The rate of change in the technology business is well known.  It seems like the second derivative is always positive whether with respect to the technology itself or to new entrepreneurial ideas.  At recent events I’ve heard some high-velocity Bay Area angel and super angel investors talk about the number of deals they are doing monthly.   Such measurements taken annually are more appropriate in most other sections of the country.

What does this mean for deals to qualify?  For starters, I think this skews toward the very young set that are products of the YCombinator type factories and come out of the door with relatively standardized pedigrees.  Many of those guys aren’t even shaving yet (yes I know some are women), and, pardon the pun, even their deals haven’t had time to grow any “hair.”  One can deploy a lot of smaller investments in convertible notes over a wide range of deals if they are all pretty homogenous and have no history.

Where does that leave the deals that have been around for a while, have been through a few pivots, a few leadership changes, and other transpositions over time?  I’m not sure.  One then gets into having to evaluate the circumstances on a case-by-case basis, and that takes some effort.  It the founders are older than 25, they have careers that need to be examined.  They also likely have family obligations to fulfill, and, while they may be well worth the extra cost, they are not able to return to the college dorm standard of living. 

I personally think this is a segment of the new deal market that offers extraordinary opportunity for investors who will devote their time to taking a bit closer look.  Fixed valuations as opposed to purely convertible notes may be the better way to go in some of these cases.  Some have said recently that experience is less valued than the ability to adapt, but I think there is a middle ground to be explored.  All businesses that scale eventually evolve to people issues as the primary driver.  And, in that case, there is no substitute for experience.