3 ms·

Not quite such substantial returns then unless you are one of those 9%. I suppose however there would be some sort of trial and error. So the guy who got this

by Ardit20 16y ago

Not quite such substantial returns then unless you are one of those 9%. I suppose however there would be some sort of trial and error. So the guy who got this ten times return probably had to invest in ten companies or so. Thus, we perhaps do not quite know the real return on general.

adamt 16y ago
"Not quite such a substantive returns then" 22% (per annum) is a pretty substantive return for an asset class across a sample of 406 investments over over a 4 year period. As other posters have commented - it would be interesting to see data over a 2008-2010 period to see if it has changed adversely since then.
pmjordan 16y ago
Thus, we perhaps do not quite know the real return on general. [sic] I think you may have misinterpreted the figures. The 22% average figure already includes the non-performing startups. Obviously there will be variations for each investor, depending on how good they are at picking winners. The top 9% of investments generate 78% p.a. returns or more ("at least 10 times"), assuming the 4 year period average applies to them, too: 10^(1/4) = 1.778 -> ~ 78%
- Ardit20 16y ago
  What I meant is, how much would all the investments that an investor has made add to his bottom line. The extract by the poster above states that 80 of the positive return is generated from only 9% of all the investments. It also states that 56% of the investments do not return capital thus -, that would then leave us with 35% of the investments which returned 20% of all the positive returns. So for an average investor, he might invest in one of these companies which return negative capital, or two, or three, or ten, and only one of the companies which return ten times on the investment. So it could be that some investors are making very good returns, some very bad, some just meagre returns. Just giving an average number doesn't quite help. It is like saying the average high school grade is C. That hardly says much about an individual student. So too the data hardly say much about an individual investor or specifically whether to invest in such companies is a good return for someone with cash, unless of course you are able to invest in all the 1000 companies. I personally think it probably is a good return to invest if you have great business knowledge, but seeing as 56% do not return capital, its a greater possibility that it would not be a good idea to invest in the companies. But then, of course, as I say we would need the data to know for certain.
  - pmjordan 16y ago
    I think what you're getting at is that Angel investing isn't comparable to buying into an index fund or so in that it's not an investment strategy for the general population. You need domain knowledge in the area you're making the investments, and it'll take some experience before you get good at it. And some people will have more talent for it than others. I don't think there's any argument about that. The rest of what you're describing are just statistical phenomena, though. As the source says, the distribution for returns on individual investments is very lopsided and far from normal (Gaussian). Early stage and VC funding are risky but potentially high-return in nature. Overall, you'd need a large sample size to approach any sort of predictable pattern on returns [1]. And you'd better be prepared to lose all the money you put in. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
    - Ardit20 16y ago
      Yes I suppose the second paragraph is more correct. I was suggesting that the 22% on average does not necessarily indicate that an individual investor is doing great investing. On that note, just a passing idea, seeing as the 1000 companies do make great return, way above equities, then perhaps there should be some hedge fund or whatever, so a bit like investment managers. Basically anyone can give to the fund however much money they want, the fund is run by some professional experienced people who then use the money to invest in start ups or new businesses. That way, if the fund is big enough, you are much more likely to get 22% return, which compared to equities is really good and of course it greatly serves the economy and enterprenours, so basically everyone. Is there actually such a thing?
      - pmjordan 16y ago
        Venture capital works that way, and many venture capital funds have early-stage investment branches. In a way, Y Combinator might even fall within this definition, as they actually re-invest money raised from VC funds. I don't know how long you have to leave your money in a hedge fund, but I suspect VC is longer term at around 10 years. This isn't a direct scaling of angel funding though, as I get the impression that the relationship between startup and angel is much less formal than to VCs. Take all of the above with a grain of salt, as I've never received any sort of 3rd party investment, so I don't speak from experience.

by Ardit20 16y ago

adamt 16y ago

"Not quite such a substantive returns then" 22% (per annum) is a pretty substantive return for an asset class across a sample of 406 investments over over a 4 year period. As other posters have commented - it would be interesting to see data over a 2008-2010 period to see if it has changed adversely since then.

pmjordan 16y ago

Thus, we perhaps do not quite know the real return on general. [sic] I think you may have misinterpreted the figures. The 22% average figure already includes the non-performing startups. Obviously there will be variations for each investor, depending on how good they are at picking winners. The top 9% of investments generate 78% p.a. returns or more ("at least 10 times"), assuming the 4 year period average applies to them, too: 10^(1/4) = 1.778 -> ~ 78%

Ardit20 16y ago
What I meant is, how much would all the investments that an investor has made add to his bottom line. The extract by the poster above states that 80 of the positive return is generated from only 9% of all the investments. It also states that 56% of the investments do not return capital thus -, that would then leave us with 35% of the investments which returned 20% of all the positive returns. So for an average investor, he might invest in one of these companies which return negative capital, or two, or three, or ten, and only one of the companies which return ten times on the investment. So it could be that some investors are making very good returns, some very bad, some just meagre returns. Just giving an average number doesn't quite help. It is like saying the average high school grade is C. That hardly says much about an individual student. So too the data hardly say much about an individual investor or specifically whether to invest in such companies is a good return for someone with cash, unless of course you are able to invest in all the 1000 companies. I personally think it probably is a good return to invest if you have great business knowledge, but seeing as 56% do not return capital, its a greater possibility that it would not be a good idea to invest in the companies. But then, of course, as I say we would need the data to know for certain.
- pmjordan 16y ago
  I think what you're getting at is that Angel investing isn't comparable to buying into an index fund or so in that it's not an investment strategy for the general population. You need domain knowledge in the area you're making the investments, and it'll take some experience before you get good at it. And some people will have more talent for it than others. I don't think there's any argument about that. The rest of what you're describing are just statistical phenomena, though. As the source says, the distribution for returns on individual investments is very lopsided and far from normal (Gaussian). Early stage and VC funding are risky but potentially high-return in nature. Overall, you'd need a large sample size to approach any sort of predictable pattern on returns [1]. And you'd better be prepared to lose all the money you put in. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    Yes I suppose the second paragraph is more correct. I was suggesting that the 22% on average does not necessarily indicate that an individual investor is doing great investing. On that note, just a passing idea, seeing as the 1000 companies do make great return, way above equities, then perhaps there should be some hedge fund or whatever, so a bit like investment managers. Basically anyone can give to the fund however much money they want, the fund is run by some professional experienced people who then use the money to invest in start ups or new businesses. That way, if the fund is big enough, you are much more likely to get 22% return, which compared to equities is really good and of course it greatly serves the economy and enterprenours, so basically everyone. Is there actually such a thing?
    - pmjordan 16y ago
      Venture capital works that way, and many venture capital funds have early-stage investment branches. In a way, Y Combinator might even fall within this definition, as they actually re-invest money raised from VC funds. I don't know how long you have to leave your money in a hedge fund, but I suspect VC is longer term at around 10 years. This isn't a direct scaling of angel funding though, as I get the impression that the relationship between startup and angel is much less formal than to VCs. Take all of the above with a grain of salt, as I've never received any sort of 3rd party investment, so I don't speak from experience.