I see it differently.
Kevin Fliess

Actually, I agree with you on a number of fronts. Their thesis, proximity to Stanford, and ability to network and work with a specific and high potential cohort of potential entrepreneurs may well be a win. I’m intrigued (but from my own digging; not from the initial article). I don’t fault anyone for investing in the fund with such a thesis, irrespective of who the partners are or how old they are. I’m also not making a point about the age of the partners — success can come at all stages of life and their youth may well be an advantage of their thesis.

One caveat though. You mention the analogy of 3 Stanford grads raising cash for the startup venture…The average cost to launch a startup is around $30,000 according to the Kauffman Foundation. Data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor show that more than 80% of funding for new businesses comes from personal savings and friends and family. Something not evenly accessible by every potential entrepeneur. Again, we’re reinforcing the myth that entrepreneurs are somehow different in their DNA, when in fact access to resources (money, pedigree and connections) are key.

Setting that aside, my point really is about the reporting, not the fund itself (or the partners). The story of the fund by itself could be a really compelling story. The story as told does a disservice to young people itching to find a way to get into the game, but who lack some of the access to resources neglected in this story. Add the irony of the headline about “dad’s industry” screams to be called out.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.