4 ms·

This is a great point - to some degree this explains the power law in VC - founders hustle hard to get in front of Sequoia / A16Z / Benchmark etc, whereas you c

This is a great point - to some degree this explains the power law in VC - founders hustle hard to get in front of Sequoia / A16Z / Benchmark etc, whereas you can stumble on other VC sites and see a bunch of logos but nothing impressive. I've been in SF for 3 years now and haven't really heard anything that impressive about Kleiner, but looking at Crunchbase, they've led the A for Rippling, the C for Plaid, the D round for Intercom, the B round for Figma, the E round for Peleton. They have a bunch of other impressive logos that they've also managed to lock in. To your point about the web - they clearly still have it. Yes, they're out of the loop and aren't getting the early stage deal flow that they used to (to the benefit of many others), but they clearly have a deep moat still and can get an ok return from that.

heymijo 7y ago
I learned from the article that KP's problem was that their firm bifurcated. They had a growth fund led by Mary Meeker which was likely responsible for a number of those impressive logos you listed. Meeker's success with the growth fund happened as KP's early stage venture fund went into decline even though it was the original and the stalwart for decades. The article mentioned that Meeker left last year with her entire team to start her own fund and one of KP's biggest problems has been the inability to keep its own talent. So "they clearly still have it" is likely in reference to people who have left with their 'web' and KP may not have anything.
- seem_2211 7y ago
  Extremely good point
mathattack 7y ago
The point of the article is they’re returning 2X on their recent funds. Their competitors who got in earlier are returning 25X.
- seem_2211 7y ago
  Which is great from an ego point of view, but also not that important necessarily - I think Matt Levine's point about hedge fund is largely true for VC - the point of being successful at running a hedge fund is keeping your job for a long time, rather than being exceptional.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    It's a problem from an LP's POV. There is no reason to invest in a VC fund that returns 2x when you can invest in a Vanguard index fund that returns 2x. You're supposed to get compensated with higher returns for the risk you take investing in VC; if you don't, the managers of that fund are failing at their jobs.
    - seem_2211 7y ago
      I agree in theory but not in reality. But it's the same situation where the the incentives of an LP and a VC are different (not really that different compared to a PE or Hedge Fund). Just like the incentives of a founder and a VC are aligned, until they aren't anymore. There's a reason LPs with squillions to invest carve off a tiny smidge to VCs, and it's not just returns - it's also downside protection. What's true for you and me for our personal finance is not necessarily true for the Harvard endowment.
      - gowld 7y ago
        I thought it's because VC only had a smidge of capacity to absorb capital. You can't fit everyone's $10-$100B funds into VC projects. Less then 1% of Facebook's value is VC funding.
        mathattack 7y ago
        That was a different era. Look at the latest crop of unicorns.
      - nradov 7y ago

heymijo 7y ago

I learned from the article that KP's problem was that their firm bifurcated. They had a growth fund led by Mary Meeker which was likely responsible for a number of those impressive logos you listed. Meeker's success with the growth fund happened as KP's early stage venture fund went into decline even though it was the original and the stalwart for decades. The article mentioned that Meeker left last year with her entire team to start her own fund and one of KP's biggest problems has been the inability to keep its own talent. So "they clearly still have it" is likely in reference to people who have left with their 'web' and KP may not have anything.

seem_2211 7y ago
Extremely good point

mathattack 7y ago

The point of the article is they’re returning 2X on their recent funds. Their competitors who got in earlier are returning 25X.

seem_2211 7y ago
Which is great from an ego point of view, but also not that important necessarily - I think Matt Levine's point about hedge fund is largely true for VC - the point of being successful at running a hedge fund is keeping your job for a long time, rather than being exceptional.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  It's a problem from an LP's POV. There is no reason to invest in a VC fund that returns 2x when you can invest in a Vanguard index fund that returns 2x. You're supposed to get compensated with higher returns for the risk you take investing in VC; if you don't, the managers of that fund are failing at their jobs.
  - seem_2211 7y ago
    I agree in theory but not in reality. But it's the same situation where the the incentives of an LP and a VC are different (not really that different compared to a PE or Hedge Fund). Just like the incentives of a founder and a VC are aligned, until they aren't anymore. There's a reason LPs with squillions to invest carve off a tiny smidge to VCs, and it's not just returns - it's also downside protection. What's true for you and me for our personal finance is not necessarily true for the Harvard endowment.
    - gowld 7y ago
      I thought it's because VC only had a smidge of capacity to absorb capital. You can't fit everyone's $10-$100B funds into VC projects. Less then 1% of Facebook's value is VC funding.
      - mathattack 7y ago
        That was a different era. Look at the latest crop of unicorns.
    - nradov 7y ago