8 ms·
Key points: The funds the firm raised in 2010 and 2011 showed a net internal rate of return of 16% and 12%. The results are a significant drop from the 44% re
by rememberlenny 7y ago
Key points:
The funds the firm raised in 2010 and 2011 showed a net internal rate of return of 16% and 12%.
The results are a significant drop from the 44% return rate of its 2009 fund.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ProAm 7y agoDid people think a 44% return was sustainable?
- AJRF 7y agoI would imagine that 44% return went a long way towards the vaunted status A16z had. In that, while perhaps not expecting to stay at such a high level of return, it's news because it wouldn't have been expected that such a drop (to the point where investing in common stock market index funds would have yielded a similar or better return) would have happened.
- andy_ppp 7y agoAnd isn't 16% ans 12% still excellent? It seems better than almost anything else really...
- khuey 7y agoThe S&P 500 has returned an average of 12.5% annually since 2011.
- rongenre 7y agoThis isn't an index fund we're talking about.
- AJRF 7y agoCertainly not excellent - Obviously there is a lot that goes into it - but 20% would be closer to the average expected return on a VC fund like A16z based on the style of investing, not achieving that - or higher - would be a disappointing run.
- dmix 7y agoThe point, as mentioned by the article, is to consistently beat out other similar investments at that scale (ie, index funds, private equity, etc). 44% isn't the competition, no. At a minimum 15-16% in the long run. But otherwise at a more local level high risk capital expects high rewards.