Former Penn State coach Joe Paterno dies at 85

Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno died from lung cancer Sunday. Paterno, 85, who won more college football games than anyone in the history of the sport, passed away in a Pennsylvania hospital just months after a child sex abuse scandal damaged his reputation and led to his removal as PSU’s head football coach. Paterno was a member of the Nittany Lion’s staff for 61 years. “I am deeply saddened to learn about the passing of Coach Joe Paterno,” OSU football coach Urban Meyer said in a statement. “He was a man who I have deep respect for as a human being, as a husband and father, as a leader and as a football coach. I was very fortunate to have been able to develop a personal relationship with him, especially over the course of the last several years, and it is something that I will always cherish.” Editor’s note: Check back with The Lantern for more reaction from Meyer in an exclusive interview. read more

Ohio State names new spirit squad head coach months after former was

The OSU athletic department named Ben Schreiber as the school’s spirit head coach April 7.Credit: Courtesy of OSU athleticsThe Ohio State spirit squad has a new head coach — and he’s a former Buckeye.More than four months after former head cheerleading coach Lenee Buchman — who had been in the position since July 2009 — was terminated “for cause” following a sexual harassment investigation involving her assistant coaches and athletes, OSU announced Ben Schreiber as the squad’s new head coach in a press release Monday.Schreiber, who cheered at OSU from 2004-07, replaces interim coach Steve Chorba, who took over for Buchman Nov. 25, the day she was fired.“I am thrilled to have the opportunity to return to my alma mater and be at the helm of the spirit program, specifically as the head cheerleading coach,” Schreiber said in a released statement. “I look forward to working with each student-athlete and helping them achieve their goals and dreams as I am blessed to live out my own.”Schreiber spent the past five years as the head cheerleading coach and fitness coordinator at the University of Delaware.Schreiber led the Blue Hens to the 2014 UCA Division I Large Coed National Championship, while the team finished as national runners-up from 2010-13, according to the release. He said he looks to establish that kind of success at OSU.“My desire is to continue to build on the traditions of the program and develop new, cutting-edge concepts to help distinguish this program from others,” Schreiber said.Schreiber is set to earn a base salary of $43,000, OSU spokesman Adam Widman told The Lantern in an email. Chorba earned $37,000 as interim head coach, while Buchman earned $43,003 after receiving a raise Aug. 23.After becoming the spirit coordinator at Delaware in 2011, Schreiber expanded the cheer program by adding an all-female team, according to the release. In that role, he also oversaw the cheer and dance programs and took on marketing responsibilities for the athletics and recreation services department.“Ben has all the qualities we were looking for in our next head coach,” Martin Jarmond, OSU executive associate athletics director for administration and the cheer program’s administrator, said in the release. “His experience and success as a head coach and his passion for Ohio State and developing student-athletes holistically make him a perfect fit to lead our spirit program.”Widman said aside from hiring Schreiber, decisions on what the rest of the cheer staff will look like — including whether or not Chorba is to be retained — are forthcoming.“Our spirit squad coaches do not have employment contracts and no staff decisions have been made at this point,” Widman wrote in the email.Schreiber’s predecessor, Chorba, was appointed to interim head coach from assistant cheerleading coach after Buchman was found to have demonstrated a lack of “leadership and courage” by OSU Director of Athletics and Vice President Gene Smith while she was coach of the squad.In an email obtained by The Lantern, Smith told Buchman she was terminated for “several serious lapses of judgment and leadership.” An October report by the OSU Office of Human Resources found those lapses occurred after former cheerleader Cody Ellis’ attorney said he was kicked off the team by Buchman for reporting he was sexually harassed by two former coaches, Dana Bumbrey and Eddie Hollins.Bumbrey and Hollins were terminated in May following an OSU investigation, which found “sufficient evidence” both had violated the school’s Sexual Harassment Policy. That policy defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances” and “requests for sexual favors,” among other things.Although he was terminated in May, Bumbrey hosted a cheer camp in August that Buchman took her team to participate in — more than two months after he was let go.“Though I know that the camp was not run by Ohio State, you took our students and brand there with you,” Smith said in the email to Buchman. “All the while, you knew the nature of the behavior Mr. Bumbrey had been engaged in, that Ohio State dismissed him just a few months earlier and that the university had emphatically chosen to disassociate itself from him and his damaging behavior.”The report also found that even though Hollins showed up uninvited to a practice Sept. 9, Buchman did not tell him to leave.“When an assistant that had been fired for sexual harassment shows up at a team practice, it is obvious what is expected of a head coach,” Smith wrote in the email.In an interview with The Lantern Jan. 29, Smith did not offer any further explanation for the investigation or events that transpired after it when asked.“I’m not going to get into a personnel issue,” Smith said. “It was a personnel issue, there are legal issues around it, so I’m not discussing it.” read more

Proto Labs Wants to Help You Create a Cool Prototype for Free

first_img How Success Happens 4 min read December 18, 2013 In the future, if you find yourself using Garageio, a device that allows you to open and close your garage door from your smartphone no matter where you are in the world, you will have Maple Plain, Minn.-based Proto Labs to thank. Proto Labs is expected to announce today that it donated prototyping services instrumental to the production of Garageio.Alottazs Labs, maker of Garageio, is only the latest company to benefit from Proto Labs’ Cool Idea! Award program, which started two years ago as a way to help young companies get new gadgets off the ground.”What we look for is originality and potential benefit to the end user,” says Sarah Braun, marketing program manager at Proto Labs and head of the Cool Idea! Award program. “We also look for innate coolness.”That standard has led Proto Labs to award its services to everything from a system of products that allow bar patrons to pour their own beer at the tap to a cost-conscious artificial knee joint for amputees in the Third World.Proto Labs launched the Cool Idea! Award program in the U.S. in 2011, and expanded it to Europe the following year, at the same time increasing the total annual award from $100,000 to $250,000 worth of services. So far, the company has given out 17 awards. Braun says she reviews applications with Larry Lukis, the founder of Proto Labs, every six to eight weeks.Sometimes they pick a winner from that batch, sometimes they don’t.Related: Inventor of the Wildly Popular ‘Rainbow Loom’ Weaves the American Dream With Rubber Bands in a Detroit BasementWhat caught Braun’s eye about Garageio, she says, is that it solves a common problem better and more cheaply than the alternatives. “How many times have I myself left the home and thought, ‘Did I shut the garage door? I don’t know,’ and I’ll have to turn around and go check.”The Garageio unit attaches to your garage ceiling or garage door opener and connects to your Wi-Fi network. Using the related smartphone app, you can open and close your garage door from afar — “nearly any place in the world,” according to a press release. The app lets you control up to three separate doors and grant access to other users, such as your family members.Alottazs Labs received its award, for services worth about $22,000, earlier this fall. According to a release, it used part of the award to create a test version of Garageio, and the remainder will be used on injection molding when Garageio goes into production.Although pitch contests, micro-grants and awards from startup incubators are more commonplace in today’s entrepreneurial climate than ever before, it’s still unusual for a manufacturing company to give away its services. But Proto Labs, which is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, with a market capitalization of $1.7 billion, is uniquely able to help inventors take their ideas from the drawing board to the real world.Proto Labs prides itself on being able to produce metal and plastic parts from a three-dimensional CAD model in as fast as one business day. Clients pay a premium for such speedy service; the typical production time is three business days.”In this business, speed equals money,” Braun says. “People are constantly competing to get a product into the market faster than their competitors.”Alottazs Labs is raising money for Garageio on crowdfunding platform Fundable, and is also taking pre-orders on its website for $129 per device. [http://www.fundable.com/garageio] So far, the company has raised about $17,000 of its $25,000 goal on Fundable, or about 67 percent, with 26 days remaining.Proto Labs hasn’t selected the next award winner yet, but it has plans to further expand the program. In 2014, Braun says, she plans to include outside judges and provide more structure to accommodate them: There will be firm deadlines for applications every two months.”We really believe that there are some great ideas out there that never make it to market,” she says. “We want to provide our services to people that have these cool ideas and help them bring their ideas to life.”Related: 3 Things You Need to Know About Launching a Product Business Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Listen Now Hear from Polar Explorers, ultra marathoners, authors, artists and a range of other unique personalities to better understand the traits that make excellence possible.last_img read more

Have You Heard of the OTHER Government Backed Pen

first_imgHave You Heard of the OTHER Government Backed “Pension Program?”It’s official, Social Security is heading for broke! But that doesn’t mean you should miss out on the retirement you deserve…Most Americans know nothing about this, but a small, savvy group of retirees have been collecting from this OTHER Government backed “pension program” since 1972! Now income specialist Jim Nelson shows how you could too in a brand new presentation.Click here to watch it instantly. Sponsor Advertisement But, as is always the case, when the serious buying does show up…there are no legitimate short sellers in the market at these prices.Gold worked its way slowly higher during the Far East trading day yesterday…with the high of the day [a hair over $1,600 spot] coming around 1:30 p.m. Hong Kong time.From that point, gold got sold off steadily until its low of that day [$1,584.00 spot] about 9:20 a.m. in New York.  It rallied fairly sharply after the London p.m. gold fix…but wasn’t allowed another sniff of the $1,600 spot price during the Comex trading session.  The New York high was posted as $1,597.00 spot.Gold closed the electronic trading session at $1,592.40 spot…up 30 cents from Friday’s close.  Gross volume was pretty chunky…but once the spreads and roll-overs were subtracted out, the net volume was around 107,000 contracts.The silver price was more ‘volatile’ than gold during the Monday trading session.  It made three attempts to break higher during the Far East trading session…and on the third attempt at 1:30 p.m. Hong Kong time, the sell-off began…and the low for the day came around 9:40 a.m. in New York.The rally after the London p.m. gold fix ran into a determined seller…just like gold.  Silver rallied in fits and starts from there…and closed on Monday at $28.47 spot…down two bits from Friday.Silver’s high of the day was around $28.90 during the Far East trading session…and the New York low was $28.00 spot…and intraday swing of 3.1%.  Net volume was pretty decent…around 35,000 contracts.The dollar index dipped down to 80.95 in mid-morning trading in the Far East…and then rallied to around 81.37 by 9:15 a.m. in New York.  That was its high of the day.  From there it rolled over and headed lower, with its nadir [80.90] coming shortly before 4:00 p.m. Eastern.  The index rallied a hair from there, and closed down about 10 basis points from Friday.Despite the fact that gold didn’t do much of anything pricewise yesterday, the gold shares did very well indeed.  They jumped up about two percent at the open…and then slowly climbed from there.  The HUI finished almost on its high of the day…up 3.36%.Despite the fact that the silver price spent the entire trading day in New York well under Friday’s closing price.  Nick Laird’s Silver Sentiment Index closed up an amazing 3.83%.  Someone was obviously bottom fishing.(Click on image to enlarge)The CME’s Daily Delivery Report showed that only 33 silver contracts were posted for delivery tomorrow.  The link to that activity is here.There were no reported changes in either GLD or SLV.The U.S. Mint had a decent sales report yesterday.  They sold 6,000 ounces of gold eagles…1,500 one-ounce 24K gold buffaloes…and 477,500 silver eagles.  Month-to-date the mint has sold 42,000 ounces of gold eagles…7,000 one-ounce 24K gold buffaloes…and 2,017,500 silver eagles.  I do believe we’ve seen the bottom of the slump in bullion coin sales from the U.S. Mint.It was a quiet day over at the Comex-approved depositories on Friday.  They reported receiving 297,200 ounce of silver…and they shipped 187,664 ounces out the door.  The link to that action is here.Here are a few free paragraphs from silver analyst Ted Butler‘s weekend commentary…“This week in gold, the commercials reduced their total net short position by 12,500 contracts, to just under 139,000 contracts. This is another multi-year low number for the total commercial net short position. The big 4 bought back 5700 contracts and the gold raptors about the same amount. The big 4 now hold their lowest net short position in years at close to 95,000 contracts, while the raptors hold a net long position of over 5,000 contracts, the most since Jan 3. On the flip side, the speculators, both large and small, hold their lowest net long positions in years. According to how I and many now evaluate the COT, gold is spectacularly bullish by any historical standard.”“In silver, the total commercial short position was reduced by 2,000 contracts to just under 16,000 contracts, effectively at the low levels of December, which, in turn, were decade extreme readings. The big 4 (read JPM) accounted for about 650 of the 2,000 commercial contracts bought back during the reporting week, with the raptors adding 1,000 contracts to a net long position now totaling 17,800 contracts. New silver COT extremes in this week’s report included the lowest big 4 short position ever in my memory, as well as the lowest net long position ever by the little guys. In terms of a low commercial net short and speculative net long position being considered bullish, then it hasn’t been much better than it is now.”“I would estimate JPMorgan’s concentrated net short position to be around 11,000 contracts at the Tuesday cut-off, the lowest since taking over Bear Stearns in 2008. At its peak, in December 2009, JPMorgan was short more than 40,000 silver contracts; so the reduction is significant. More significant, of course, is what the prime silver manipulator intends to do on the next silver rally. I know I beat it to death, but that will determine the fate of silver prices. That’s what makes JPMorgan the prime silver manipulator.”Nick Laird was on cloud nine when he sent me this chart of the Gold Price Oscillator.  Nick’s comments reads as follows…”After breaking south, the oscillator has now reversed and broken north. Wowowow!!!!”  Take the red pill, Nick…and then call me in the morning.(Click on image to enlarge)I have the usual number of stories for a Tuesday, which means I have quite a few…and the final edit is up to you.There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. – MorpheusIt appears, at least for the moment, that the $1,600 price level in gold…and the $29 price level in silver are being defended.  But, with pretty low volume yesterday, it wasn’t hard for whoever wanted to, to move prices around.  It also appears obvious that if a serious buyer showed up, both those prices might fall in pretty short order.But, as is always the case, when the serious buying does show up…there are no legitimate short sellers in the market at these prices.  And as Ted Butler has been continually pointing out for years, will JPMorgan et al show as short sellers of last resort as always…and at what price level will the raptors sell their long positions?  Good questions that we’ll find out the answers to soon enough I would think.On the other hand, I’m also wondering if we’re going to see a repeat of what happened during the last two weeks of December 2011…where we hit an interim bottom at mid month…and a week later ‘da boyz’ rolled the price over between Christmas and New Years Day…and gave us our final low for that move down.  Here’s the 1-year gold chart.  The silver chart looks similar.(Click on image to enlarge)Looking at the current price action in both silver and gold, that possibility still exists, so it’s something to keep an eye on in the days ahead.  I would be just as happy to see gold and silver take off from here and never look back, but that may not be in the cards just yet.And, as many gold ‘experts’ point out, we are in the slow summer season for the precious metals…and we could just as easily trade sideways from here for a couple of months, if this year is the same as other years.But with all the financial and monetary problems the world faces at the moment, one has to wonder if the powers that be can, or will, keep a lid on gold prices going forward.  Everything is pure speculation at the moment, so we’ll just have to wait it out and see what the ‘market’ has in store for us.I note that both gold and silver came under some selling pressure starting at exactly 9:00 a.m. Hong Kong time…and came under further selling pressure about an hour before the London open.  This selling pressure increased dramatically once London started to trade.  Initially, gold volume was not overly heavy…but silver’s volume was pretty high for that time of day and, not surprisingly, the volume in both has jumped dramatically during the last hour.  Up until about an hour after the London open, the dollar index was basically unchanged from yesterday’s close in New York, but a rally started about 9:20 a.m. in London…so it’s more than a stretch to say that this move in gold is currency related, as gold and silver prices were already down considerably before the dollar index took off to the up side.  Here’s the gold chart as of 5:15 a.m. Eastern time…10:15 a.m. British Summer Time.As I hit the send button at 5:20 a.m. Eastern time, gold is down about seventeen bucks…and silver is down about 40 cents.That’s all I have for today, which is more than enough…and I’ll see you here tomorrow.last_img read more

Third even though they specialize in debt GCs ca

first_img Third, even though they specialize in debt, GCs can still participate in the huge upside that sometimes comes from having stock in startups, because many of their investments are convertible. If a debtor’s stock skyrockets in value, the GC can eschew future loan payments and the loan for a slice of ownership in company that may be worth many times more (like after an IPO—something GC investors who’d lent to Facebook did). Last, unlike traditional early-stage venture capital, you don’t have to wait years to start realizing some return on your investment. As debt investors, GC firms generate income from most of their companies within months—not a decade or longer, like many VCs—of making their investments. The net result of all these advantages is higher returns, much sooner. Cambridge Associates also tracks a broader measure of this category and pegs annual internal returns for the last decade at a whopping 10.93%. Many of the growth capital companies we track earn well above 10% net yield for their investors. While the investments GCs make may not hold as much sex appeal as the famed 20,000% returns that a handful of VCs have seen, there’s no arguing with the numbers. The returns are far more consistent, and for most investors (who don’t have access to a KPCB or Sequoia) provide nearly double what they could expect from a VC. But here’s the best part… Almost Anyone Can Invest Unlike venture capital firms—most of which are private, legally open to only accredited investors, and rarely offered beyond a privileged circle—a number of growth capital firms are publicly traded. Taking advantage of a unique structure that allows them to raise their funds on the stock market, the firms distribute their profits in the form of dividends, free from corporate income tax. Like any investment, not all GC firms are created equal, of course, and you have to choose wisely. My team and I have been tracking this sector for years and have come up with a short list of the best GC investments available today. Every one of our choices has a proven investment track record—and none currently yields less than 8% per year. Some, in fact, pay out much more. We’ve been working on a comprehensive report that details our approach to the industry, tells you all you need to know before investing in growth capital, and names the specific investments we believe are excellent buys right now. Starting today we’re making this report available exclusively to Casey readers: Click here for more information on how to Earn 10% Yield with Growth Capital. The untold wealth built by these venture capitalists (sounds almost like adventure capitalists, doesn’t it? Even their label is kind of sexy…) has long attracted followers, imitators, and groupies alike. Prospective founders of the next big startup line up to pitch their ideas, in hopes of securing not only a few million dollars in funding to get their dream off the ground, but also the mentorship and access to deep business and political connections that these tycoons can provide. It’s no wonder. Their ability to turn the economy we live in on its head is well demonstrated. KPCB, the firm that Mr. Perkins has called home for over 30 years, is attached to such piddling startup investments as: Google: once but a fledgling lab project out of Stanford University (Mr. Perkins’ shared alma mater). Amazon: its multibillionaire founder Jeff Bezos once had to circle Menlo Park, California office buildings, cup in hand. Facebook: Back when Mark Zuckerberg was little more than a college student with a hobby, they saw fit to hand him a check. Not to mention AOL, Compaq, Genentech, QuickBooks and TurboTax maker Intuit, security giant Symantec, and many more. We all know the stories of the billionaire founders of tech startups, of course. What fewer people realize is that for every one of those public-hero founders, fortunes of similar magnitude have flowed to the managers of and investors in—dubbed “managing partners” and “limited partners” respectively in industry parlance—firms like KPCB. Or like Sequoia Capital—which co-invested with KPCB in Google, and financed Yahoo, Cisco, Apple, and others in their early days. It has seen similar success, creating billions in investment returns many times over. So, Just How Much Wealth Do These Folks Make? As with any area of investing, the numbers tell the ultimate story. “Filthy stinking rich” is the image we tend to associate with VCs. Profiles on shows like 60 Minutes and blogs like TechCrunch acting as ESPN for the Silicon Valley set only add to the revelry. There’s a little fly in the ointment, though: For most limited partners, the return is far less exciting than you might think. According to Cambridge Associates, which tracks the US venture capital market, the average internal rate of return for VC firms for the last 10 years is just 6.1%. The National Venture Capital Association, an industry-funded advocacy group, pegged the one-year average return at 5.2% in 2012. With so many billion-dollar companies created at just two firms—KPCB and Sequoia—how can that be? Simple. It’s because there are roughly 1,000 venture capital firms operating in the US. In 2012, according to Cambridge, they funded over 3,300 rounds of investment for fledgling companies. Even with all that money sloshing around—about $20 billion flowed to VC firms last year—only a small fraction of investments are going to generate those monster returns. The cold, hard reality is that most of the companies that venture investors put their money into end up either flopping (estimates range from 18-25% that fail outright) or only returning small percentages over the many years it takes to get them off the ground. All That Trouble for a Measly 5.2%? Why the returns are so low is high-school math: the law of averages. Among any sufficiently large group, there will only be a handful of top performers. But there is another way to invest in young technology companies that has blossomed over the past few years. And another set of principal investors has proven they can return double that 5.2% for their limited partners. I’ve taken to calling them growth capitalists (GCs), since that’s what they do: fund startup companies through the all-important rapid-growth periods. Instead of placing thousands of bets on charismatic founders with a slide deck and a dream, growth capitalists focus on a different niche: profitable or near-profitable companies with rising revenues that need access to significant capital to grow to the next level, but are too small for public stock or bond offerings. By doing so, they’ve actually taken a page right out of the VC playbook. After all, venture capitalists emerged to fill a hole in the investment markets. Starting a company decades ago was much tougher than it is today, at least as regards the funding part of the equation. You could raise a limited amount from, as they say in the industry, “friends, family, and fools,” but that could only take you so far. Barring a very wealthy benefactor like a corporate sponsor or rich uncle, you had to turn to the banks and borrow money. Local bankers could rarely handle the job. They were usually far too conservative to bet on something with big ambitions, like a genetic research lab, and even when they could, raising the kind of money it would require was beyond their capabilities. Further, waiting a decade or more for any kind of payout simply didn’t fit their business model. Investment banks filled part of the gap, through bond and stock sales, and even direct investment. You could fly out to NY and try to raise capital on Wall Street, or even in an IPO. But most of the time, you’d strike out there, too, competing for the same time and money as GE and IBM. While some money was out there, it was hard to raise. Those you could raise it from rarely had industry knowledge to lend that might help you succeed, either. Worse, they’d often make unrealistic demands of your company for the same lack of understanding and patience. However, those who came of age immersed in innovative industries clearly saw the unique needs of the high-tech startup and the enormous return potential. So, those first generations of high-tech wealth were parlayed into the first venture capital firms, and an industry was born. The same thing has happened again in recent years, with growth capitalists picking up where VCs left off. Chasing the 1,000x return grand slams, most venture capitalists aren’t interested in dealing with companies that are already established—even ones they funded early on. That’s because once a company is off the ground and running, bringing in a hundred million dollars per year in revenue, the terms of a financing might only return a fraction of those multiples—and the entire venture capital model is based on having a few really, really large returns. So where can these fast-growing companies go for desperately needed capital? VCs are out. So are conservative bankers, who’d rather finance easily repossessed things like mortgages and backhoes than outfit a state-of-the-art research lab with equipment and scientists. Technology is a business of largely intangible assets, and that scares banks away from very good investments simply because they lack the knowledge to evaluate them fairly. The public markets remain closed to these companies too. Largely a result of increased regulation, the cost of taking a company public on the stock market is now enormous and only makes sense at a much later stage. For many companies, they’ll never warrant raising the kind of money an IPO must bring to be worth the costs (and for many reasons, they may prefer not to give away equity). But as a company expands and revenues are established, one way to finance growth is to issue debt or bonds. Not nearly as complex as an IPO on the stock market, raising debt gives an entrepreneur access to capital based on existing revenue streams and a predictable payback schedule without sacrificing ownership interests. However, a technology startup’s debt is often rated at far below investment grade. They cannot simply throw out a bond offering and wait for institutional investors to come flooding in like McDonald’s or Walmart. Even so-called “junk” debtors like Petco or CenturyLink are well ahead of them in line. Instead, these growth-stage companies are often too small to attract sufficient attention or too risky to keep it. Instead, someone has to vouch for it and work with the owners. That’s why these high-growth-but-still-too-small-to-warrant-Wall-Street’s-attention companies turn to specialized lenders to help them find the capital needed: growth capitalists. These GC firms know technology inside out, with proven track records of serving their specialized markets much better than Wall Street or Main Street banks, allowing them to easily raise capital from many sources, including investment banks, regular banks, and individual investors. They not only serve as liaisons for the companies, they understand the companies’ business and are willing to give them a chance in a debt market that would otherwise ignore them. The vacuum in the funding market for these high-growth companies also allows GCs to be highly selective about whom they choose to finance. A good management team at the GC firm can greatly reduce defaults and boost the overall return for their partners significantly. Better yet, GC firms can also demand exceptionally good terms on their loans—much better than you’ll ever find in a typical corporate bond fund: First, most growth capital investments garner “senior secured” loan status. If there is a bump in the road like a reorganization or bankruptcy, senior secured lenders are first in line to be made whole, and have first claim to assets. While shareholders may be left holding the bag, GCs generally get a better spot in line, further protecting their investments. One set of investors has managed to catapult themselves to near-demigod status in recent years, with revelers hanging on their every word. They even have their own TV shows. Yet, with one simple investment, you could make double what they do. Here’s how. In some circles, they’ve become as iconic as Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. You overhear people talking about the time they met one in a surprise encounter in a swanky bar, as if they’d just brushed shoulders with a resident of Olympus. The mix of reverence, fear, and giddiness in the conversation is almost palpable. I’m talking about the legends of Sand Hill Road: guys like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) partner Tom Perkins, whose massive three-masted mega yacht, The Maltese Falcon, regularly cruises San Francisco Bay and more exotic ports of call: Second, many of their investments are protected from the ravaging effects of rising rates, which any bond fund investor can attest to firsthand following this summer. That’s because, if you look closely at the portfolio of most GC firms, 80 or 90% of loans are variable rate, meaning the payments will rise in tandem with the overall market, and their value will be more stable.last_img read more