a 3.75 ERA in 2013) or a mid-rotation starter like Vogelsong. And sometimes it’s Colby Lewis…
The last team to lead the majors in starters’ ERA during the regular season and win the World Series? The 1995 Braves. In other words, having a season’s worth of gems from your rotation guarantees nothing in October — maybe bad news for all five NL playoff teams, who rank 1-5 in the majors in rotation ERA.
But here’s an indicator that may help: In looking for which pitchers may come up big in October, it appears a strong finish is important.
The data also suggest that velocity is overrated. “Maybe when the chips are down, it’s those crafty veterans throwing in the low 90s and situational relievers who win you World Series.”
Schoenfield summarizes advice for when the contest isn’t long enough for the Moneyball math to work:
[The playoffs are unpredictable but] there are a few strategies that seem to work: Battle pitchers with two strikes and put the ball in play; turn the game over to your bullpen in those middle innings; rely on one starting pitcher if you have to; get some big home runs from unlikely heroes along the way. And maybe hope you have a starting pitcher who can throw five innings of relief on two days’ rest in Game 7 of the World Series. [As Madison Bumgarner did for last year’s Giants. – ed]
While big data may help make accurate predictions or guide knotty optimization choices or help avoid common biases, it doesn’t control events and can be undone by cluster luck. Models are useful in predicting things we cannot control, but for those in the midst of the game – players or entrepreneurs – the results have to be achieved, not just predicted.
Power Score is the new book by Geoff Smart and Randy Street, the authors of “Who: The A Method for Hiring” (with an assist this time from their colleague Alan Foster). “Who” has been required reading in our shop for several years and informs a lot of the questions we ask (and how we ask them) in our “people due diligence” when we are considering partnering with an entrepreneur or helping one of our portfolio companies hire a new senior executive.
So I was excited to read Power Score, which utilizes the data from 15,000 management interviews over twenty years that the authors and their team have done on behalf of corporations and private equity firms at their consulting company, ghSMART. I love data, and I was impressed with how they mined their unique database to come up with a formula that facilitates successful leadership.
As it turns out, successful leaders get three things right:
1) Priorities – ensuring that they have priorities that are correct, clear and connected to their mission,
2) Who – making sure they have diagnosed their teams strengths and risks, deployed their people against the right priorities, and continually developed their people, and
3) Relationships – working to make sure that their culture and incentive structures support teams that are coordinated, committed and challenged and promote strong relationships with both employees and external constituencies.
The formula seems fairly simple (simple is good on vacation), but the execution is very hard, and very few leaders operate at consistently high levels in all three areas.
The authors offer a scoring system that challenges leaders and their teams to rate themselves on a 1-10 scale in each of the three areas and then multiply the scores (PxWxR) to see how they compare with the best proven leaders in the ghSMART database. (Hint: 500+ is pretty good but 9x9x9 = 729 is the Holy Grail!) More importantly, they describe how to increase your Power Score by continuously improving in each area, and they also offer a lot of helpful real world examples of how great leaders do it.
The book is written in an easy to digest question and answer format and it won’t take long to finish, though I found myself rereading various sections throughout the book and applying them to companies I have been involved with over the years. Much like they do in “Who” for identifying and recruiting outstanding talents, the authors offer a process that can’t help but enhance leadership success if executed faithfully. And, again, unlike most business books it’s backed up by a lot of great data and research on what makes for a strong leader.
I highly recommend the book and plan to send copies to our entrepreneur partners at Ballast Point Ventures, all of whom are looking for that extra leadership edge in their quest to build great companies. We’ve added it to “The Library in St. Pete” for books we highly recommend. You don’t have to take Power Score on your next vacation, but then again haven’t you watched enough movies on your iPad during those long flights?
(T)he list of particular derelictions, however long it may be, takes the worm’s eye view of the subject. This cascade of errors does not happen by accident. It takes place in large measure because of the faulty governance structure inside of FIFA. … It would be wrong, however, to assume that the difficulties with FIFA stop at the institutional level. In the United States, the basketball and hockey playoffs have taken center stage. Anyone who watches all three sports will quickly realize that the defects in FIFA’s governance structure are not only felt in the boardroom, but also on the playing fields. As a game, I leave it to others to decide which sport they prefer. But as a set of game rules, as I have long argued, soccer is so sadly deficient that much has to be done to fix the sport.
While it makes good sense to us that FIFA’s governance structure could be improved, we’re not so sure that would be enough. “Good governance” reforms, implemented in the wake of a crisis or scandal, inevitably fail to prevent the next crisis or scandal because even the best procedures won’t stop a determined bad actor. This is especially true when the institution’s culture is complacent and/or complicit – as is the case with FIFA.
As we’ve written elsewhere, in the context of a start-up company’s board, what makes great boards great are the ‘robust social systems’ in which board members’ informal modus operandi animate the formal procedures. Transparency and a virtuous combination of tension and mutual esteem will facilitate healthy and constructive debate and improve decision making.
Epstein goes on to address what he calls soccer’s “atrocious penalty structure” with penalties “either too severe or too lax.” He compares the situation unfavorably to hockey, in which each infraction is treated as a discrete event and the structure of the penalties create “strategic possibilities” more in proportion to the eventual outcome of the match.
Not having penalties proportionate to the offense creates perverse incentive effects on players and officials alike. The definitions of all infractions, especially those that turn on intent, are often subject to disputation. Players will try to inch closer to the line, daring the referee to respond with the nuclear option. Lower the stakes, and referees will be less reluctant to impose a penalty that now fits the offense. Players will respond by avoiding silly plays that can subject them to penalties.
This too parallels something else we’ve written, on the subject of complex financial regulations: if regulators create the incentive to just “manage to the rules,” even a good actor may tiptoe right up to the hot red line where a crisis can be triggered by a little bad luck. Regardless of the activity, the rules, or who’s officiating, there is always a need for good judgment.
What $12.7 million investment in 1988 yielded a vanishing $48 million in 1991, nothing again until this year, and yet may still have fabulous upside? As ESPN films explains in In Deep Water, a real-world “National Treasure.”
When a hurricane sank the SS Central America in 1857, over 400 lives and at least 3 tons of California Gold Rush fortune were lost. “At least” because the steamer was also rumored to carry in its hull an additional secret 15 tons of gold headed for NY banks. The loss contributed to The Panic of 1857, as the public came to doubt the government’s ability to back its paper currency with specie.
131 years after the ship was lost, oceanic engineer Tommy Thompson and a team of “data nerds” used Bayesian modeling to find the ship and new deep-water robot technologies to recover items from the ocean floor. We caught the 30-for-30 movie this week and it captivated us on several levels: (a) it’s the greatest lost treasure in American history, (b) it includes important lessons about corporate governance, (c) it demonstrates the importance of intuition, and (d) the tale ends with a local twist – fugitive entrepreneur/treasure hunter Thompson was just recently captured in our backyard (Boca Raton).
The story has parallels to another favorite of ours – The Greatest Comeback Ever and the Limits of Decision Models – in which intuition augmented or even trumped the computer model. Following a hunch they discovered her on “the edge of the probability map,” ending one mystery but starting another.
The first seven years were consumed by a flurry of lawsuits from 19th century insurers and not directly his fault; his backers then patiently waited for the next nine years as Thompson told them the gold had to be marketed just so. He sold 532 gold bars and thousands of coins for $48 million in 2000, purportedly to pay loans and legal bills. In 2005 two investors sued, in 2006 some crew members sued, and Thompson became a recluse in a rented Vero Beach mansion which he paid for with “moldy smelling” $100 bills (they’d been buried underground). He missed a 2012 court appearance and was officially on the lam up until being caught earlier this year in Boca Raton, FL.
A new company (Tampa-based Odyssey Marine Exploration) re-started salvage efforts in April 2014 – only 5% of the wreck was excavated by 1991, and it’s been left un-touched since then. Recovery efforts will continue indefinitely (is it 3 or 18 tons of gold?) and be used in part to reimburse the original investors.
Thank you to all our readers for joining the conversation here in 2014. We wish you all a happy and prosperous 2015, and look forward to seeing many of you at the 24th Annual Florida Venture Capital Conference, January 29 – 30, 2015 at the Diplomat Resort & Spa in Hollywood, Florida.
Offered for your reading pleasure, in case you missed any: a compendium of our twitter highlights from 2014.
- Innovation depends on millions of small bets on people and ideas unseen. “The Marvel of American Resilience” – Wall Street Journal
- FL among most entrepreneur-friendly states. (So is TX) Small Business Policy Index 2014.
- Best places for biz, #1-6: TX, FL, GA, NC, TN, SC. The worst? CA, NY, IL, NJ, MA
- Economic progress = temporary monopoly as “the new thing” is introduced. Crovitz: 3 Cheers for ‘Creative Monopolies’ – Wall Street Journal
- Portfolio company PowerDMS named one of Florida’s “Best Companies to Work For 2014” – Florida Trend
- Bradley Allen: A Texas Guide to Economic Recovery – Wall Street Journal
- Portfolio Company PowerDMS named one of Orlando’s Best Places to Work
- 7 Things to Do After Raising Growth Capital
- Carl Schramm: Teaching Entrepreneurship Gets an Incomplete
- TX entices Toyota jobs away from CA. Change transforms carmaker’s U.S. branch into a mostly southeastern operation.
- Chris Ingram: Top 20 greatest assets the Tampa Bay area offers its residents, visitors and future generations.
- MolecularMD receives CLIA certification for second next generation sequencing laboratory
- Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs. “Les exiles” who’ve fled to London would comprise the 5th largest city in France.
- A big vote of confidence in fried chicken. PDQ to expand to TX & SC.
- MolecularMD and Novartis have entered into a collaboration to develop a highly sensitive diagnostic test
- Matt Rice interviewed by Miami Herald on state of VC in FL & healthcare/lifescience/tech-enabled biz svcs sectors
- TissueTech profile in Florida Trend magazine
- Portfolio company TissueTech featured in The Miami Herald as one of South Florida’s leading med device co’s.
Why do regulatory measures implemented in the wake of one crisis inevitably fail to prevent the next one?
Kevin D. Williamson writes that regulation of complex adaptive systems (such as financial markets) present a challenge that is seldom appreciated or understood:
Every regulatory regime is explicitly or implicitly based on a model of how a particular system functions, but, for any system of meaningful complexity or sophistication, it is virtually impossible to develop a regulatory model that accounts for the effects of the regulatory regime on the system being regulated. (This is sometimes analogized to Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems; whether that is an appropriate analogy I leave to the mathematicians.) The complex structured finance of the sort associated with mortgage derivatives and the like did not develop ex nihilo — it developed as a response to regulation and to political attempts to steer markets. We attempt to regulate markets as they exist, failing to account — and probably unable to account — for how regulation will change the behavior of the markets…
Rather than admit that regulation is having unintended effects, Professor Taub retreats into moralizing, denouncing the banks’ behavior as “accounting tricks” and “gaming the system.” But these are not tricks or loopholes or games — they are the laws of the land and the products of regulators. If we could for a moment set aside the cheap homiletics, we could meditate on the fact that our current regulations are having certain effects, some of which are other than what was intended, and that other regulatory innovations also will have effects other than those intended, and that our power to regulate is limited by our inability to predict or account for how markets and institutions will react to that regulation.
Andrew Haldane (currently the Chief Economist at the Bank of England) similarly argued that regulations become less effective as they become more complex and likened it to a playing Frisbee with a dog. Despite the complexity of the physics involved, catching a Frisbee can be mastered by an average dog because he has to keep it simple:
The answer, as in many other areas of complex decision-making, is simple. Or rather, it is to keep it simple. For studies have shown that the Frisbee-catching dog follows the simplest of rules of thumb: run at a speed so that the angle of gaze to the Frisbee remains roughly constant. Humans follow an identical rule of thumb. Catching a crisis, like catching a Frisbee, is difficult. Doing so requires the regulator to weigh a complex array of financial and psychological factors, among them innovation and risk appetite. Were an economist to write down crisis-catching as an optimal control problem, they would probably have to ask a physicist for help. Yet despite this complexity, efforts to catch the crisis Frisbee have continued to escalate. Casual empiricism reveals an ever-growing number of regulators, some with a Doctorate in physics. Ever-larger litters have not, however, obviously improved watchdogs’ Frisbee-catching abilities. No regulator had the foresight to predict the financial crisis, although some have since exhibited supernatural powers of hindsight. So what is the secret of the watchdogs’ failure? The answer is simple. Or rather, it is complexity. For what this paper explores is why the type of complex regulation developed over recent decades might not just be costly and cumbersome but sub-optimal for crisis control. In financial regulation, less may be more.
In one of our earliest posts in 2009 we asked the same question, from the viewpoint of a board of directors:
The end of every boom-bust cycle during my lifetime has included a fin de siècle scandal: insider trading punctuated the ’87 crash, accounting irregularities (think Enron and Worldcom) helped pop the tech bubble of the ’90s, and our most recent bust was characterized by lax governance at Fannie & Freddie and more than a few banks.
We all understand the business cycle, and we all understand human nature… but what about all those good governance measures that get implemented in the wake of each meltdown? Why do they inevitably fail to prevent the *next* crisis?
Presumably, those companies and regulatory bodies have boards comprised of accomplished and highly intelligent members, with personal wealth at stake. Weren’t they paying attention to, and paying consultants to implement, best practices in good governance? Ethics codes, audit and compensation committees, Independent Directors, regular meetings, well constructed board packages…
It’s conceivable that a board member here or there could be corrupt or asleep – but entire boards? Across multiple companies and regulatory agencies? Unlikely. It’s more likely that they were following the current and best practices for strong and effective board oversight.
There is more to strong board performance than best practices. The critical factor is a ‘robust social system’ in which members’ informal modi operandi ensure that all the well-designed board processes function properly. Good boards combine tension and mutual esteem.
This is especially true when dealing with complex and detailed regulations, which increase the likelihood a board will mistake process for purpose and inadvertently tiptoe close to where a crisis can be triggered.
61 years ago, on May 29, 1953, New Zealander Edmund Hillary and Nepalese sherpa Tenzing Norgay became the first to reach the summit of Mount Everest, arriving just before noon after spending the night high on the mountain.
The anniversary brings to mind another May (1996) expedition on Everest which ended in deadly disaster. The details of what went wrong in that May 43 years after Hillary and Norgay’s triumph are recounted by John Krakauer’s Into Thin Air (one of the recommended books on decision-making in The Library in St.Pete.)
In the author’s retelling, a series of events led to several climbers inexplicably ignoring the “Two O’Clock Rule,” which says: if not at the summit by 2:00, turn back because “darkness is not your friend.” Their descent occurred at night, in a blizzard, as they ran out of supplemental oxygen. 5 people died and others barely escaped with their lives after many hours wandering in the dark while braving subzero temperatures.
That series of events was analyzed by Professor Michael Roberto in a 2002 paper entitled “Lessons from Everest.” It had struck Professor Roberto that “the disastrous consequences had more to do with individual cognition and group dynamics than with the tactics of mountain climbing.” He found several factors that caused experienced people to violate their better judgment.
3 cognitive biases came into play:
- Sunk Cost Fallacy: The magnitude of the personal investment – $70,000 and weeks of agony – made many reluctant to turn back once so close to the peak. “Above 26,000 feet the line between appropriate zeal and reckless summit fever becomes grievously thin.”
- Overconfidence bias: The lead guides had impressive track records of success and had overcome adverse conditions before. One told his team, “We’ve got the Big E figured out. We’ve got it totally wired. These days, I’m telling you, we’ve built a Yellow Brick Road to the summit.” He also “believe(d) 100% I’m coming back” because “I’m going to make all the right choices.” The overconfidence extended to many other climbers as well. Krakauer wonders if they weren’t “clinically delusional.”
- Recency Effect: Paying too much attention to recent events. Climbers had encountered good weather on the mountain in recent years so many of the climbers thought the storm was surprising but in fact it was rather typical.
The team lacked the ‘robust social systems’ in which members’ informal modus operandi ensure that the decision-making process functions properly.
- Climbers were almost strangers and had not had time to develop trusting relationships.
- Group members did not feel comfortable expressing dissenting views, in part because one expedition leader had stated, “I will tolerate no dissension up there… my word will be absolute law.” (Sadly, to protect everyone via enforcement of the Two O’Clock Rule.)
- There was an absence of candid discussion due to (a) the deference in the “guide-client protocol” and (b) a pecking order amongst the guides that led “lesser” ones to keep their concerns to themselves.
Complex Interactions and Tight Coupling
Very briefly, “the team fell behind schedule and encountered the dangerous storm because of a complex set of interactions among a customs problem in Russia, Scott Fischer’s acclimatization routine in Nepal, a Montenegrin expedition’s use of rope, a failed negotiation with Outside magazine, and so on.” There was also no slack in the system, so when there was a problem in one area it triggered failure in another.
The bottom line may be that they violated a sacrosanct rule, but the more interesting question is why? The unwillingness to question team procedures and exchange ideas openly prevented the group from revising and improving their plans as conditions changed.
Though the stakes are (much) smaller in a high-growth company, an entrepreneur faces similar challenges: he has a team and a plan, faces a fast-changing environment, and the odds might be long. Success hinges on creating an environment of mutual accountability in which team members trust and challenge each other.
Inc.com has advice for early-stage companies: the partners with whom you choose to work are more important than the need for control.
By now everybody has a big stake in your success and would like to feel consulted on the major decisions you’re making with their money. It surprises me that this is even controversial but in this day-and-age it sometimes is. I know there are bad investors who do bad things. There are just as many bad entrepreneurs who do bad things. As with most of life, it’s more about whom you choose to work with, what their reputation is from others and how well you’ve vetted them more than an absolute need for control.
Or as we once put it: the fate of control is that always seems too little or too much.
Getting this piece right isn’t so much about control as it is about chemistry. If VC-CEO partnerships are like marriages (as is often said), then the issue of control needs to mirror that of a healthy marriage. It’s not about 100% control, or even 51% control – it’s about playing to each others’ strengths and making the concessions and adjustments that a given situation demands… It’s hopefully a long term relationship, and so over time you each learn when to take your shot and when to pass the ball…
Once the honeymoon is over, will you collectively put forth the constant effort required to sustain the relationship? How will you resolve conflict? Are communications open and largely free of clashing egos? Does the quality of the arguments make the outcomes better? U2 credits their longevity to a “group ego” that trumps everything else. Can you develop what Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures calls “shtick tolerance?” You don’t have to accept everything about your partner – outside of integrity/honesty – but you must be able to more or less tune some things out over the long haul. You’re patient with their shtick because they’re patient with yours. It’s hard work.
Predicting interpersonal chemistry isn’t always easy. Most venture firms will have a good “rap”, but it’s absolutely essential for entrepreneurs to verify that through their own rigorous due diligence:
Entrepreneurs who are raising growth capital (i.e. bringing on a long term partner) as opposed to selling their businesses (i.e. get the best valuation) should invest a lot of time conducting due diligence on their prospective financial partner. A credible partner will let you (indeed, encourage you) to talk to as many of their previous entrepreneur partners as you want to get a feel for what they are like to work with. Entrepreneurs should ask for references from successful investments, unsuccessful investments and current investments. Ask for the venture firm’s entire list of previous and current investments and randomly call a number of them. Find some independent sources on your own who weren’t provided as references but know the venture firm…
The chemistry between entrepreneur and venture partner in private companies is more cooperative, longer-term, and (mercifully) not subject to the quarterly reporting pressures of public companies. Both will have real “skin in the game” and the same incentive to understand the nuances of the business and focus on long term value creation.
Thank you to all our readers for joining the conversation here in 2013. We wish you all a happy and prosperous 2014, and look forward to seeing many of you at the Florida Venture Capital Conference, January 28&29 at Hyatt Regency Orlando.
Offered for your reading pleasure, in case you missed any: a compendium of our twitter highlights from 2013.
- As Exit Runways Grow, So Does Growth Equity. Growth equity is a class of venture capital not be confused with private equity or leveraged buyouts.
- CA taxes entrepreneurs & investors 5 yrs retroactively, and maybe even after they flee… to Texas & the Southeast.
- Vintage Future, V – special ’80s edition. Our 5th (Vth?) look at how today’s trend can be tomorrow’s punchline.
- Transparency, objectivity, truth-telling, opening doors. Making the Most of Your Board.
- Don Burton honored for his pioneering work as a founding father of the Florida venture capital industry.
- FL to pass NY in population. Pro-business/low-tax environment, plus actual climate environment cited as reasons.
- Interesting piece on the history of patent reform. Did 1979 law create tidal wave of software litigation?
- 7 Things Investors Love To See (with bonus “7 Signs You’re Not Entrepreneur Material” in Read More section).
- What every entrepreneur needs to learn from food trucks: make it easier for customers to engage & transact.
- 6 Things Successful Entrepreneurs Always Do. Even if there were a genetic component to “entrepreneurial engagement,” entrepreneurs succeed because of their good habits which they repeat day in and day out.
- Florida’s entrepreneurial activity rate exceeds national average. (From the 2012 GEM U.S. Report from Babson College.)
- A statistical ranking reveals which states have the most thriving startup communities, and which states have work to do. FL&TX ranked 1&2 in “The United States of Innovation.”
- SEC making it harder for start-ups to raise $: A Red-Tape Turnoff for Startups.
- Might be for earlier stage companies, but still good advice: 5 Things VCs Want You to Know Before You Pitch.
- Lessons in Entrepreneurship – MIT prof re-examines how e-ship is taught. Interesting, especially for early stage companies.
- Rise of the high-tech south, cont. – Austin to get non-stop London service from British Airways.
- SEC set to cripple angel investing. Government regulations rarely get the details right even when intent is good.
- HB 705 creates Florida Capital Technology Seed Fund. Companies who receive $ from the Fund must provide 1:1 private $ match.
- Kleiner’s Laws – great entrepreneurial wisdom from legendary VC Eugene Kleiner.
- Tampa #2 in Forbes “10 Best Cities For Young Entrepreneurs.” Southeast &Texas grab 5 out of 10 slots.
- “Existing companies execute a business model, start-ups look for one.” ‘Lean’ practices for (very) early stage companies.
- 5 Habits of Great Startup CEOs. If a candidate fits this profile, move quickly to hire them. But do your diligence.
- Keys to innovation from The Economist: Government get out of the way of entrepreneurs, reform public sectors. and invest wisely.
- “Seeing Steve Jobs Everywhere” – Watermark Medical and its founder Sean Heyniger mentioned in BusinessWeek.