3 ms·

Here's a longer dataset from PriceWaterhouseCooper's VC funding data: https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/HistoricTrends/CustomQueryHistoricTrend https://www.pwcmoney

Here's a longer dataset from PriceWaterhouseCooper's VC funding data: https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/HistoricTrends/CustomQueryHistoricTrend https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/HistoricTrends/CustomQueryHisto... My interpretation: 1999-2001 was, obviously, a completely different beast. While there was a bit more investment in 2015 than 2014, it was variable by quarter over the last 2 years and just looks volatile rather than bubble-y. What I focused on, and believe is the most important thing to notice, is that the number of deals hasn't really changed. Any spike can be attributed to larger investments per company/round. The reason I see this as more important is that the reach of any "bubble" to the downstream dependents of VC cash (data analytics startup land) likely wouldn't extend as far as the end-of-the-world crowd likes to suggest. Outlook: I think this year will be more telling than the last as to whether or not funding in 2014-15 was just volatile or if we're actually making a move towards 2002/2009 troughs. I struggle to believe it will trending upward from here. I'd like to think the VC world is slightly more cautious (which is likely why we've seen the recent volatility).

noobermin 11y ago
I am not a business man, but I am a developing scientist who's trained his graph reading bullshit detector. "Flat" is relative to the scale of the graph, and when you have a maximum on the graph (the 2001 bubble) that dominates, and changes that are not on the scale of the peak look like they are "flat". To fix this, change the time period from after 2002 to remove the offending peak. Then, you see pretty much a rise from the 2009 recession onward with wiggles in the number of deals. Of course, the only issue is as a non-business man, I don't know if 300 deals per quarter over ~7 years is a significant increase or not. Also, I don't know what is considered "normal" as I assume the minimum at 2009 is probably below the norm, so for all I know, we could be hovering just above 0. Still, there is definitely an upward trend there at least for the aggregate category (if that is what we are discussing). EDIT: 2016-2009 = 7, I can't count

noobermin 11y ago

I am not a business man, but I am a developing scientist who's trained his graph reading bullshit detector. "Flat" is relative to the scale of the graph, and when you have a maximum on the graph (the 2001 bubble) that dominates, and changes that are not on the scale of the peak look like they are "flat". To fix this, change the time period from after 2002 to remove the offending peak. Then, you see pretty much a rise from the 2009 recession onward with wiggles in the number of deals. Of course, the only issue is as a non-business man, I don't know if 300 deals per quarter over ~7 years is a significant increase or not. Also, I don't know what is considered "normal" as I assume the minimum at 2009 is probably below the norm, so for all I know, we could be hovering just above 0. Still, there is definitely an upward trend there at least for the aggregate category (if that is what we are discussing). EDIT: 2016-2009 = 7, I can't count