There is a parking spot in Manhattan that is governed by no traffic rules whatsover.  None.

No alternate side parking.  No muni-meters.  No commercial parking only.  No street cleaning, no no standing, no no nothing. 

And yet, no one parks there... ever.

Its a completely free, completely empty spot on one of the most traversed roads in the whole city--the most valuable secret in all of NYC.

I know, because I have seen it with my own eyes.  I have even parked there.  Before yesterday, it was just for a few hours at off times here and there. 

Now, it has passed the ultimate test.   I had a breakfast meeting in midtown at 7:30, so I drove in and parked around 7.  It was a 10-12 minute walk to where I was.  I went to work, met someone for dinner, then went to teach my class at 8.

I didn't get back to my secret spot until 10PM.

Car?

Still there.  No tickets.

Fifteen hours of undisturbed, unticketed, completely free parking, 10 minutes from midtown.

I kid you not, my friends.  There is a spot the Department of Transportation has forgotten... has overlooked.  It is 20 feet from a hydrant and down the block from a no parking anytime zone....  but this spot is completely free of any legal jurisdiction whatsoever. 

I dare not park their everyday, for fear of giving away its very existance to the proper authorities, but I will definitely use it at my leisure for late nights in the city where I know I won't want to hike home on the subway at 11 or 12. 

Forget great sushi.  Forget great apartment finds.  Forget midnight hookups on C/L. 

I have found the Holy Grail of living in New York City.   Parking.  Free.  Anytime.  No limits.

Coming from the Limited Partner side, I've had the opportunity to see investing in private equity from high level portfolio allocation perspective...  leveraged buyouts, venture, distressed investments, etc.

It always struck me when people talked about making an "allocation" to venture capital, as if it was somewhere that you could just stick a lot of money and get something close to historical returns.  Not only is that not true, but I think that what most institutional investors even call "venture capital" is a terrible catch-all for a pretty diverse set of investment strategies across a number of uncorrellated industries.

I mean, should a $50 million investment in a profitable and growing healthcare services company from a group like Summit Partners fall into the same "asset class" as a small angel/seed round in a company like del.icio.us that started out with one guy and one server?   Do those investments have any correlation whatsover?

Granted, when the public markets are doing well, rising tides tend to float all ships and that's when you get outsized "VC" returns.  But, keep in mind that one of the best venture investments ever, Google, was made during one of the worst possible periods of venture investment... ever.  Google's first VC round game in June of 1999.  How many other companies that got their first round of investment in June of 1999 are even still around?  Selecting from that vintage would be an exercise in catching... well... forget falling knives...  try falling hand grenades... oh, and one golden egg, of course.

The reality of venture capital is that its a relationship business where reputations and industry expertise count.  You're betting on people... people who are betting on other people.  The idea that you could group all of these people in one bucket and make assumptions and predictions that all of these people are going to move in step always seemed a bit silly to me.  Just because you can aggregate data doesn't mean you should.

In fact, if you're not betting on the right people, its really not even worth being in this "asset class" to begin with.  Take this chart.  This chart plots "vintage year" returns across time of the top quartile, median, and bottom quartile of VC funds.  So, for example, this chart says that the green spike is the aggregate IRR of the top quartile funds that began in 1997.  So, that money was largely put to work in '97, '98, and '99, and those companies exited in the '99 and '00 timeframes... a great time to exit, but not a great time to start putting your money to work as you can see from the really low returns garnered by even the best managers who raised their funds in '99.

I plotted these returns against the next 3 years returns from the S&P.  Its not exact, but it gives you a sense of what your money would have been doing in the public market over the next few years if you had put your money in public stocks as an alternative. 

What is says is that venture really only makes sense if you are with the right firms.  Even the median venture manager doesn't outperform the S&P 500, particularly when you take risk into consideration. 

So when people say, "I'm bearish on venture" are they talking about median managers or top folks, because I'll always be bearish on median managers, but I'd be happy to invest with the best of the best, no matter what the market looks like for public exits, IT spend, etc.   In fact, it is great innovation by the best of entreprenuers that often drives these markets and spending.  I'm sure any CTO would find the money for the next big idea that solves all of his or her problems no matter what their budget looked like.

The bottleneck here is access.  Not everyone can get into the best managers.  In fact, if you're a new investor, you might even have trouble getting into even the second tier.  But everyone who invests on the LP side thinks their managers are the best, right?  And obviously, not everyone can be the top quartile, as the saying goes.  How many people are top tier?  Who are they?  Well, that's a whole debate in and of itself, but I'm just more concerned with the idea that investors look at venture capital as a homogeneous set of investments that can be slotted into an efficient frontier, because its quite the opposite.  Investors need to consider their own opportunity set, due diligence their managers thoroughly, and make bets on people the same way VCs do.  How much money could you actually put to work with managers you think you have the right relationships and industry knowledge to succeed? 

I mean, can you imagine if we decided here at USV to make a 25% allocation to "online advertising" and put our money out that way, regardless of what kind of entreprenuers walk out the door?  Certain not a good style of investing and not the way I'd pick VCs either.

So I was just clicking around my blog looking for something, and I noticed something weird about my last 50 Favorite Movies post.  It had an Amazon ad on it...  not the link to the DVD that I usually have, but an actual ad--an annoying flashing/blinking one at that, too.   I figured I pasted the wrong link or something, but then I went back and realized that about half of my movie links had turned into ads. 

So, I pasted a link to a DVD that I'd like to sell as an Amazon Associate, and Amazon's been switching my links out for house ads.

That's pure bullshit.

I don't care if it says that they can in small type somewhere, that's just wrong.  I set up those links so people could find the movies I'm pitching...   not so that Amazon can have ad inventory just to promote its big sale.

That's totally obnoxious and as soon as I get a chance, I'm going to go back and rip down my Amazon links.

Amazon Associate?  No thanks.  I'd rather not "associate" with them on my blog if they're going to pull that.

I'd rather give IMDB the traffic.

Here's the picture of what they put up on my site:

An end to Y.A.F.P.?

Link: SiliconBeat: AlwaysOn's Tony Perkins to launch GoingOn.

Link: tony morgan | one of the simply strategic guys: 10 Easy Ways to Know You're Not a Leader.

10 Easy Ways to Know You're Not a Leader

   
1. You're waiting on a bigger staff and more money to accomplish your vision.
   
2. You think you need to be in charge to have influence.
   
3. You're content.
   
4. You tend to foster division instead of generating a helpful dialogue.
   
5. You think you need to say something to be heard.
6. You find it easier to blame others for your circumstances than to take responsibility for solutions.
   
7. It's been some time since you said, "I messed up."
   
8. You're driven by the task instead of the relationships and the vision.
   
9. Your dreams are so small, people think they can be achieved.
 
10. No one is following you.

I'll add a few:

11) You can't/don't take the time to understand people who disagree with you.

12) You don't create other leaders.

13) You have to make every decision yourself.

So, yesterday afternoon, I played a pickup softball game with some Zog folks.

But, unfortunately, I left my new glove at the field.  :( 

I could have kicked myself.

Seperately, I have a Zog softball game tonight and I'm short players for it.  I posted on Craigslist and this guy named Gary responded.  I picked up a few players and now I think I'm good (but if anyone wants to join us, let me know... its a 6PM game on 101st/Amsterdam).  Then I realized that I should probably post in the lost and found section about my glove, too.

So Gary responds again and says, "Hey, wait... were you playing with ZogSports last night?"

Turns out that not only did Gary play first for the team I was on, but he also spotted who found my glove and took it for safe keeping.  I guess he just has an RSS search going of anything to do with softball.  So the glove has been located, some ringers have been added and Craigslist saves the day. 

Link: Allen's Blog.

Allen Morgan from Mayfield is a VC blogger who seems to have been blogging under the radar compared to guys like Fred, Ed and Brad.  He is currently posting his 10 Commandments for Entrepreneurs...   really great stuff and a must read for anyone looking to get VC funding.  While I'm sure this post will help a lot of startups, I'm sure it will help Allen as well...  making meetings with entreprenuers as effective as possible, which would be important given the lines out the door that must form at a VC firm with a reputation like Mayfield. 

I'm not going to post about last night without explaining why there were 30 of my friends at Bar 515 celebrating.  While I can't say yet where I'm going (not until Monday anyway), the big news is that Friday, February 11, 2005 will be my last day at General Motors Asset Management.  After a little over eight years, I will be moving on for a really fantastic opportunity.  It has been a great experience, which I will write lots about when I make my official announcement on Monday.  For now, I'll just be concentrating on the party last night. 

I think Tim really captured the significance of the occasion when he asked, "What else have you done in your life for eight years so far?  Nothing."  He was totally right.  GM had been the longest continuous association/presense I've ever had.  Talk about an era.  Anyway...  more on Monday.  On to the party.

First of all, the turnout was amazing.  I really didn't expect so many people to show.  One of Dorean's friends said to me, "Wow, you have a lot of friends."   I guess I do.  I just don't like losing touch with people, especially when I've met quality people.  My life, in spite of the fact that it hasn't taken me too far geographically, has taken me through a lot of different groups of people and so I've met a lot of people that I would like to keep around.  Last night, people from so many different parts of my life were represented.  It was a little overwhelming to see them all there at once, and to feel like you're responsible for them having a good time.  I suppose that's what the alcohol is there for... its like a babysitter.  "Mr. Beer, could you watch Brian for a little while while I go greet some guests?"  Anyway, there were people from home, from Genesis, Regis/Marymount days, Fordham, GM, kayaking, baseball.  I thought it would be interesting to plot the entrance of selected people into my life on a timeline. 

No, I'm serious, I actually did it:

It will be interesting to see how that plays out over time.  Maybe I'll do another one for my grad school going away party.  :)

Anyway, I know you're all dying to see the pictures.  To be honest, I didn't get as many people as I would have liked to.  I was pretty busy hanging out with everyone, but I did get a few.  Perhaps I should have deputized some people at the bar with the Powershot.  That always seems to get the volume up and the quality down.

The bats finally came alive for Fordham's home debut at DeWitt Clinton Field at 52nd Street and 11th Avenue.

Temporarily displaced for a season while Hecksher Field is being renovated, the Fordham Rams came alive in the 2nd inning, sparked by shortstop Alex Pakla's solo blast to left.  Fordham would notch 5 in that inning, and the scoreboard would show 10-0 before Calarendon Insurance even had their first hit...  in the 4th inning.

The wheels almost came off the train in the fourth for Trever Freeman, making his first career start.  After keeping Carendon hitless, whiffing three through the first three frames, hard hits, dropped balls, and poor throws opened the door for the vistors to come within 2 runs, making the game 10-8.  However, with four more runs in the 5th and another blank frame on the mound, Freeman and the Rams made sure that was all they heard of their first victims.  The carnage ended when the Mercy Rule kicked in during the 6th after Fordham went up 20-8.

The game also featured the Fordham debut of Kristin Schwab, whose four hit splash set a record for Fordham first appearances.  Ryan St. Germain, Charlie O'Donnell, Ron Zapata and Jason Gianitti also had multi-RBI games.  Antoinette Mirsberger chipped in with two hits as well, while Chrissy Guerrero played a solid game defensively at second.

So, in addition to getting El Duque, which will probably turn out ok, the Mets pulled this off today:

The Mets acquired left-hander Dave Williams from the Reds in exchange for Class A right-hander Robert Manuel.

In eight starts with Cincinnati this season, Williams, 27, was 2-3 with a 7.20 ERA. In 40 innings, he allowed 54 hits, 34 runs, 32 earned, with 16 walks and 16 strikeouts.

Manuel, 22, was signed as a non-drafted free agent June 17, 2005. He went 8-1 with a 2.06 ERA in 12 games (five starts) for the Gulf Coast League Mets (low Class A) in 2005. In 56 2/3 innings, he allowed 55 hits, 19 runs, 13 earned, with four walks and 49 strikeouts. Manuel tied for the GCL lead in wins, was second in ERA, and fourth in strikeouts. Robert also appeared in two contests for the Brooklyn Cyclones (low Class) of the N.Y.-Penn League, going 0-0 with a 1.80 ERA. He pitched 5 innings in two relief appearances, permitting five hits, one earned run, with five strikeouts.

So we gained five years and five times the suckiness.   Great.

If I had a Cliche of the Week, I think it would have to be "Flickr for Video"...  at least this week anyway.  It seems like in the last few months or so, we've seen a lot of new focus on video, whether its user generated or Apple-repurposed.  YouTube got funding, the CollegeHumor guys refocused on Vimeo, and Alex Vitaki is working hard to build Castpost, to name a few.

People are going to keep their videos somewhere, don't get me wrong, and they're going to want to share, discover, etc.  So, there probably is a Flickr type business model there somewhere, but that's not so interesting to me.

I was speaking with an entrepreneur about this the other day and they told me that they were experimenting with ads inserted in the videos.  Ugh...    I just had a bad reaction to that... the same bad reaction I had when CNN was showing mortgage ad clips everytime I wanted to watch a Hurricane Katrina video.  I'm glad they stopped doing that after a while.

Around the same time, I saw the new Dunkin Donuts commercial where the the CEO gets some cornrows in addition to his new vanilla spice latte, prompting a lackey to say, "That's kind of a new thing for you sir, isn't it?"   Its hilarious.

Then it hit me.   That commercial is so funny, I'd love to run the clip on my blog.  In fact, there are a lot of good commercials that I'd love to run on my blog.  (My favorite all time commercial is the Outpost.com one where they shoot the hamster through the O in outpost... or at least attempt to, and they miss, smacking the poor things against the other letters.)

If I did that, though, why shouldn't I get paid for that? 

In fact, Dunkin Donuts probably would pay me for that if they could.  Advertisors have come up with all sorts of stupid little ways to steal desktop space from me... to get in front of my face in annoying ways with clips, sound, etc.  What if we could just choose commercials to view...   to go to a site, pick the best video clip commercials we can find, and get paid to have our audiences glue their little eyeballs to your 30 second clip.  Some of them are pure entertainment.  I think that would be a great use for some of these video clip services... and a good business model for them.

Even better would be if you let the audience create their own.  What if Dunkin Donuts said, "Ok, we're looking for commercials that have the product in it the whole time, no profanity, nudity, whatever, and are funny as hell."   How many college kids would probably make really fantastic Dunkin Donuts commercials worth watching, displaying on blogs, and e-mailing it to others?  Remember when someone made a Tiger Woods/Nike ad?   Someone else made their own iPod ads.

For companies, it would create cheap advertising, brand awareness, and really capture the attention their looking for.  For bloggers and other publishers, they would be getting paid to display the most entertaining content.  For video creators, they could get a cut, too, and get their name out, and, if nothing else, the pure satisfaction of starring in their own commercials or having the most popular one.

So instead of trying to sneak your way into my attention, why not let the community create something worthy of my attention for the brands they're passionate about, and then pay them for it?

Makes me think of when I was in the fifth grade and Sal Auteri, a tough, bruising little guido if you ever saw one, was doing a class presentation.  It was supposed to be a "TV Newscast" about the state of Missouri or something.  His group couldn't get his act together and all of the sudden, he just turns to the class , rubs his cheek and goes, "Use Dove soap.  It doesn't try your face like other soaps..."   Pure humor.   User generated commercial clips on the web.  I'd click on that and I think advertisers would be to have me watch it.

Just ONCE, I'd like someone to write a story about how students can actually use the internet, blogging and social networks in particular, for good.

The NYT has story today about "outed" anonymous blogging interns....   

I thought we were supposed to be teaching our students how to take advantage of new technologies, not make them afraid.

Companies should be encouraging their interns to blog...  so that they can promote all the great things about their internship programs, the cool things going on at their companies, etc.   They should also be reviewing privacy policies and making clear what's ok to post and what's not.  As long as its done in a responsible way, why would you want to crush your employee's interest in voluntarily associating themselves with their company?  And if one of them is disgruntled... you should work with them to right the wrongs...   not silence their voice.

So, I'll admit that I never read the book.  I'm not a big fiction book reader, and it always kind of turns me off when everyone is reading something.

But I feel like seeing the movie gave me a good synopsys of what the story was and I have to say...  it wasn't nearly as interesting or controversal as people said.

Perhaps its the fact that I've actually taken three or four real Theology courses.  I knew that there were other books of the Bible floating around that a council of scholars voted out.  Stories of Jesus' life between the age of like 8 and 30, are also not new to me.   So, while more fundamentalist Catholics who believe that the Bible was a book handed down from the clouds are up in arms from this movie, nothing that was proposed really shocked me.

There's also a huge gaping hole in the story.  [SPOILER ALERT]  Why does finding a direct bloodline to Mary Magdaline necessarily prove that Jesus had children??  Now, I actually believe that he probably did... not sure why he wouldn't...   but nothing about the story proves that she didn't have children with someone else, even after the crucifiction.  These other Bible stories say they were married, but its not like people only had kids with the people they were married to, especially when their spouses die early.  Just doesn't prove much of anything as far as I can tell.

Also, everyone in the movie is pretty good, except for, and I hate to say it, Tom Hanks.  He's horribly miscast in the movie.  We just don't believe him as the smart guy.  Tom Hanks is everyman.  He's the modern day Jimmy Stewart.  He's Forrest Gump...  the Fedex guy from Castaway...   the foreign diplomat from the Terminal.   He's no religious scholar with a PhD. 

Other people could have played the smart guy.  Harrison Ford... well, I guess he's already search for the grail once, so that's out.  How about Russell Crowe.  No, not the bruiser from Gladiator, but the dork from a Beautiful Mind.  Hell, even Bill Pullman could have been more believable in this role.  Any other ideas?

I'm not going out to Fire Island or the Hamptons.

No Jersey Shore either.

Nope....  I'm not making any plans, b/c I need a weekend off...  not a vacation.. but a weekend around NYC...   a few hours in my apartment wouldn't be bad either.  I could finally get my ceiling fans, hook up my TV to my media center (nope, still haven't done that either.)  Maybe I'll make a pizza, too.

I'll definately be spending a disproportionate amount of time at Pier 96 at the boathouse, too.  I'm set on being there Sunday and Monday, since the weather is going to be good.  Saturday might be my day in Brooklyn, especially if it rains.

I'm not big into vacations, but catch-up time is always welcome.

Places to play in this city are few and far between as it is...   and now one of the only three full-size fields in Manhattan with lights is going to be demolished this summer to make room for science buildings.

I just got this note from ZogSports:

Goldman Field at City College is one of ZogSports’ most heavily used fields (City College is one of five full size fields in Manhattan and one of only three with lights). You also know that thanks to you, all of our leagues have become popular. The reason why each of our leagues sells out quickly is that we currently don’t have enough field space to accommodate the demand.

 

It has come to our attention that City College and CUNY plan to demolish the field at City College starting this summer in order to build new science buildings. This would adversely affect all of our leagues, not just those currently using City College as a venue.

 

ZogSports is taking a lead role to avoid the demolition of the field and we need your help. It is important to get as many people as possible to sign the petition to save the field.

The       

      Goldman

      

      Center

      not only serves as the home for       

      City

      

      College's NCAA athletic teams and intramural programs, but also

      

      A.P.

      

      Randolph

      

      High School

      

      (NYC public school) and countless community groups including:

 

        

      

                                               

	Harlem           Little League
	Harlem           Youth Soccer
	Doc’s           NYC Youth Lacrosse League
	ZogSports           (charity-focused, co-ed sports league for young professionals)
	N.Y.C. Metro Sports
	And           many other youth and community organizations

Sign this petition to help preserve this field.

Are there seriously no old buidings up at 133rd. that they city can't refurbish and use for a science building?  Why is recreational space the first target?

Ok, so the first pitch has been thrown and the 2005 Baseball Playoffs are underway.

Here are my predictions:

Padres vs. Cardinals:  Cardinals in 1.

The Cardinals are going to win the first game 23-1.  The Padres will concede the rest of the series and apoligize for even being in the playoffs with an 82-80 record. 

Astros and Braves:  Astros in 4.

The Braves, too, will apoligize for continuing to win the National League East.  Roger Clemens will nail Chipper Jones in the face intentially, ruining a division series perfect game but then get the next guy to preserve the no-hitter.  Clemens will use age and dementia as an excuse for the wayward 97MPH fastball.  Nobody buys it.  Doesn't matter...  everyone's tired of the Braves anyway.

Yanks and Angels:  Angels in 5. 

Garret Anderson will drive in 10 runs.  Still, he will be drafted in the 12th round of most fantasy leagues next year.  He will legally change his name to "No respect."  Arod will go another year without a ring.  Yankee stadium will be packed with fans who got corporate seats and have never been to a baseball game before.  They'll wonder why that Ruth fellow isn't playing.  Mariano Rivera will not give up a run in his 5 appearences.  Neither will K-Rod.

Sox vs. Sox:  Red Sox in 4.

Podsednick will steal 8 bases in the series.  Both teams will combine for more than 8 runs in every game.  Red Sox fans won't even watch or attend, because, after last year, everything else is gravy.  I can't seriously pick the White Sox here, mostly because, as Brian pointed out, they're throwing out Jose Contraras in the first game.

League Championship Series:

Cards and Astros:  Astros in 6.

Pitching wins games.  Clemens will give up four hits in his two shutouts... 3 in the first game, 1 in his second appearence.  Craig Biggio will also pitch, catch and play SS, and be solid all around.  He'll also get his helmet dirty.  As good as the Cards are, the three headed pitching monster will just be too much to take.  Rocket, Pettitte and Oswalt...   bye bye Birds.

Red Sox and Angels:   Red Sox in 7.

This will be the most dramatic series of the post season.  Garrett Anderson will win MVP in spite of the Angels loss.  These games are going to be slugfests.  I'm not too keen on either team's pitching.  Look out for Earvin Santana, though...   he could be a pleasent surprise for the Angels.

World Series:

Red Sox and Astros:   Astros in 6.

The Red Sox just aren't as good as they were last year.  No Pedro.  Shilling has been hurt.  Keith Foulke is gone.  They're still a fun bunch and probably going to be the best playoff team in the AL, but the best teams this year are the Cards and the Astros and either one could beat them.  I'm a fan of Craig Biggio because he's not flashy and he plays wherever they want him to... and just hits.   I'd like to see him win a Series MVP, but I feel like Lidge is going to factor in here at some point.  Roger Clemens will retire after this season, then come back in the spring and pitch seven more seasons, breaking Ryan's K record.

According to Susan Wojcicki, Google VP of Product Management:

• Focused on a product designed for real users
• Set a strong vision about information access
• Took hiring very seriously; lots of energy into trying to hire the right people. Most of the early hires are now VPs of major areas (of the first 35, 6 are VPs)
• Performed scientific-level analysis of what worked

From Christine Herron.

I think the most important two are product and people.   Get the product right and get the right people behind it.  (Often, getting the product right means having the right people to define and create it.. so its a virtuous circle.)

Being at a VC firm, you get to see a lot of little bits of cool stuff that come together to form a trend or a realization... insight into the big picture.   

Last week, Dice ran an ad in Fred's blog with the words, "Does your tech job suck?"  In the ad itself was a search box and an action button to generate a job query.  They could have created a job search widget and asked Fred to place it on his blog, but instead they just found it easier to figure out what they could monetize a search at, and pay their way into Fred's blog through a functional ad banner.

In the same vein, Brad and I were on a call the other day where we were talking to a VC behind a popular social network making an intro to one of our companies for a business development relationship.  However, the company didn't really have a lot of bandwidth to spare for integration, joint development, etc...    so the VC just suggested we try and do something in the ad banner space.

Brad called it "self serve business development."

I think as smaller and smaller pieces of code can generate more and more functionality, and sites open up more of their data to powering advertising, you're going to see a lot more functional and interactive advertising show up on websites to the point where you think they're actually part of the site or doing some kind of joint development.  The lines between what's a service and what is an ad are definitely blurring.