Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (92593)	10/30/2008 8:27:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541743

Its imperfect but far from absurd. The skill sets are not the same but there is quite a bit of overlap. Someone with the reputation to be considered for a job as a major corporate CEO, wouldn't be starting the normal small start up. He would be likely to raise quite a bit more funds, and would have a lot more connections than your normal start up entrepreneur. Also he doesn't even have to start something up, he could likely get the backing (of even have the funds himself) necessary to take a company private (a company that would not be a start up, and would likely be larger than a normal start up, but would be much smaller than the major corporation where he might be hired as an employee). Also even the perception (by the potential CEO, and by possible investors/backers) that the potential CEO could be a potential owner, helps inflate the market value of the potential CEO. Yes the perception may be false, and the company may fail, but that's little different from the fact that the thought that a new CEO hire may be good for the corporation may be false. It takes us back to the old 80/20 or 90/10 rule, where many are not particularly good, but its hard to separate the wheat from the chaff (and also only a few are spectacularly bad, so its more like a 20/70/10 rule with most being not all that far from average)