4 ms·
First Look at TechStars Historical Results Data
- webwright 17y agoThat blog post that this one links to about YC is miles off (at least for W08). 6 of the companies listed as "active" actually have received funding (7 if you include SnapTalent). I think TechStars deserves a big congrats, but this is pretty shoddy reporting.
- pg 17y agoAccording to our data, 98/145 or 67.6% of companies we funded in s2009 or before are funded and/or profitable and/or acquired. We don't focus on that number, though (I had to write code to calculate it) because the big returns in startup investing often come from outliers that look very risky at first. For example, Drew Houston of Dropbox, who was a single founder when we funded the company, or Sam Altman of Loopt, who was only 19. If we focused on the ratio of successes to failures, instead of the absolute number of big wins, it would make us conservative, and only pick companies we knew would be safe bets to get follow-on funding.
- netcan 17y agoWhat do you use for feedback then.
- pg 17y agoThe number we care most about is the number that become really big. It takes years to know that of course, but the number that raise series A rounds from tier 1 VC funds is a reasonable proxy (since they won't invest in a startup unless they think it will become really big).
- netcan 17y agoOut of interest, how many years?
- pg 17y ago3-4 perhaps. Though interestingly enough, the bigger the company, the longer it takes to know; most people would have underestimated Google after 3 years.
- wheels 17y agoEven more dramatic, Microsoft didn't release it's first version of MS DOS until it was 6 years old.
- poronski 17y agoMS DOS was Microsoft's lucky break. It's not like they were established as an OS developer that needed 6 years to get noticed.
- netcan 17y agoI actually expected more. I thought Google's as an example of speedy. It would have been longer before Microsoft's potential was really obvious. I suppose that that after a certain point it doesn't matter to an early stage investor because they will have already sold their shares.
- necrecious 17y agoI think the ratio of alive vs deadpooled companies is something that may attract applicants. For example, if 144 companies died and success was Google, it might have been a great return for YC, but I am not sure if applicants would see it in the same way. Every founder believes his starup will make it big if it stays alive. So he will project his vision of success in the alive column and not care how big of a return outliers get.
- jacquesm 17y agoDo you count tipjoy as 'acquired' ?
- pg 17y agoNo, that acquisition famously fell through.