U.S. stocks fell about 2 percent on the first day of trade for September as weak Chinese data pressured global markets.

More…

Comments No Comments »

<p>Oil pared its biggest three-day rally in 25 years as speculation faded that OPEC may coordinate supply restraint with other nations to tackle the global crude surplus.</p>

More…

Comments No Comments »

The candidate has repeatedly said in speeches that China is "killing us" and stealing American jobs.

More…

Comments No Comments »

There are two strategic approaches to tackling poverty. Strategy 1: raise the incomes of those with low incomes. Strategy 2: reduce the knock-on effects of having a low income on housing, schooling, safety, health or health care.Strategy 1 policies attempt to reduce the number of people in income poverty, usually by transferring income directly. Strategy 2 policies try to blunt the impact of income poverty on overall quality of life. Strategy 1 anti-poverty policies are necessary, but far from sufficient. We must work harder on the Strategy 2 side, and make poverty matter less.The motivation…

More…

Comments No Comments »

U.S. stock index futures pointed to a sharply lower open on Tuesday following some weaker than expected Chinese data.

More…

Comments No Comments »

A patent law change pushed by the pharmaceutical industry could cost federal health-care programs $1.3 billion over a decade by delaying new generic drugs, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

More…

Comments No Comments »

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — If the Federal Reserve is preparing to gradually raise interest rates, several major retailers ought to brace for lower profits. Despite the recent rout in global equity markets, the U.S. central bank appears poised to raise interest rates for the first time since June 2006. A hike could come as soon as its Sept. 16-17 meeting. "Given the apparent stability of inflation expectations, there is good reason to believe that …

More…

Comments No Comments »

CB Insights have released a product called Mosaic which gives private companies a score which predicts their likely future success. The score is derived from lots of data they pull from structured and unstructured sources on the web and then process through a heavy statistical analysis. They pulled data from as many sources as possible looked to see which pieces of it have correlated with startup success in the past and assumed that companies scoring highly on those elements will succeed in the future.

The score has three components, momentum, market, and money. That seems reasonable, although doesn’t give as much prominence to team and product as most VCs do when they talk about startups. I guess CB Insights would counter that team and product drive the momentum score.

There’s much more detail on their site here.

I’m interested for three reasons:

  1. Forward Partners might be able to use Mosaic score as part of our assessment of companies
  2. VCs might start using the Mosaic score as part of their evaluation when they look at our companies
  3. Forward Partners might be able to use the market component of the score to identify new market opportunities as they open up and use that for proactive deal sourcing

Having got that straight in my mind it’s clear we should sign up for a free trial and see what we can do.

The analysis looks thorough and I’m hopeful something will come out of it. Right now I can think of two reasons it might not work for us. Most importantly, I think the analysis is based on correlation not causation, and the score will stop being useful if companies deliberately manipulate some of the inputs (i.e. game the system). For example, the momentum score is partly based on the number of job openings at a company, which is easily manipulated. The second question I have is whether it will work well for the very young companies that we invest in, many of which are too small to have many momentum signals, are in markets that aren’t established enough to have sufficient volume of activity for CB Insights to track, and are too fledgling to have any financial strength.

Update: Earlier versions of this post erroneously referred to Mattermark instead of CB Insights



More…

Comments No Comments »

CB Insight have released a product called Mosaic which gives private companies a score which predicts their likely future success. The score is derived from lots of data they pull from structured and unstructured sources on the web and then process through a heavy statistical analysis. They pulled data from as many sources as possible looked to see which pieces of it have correlated with startup success in the past and assumed that companies scoring highly on those elements will succeed in the future.

The score has three components, momentum, market, and money. That seems reasonable, although doesn’t give as much prominence to team and product as most VCs do when they talk about startups. I guess CB Insight would counter that team and product drive the momentum score.

There’s much more detail on their site here.

I’m interested for three reasons:

  1. Forward Partners might be able to use Mosaic score as part of our assessment of companies
  2. VCs might start using the Mosaic score as part of their evaluation when they look at our companies
  3. Forward Partners might be able to use the market component of the score to identify new market opportunities as they open up and use that for proactive deal sourcing

Having got that straight in my mind it’s clear we should sign up for a free trial and see what we can do.

The analysis looks thorough and I’m hopeful something will come out of it. Right now I can think of two reasons it might not work for us. Most importantly, I think the analysis is based on correlation not causation, and the score will stop being useful if companies deliberately manipulate some of the inputs (i.e. game the system). For example, the momentum score is partly based on the number of job openings at a company, which is easily manipulated. The second question I have is whether it will work well for the very young companies that we invest in, many of which are too small to have many momentum signals, are in markets that aren’t established enough to have sufficient volume of activity for CB Insight to track, and are too fledgling to have any financial strength.



More…

Comments No Comments »

Mattermark have released a product called Mosaic which gives private companies a score which predicts their likely future success. The score is derived from lots of data they pull from structured and unstructured sources on the web and then process through a heavy statistical analysis. They pulled data from as many sources as possible looked to see which pieces of it have correlated with startup success in the past and assumed that companies scoring highly on those elements will succeed in the future.

The score has three components, momentum, market, and money. That seems reasonable, although doesn’t give as much prominence to team and product as most VCs do when they talk about startups. I guess Mattermark would counter that team and product drive the momentum score.

There’s much more detail on their site here.

I’m interested for three reasons:

  1. Forward Partners might be able to use Mosaic score as part of our assessment of companies
  2. VCs might start using the Mosaic score as part of their evaluation when they look at our companies
  3. Forward Partners might be able to use the market component of the score to identify new market opportunities as they open up and use that for proactive deal sourcing

Having got that straight in my mind it’s clear we should sign up for a free trial and see what we can do.

The analysis looks thorough and I’m hopeful something will come out of it. Right now I can think of two reasons it might not work for us. Most importantly, I think the analysis is based on correlation not causation, and the score will stop being useful if companies deliberately manipulate some of the inputs (i.e. game the system). For example, the momentum score is partly based on the number of job openings at a company, which is easily manipulated. The second question I have is whether it will work well for the very young companies that we invest in, many of which are too small to have many momentum signals, are in markets that aren’t established enough to have sufficient volume of activity for Mattermark to track, and are too fledgling to have any financial strength.



More…

Comments No Comments »

U.S. stocks declined on the last day of trade for August as investors eyed a recovery in oil and digested recent news out of China and the Fed.

More…

Comments No Comments »

Nearly a third of the roughly 50 million elderly Americans who depend on Medicare for their physician care and other health services could see their premiums jump by 52 percent or more next year. That’s because of a quirk in the law that punishes…

More…

Comments No Comments »

McDonald's has some good news for dairy farmers and bad news for the lactose intolerant. The chain is changing the way it cooks items with English muffins.

More…

Comments No Comments »

Back in 2001-02 Enron and WorldCom, two major U.S. companies, filed for bankruptcy within about seven months of each other. WorldCom’s bankruptcy was the largest in U.S. history at the time.
Interesting about all this is how the markets reacted to what were two rather consequential corporate implosions. Calmly, as it turns out. As Jim Glassman noted, between November 8, 2001 when Enron announced that its financial statements “should not be relied upon”, and June 25th (when WorldCom’s deceptions were made public), the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 3 percent.
All of the above should be…

More…

Comments No Comments »

The date for liftoff will matter tremendously, particularly if the central bank decides to move in a month that's likely to be a highly volatile one.

More…

Comments No Comments »