> The question isn't whether VCs are brilliant according to some absolute metric. The question is whether they deploy capital better than random chance. The numbers show that top ten VCs consistently do.
Does it?
If you have enough gamblers in a high stake casino where the house hasn't stacked the deck, some of them will seem to consistently win in comparison to the other players.
Similarly, a very small percentage of VCs and other active investors consistently beat the market. A percentage so small I'm not sure anyone can statistically say they are doing so through skill.
Similarly, your argument is the top 10 are consistent. Yes. And the top 10 aren't a statistically significant sample in a market of thousands of investors.
This analysis breaks down if the top ten outperform the market after you've started watching them. If that's the case (which for top ten VCs it is), the math suggests it isn't a "million quarters" situation.
> This analysis breaks down if the top ten outperform the market after you've started watching them. If that's the case (which for top ten VCs it is), the math suggests it isn't a "million quarters" situation.
Actually, it doesn't. The top 10 VCs aren't static and unchanging.
Does it?
If you have enough gamblers in a high stake casino where the house hasn't stacked the deck, some of them will seem to consistently win in comparison to the other players.
Similarly, a very small percentage of VCs and other active investors consistently beat the market. A percentage so small I'm not sure anyone can statistically say they are doing so through skill.
Similarly, your argument is the top 10 are consistent. Yes. And the top 10 aren't a statistically significant sample in a market of thousands of investors.