Removing Uber seems to defeat the purpose of this a bit. After all, the goal of venture investing is pretty much "find the Ubers". Most of the "rules" don't actually apply to Uber. For example:
Rule 1 - Uber had no female founders.
2 - Travis and Garrett were "older" founders.
3 - Neither went to a "top school".
4 - Neither worked for one of the name brand companies listed.
5 - Both were repeat founders. If included, FRC's investments in repeat founders would likely perform much better than first-time founders.
8 - Uber is based in the Bay Area. If included, FRC's investments in "Big Tech Hubs" would likely perform much better than outside of tech hubs.
A couple of the other rules might also not apply to Uber (don't have enough data to assess).
On the whole this is a well-intentioned exercise but I wonder if the exclusion of Uber doesn't lead to wrong conclusions.
Rule 1 - Uber had no female founders.
2 - Travis and Garrett were "older" founders.
3 - Neither went to a "top school".
4 - Neither worked for one of the name brand companies listed.
5 - Both were repeat founders. If included, FRC's investments in repeat founders would likely perform much better than first-time founders.
8 - Uber is based in the Bay Area. If included, FRC's investments in "Big Tech Hubs" would likely perform much better than outside of tech hubs.
A couple of the other rules might also not apply to Uber (don't have enough data to assess).
On the whole this is a well-intentioned exercise but I wonder if the exclusion of Uber doesn't lead to wrong conclusions.