3 ms·

I'd be careful reading too much into data on top performing funds. The law of large numbers makes it so that smaller funds are more likey to outperform (and und

by jwahba 7y ago

I'd be careful reading too much into data on top performing funds. The law of large numbers makes it so that smaller funds are more likey to outperform (and underperform) since they have higher variance. Couple that with the strong correlation that speciality funds are more likely to be smaller and it's not surprising. A more accurate analysis would involve looking at all VCs and seeing if you can apply those rules in advance: What would your IRR be if you invested in all the specialty biotech funds as a basket?

aaavl2821 7y ago
The small funds on that list are all tech funds. The larger funds are all biotech. Biotech funds are "specialist" but they aren't really small. Biopharma is a top 5 subsector of VC (by some estimates it is the 2nd biggest sector after software) and the largest sector by far of healthcare VC, with $17B+ invested in 2018. Orbimed manages $10B+ (though some of that is public equity). Flagship manages many billions (latest fund was $800M+). Foresite manages over $2B, last fund was $668M. Many other examples I mentioned i was writing a longer post on the topic, that chart is a snapshot. If you invested in biotech VC as a basket recently it would outperform tech [0]. There's more recent data as well but i dont have the link offhand [0] https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbusting-redux/ https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbu...
- jwahba 7y ago
  I was more referencing the tweet which looked at the performance of a particular vintage of those funds: https://mobile.twitter.com/zavaindar/status/1159660549615116294 https://mobile.twitter.com/zavaindar/status/1159660549615116... none of which reached $1 billion vs the largest funds on the second page https://mobile.twitter.com/zavaindar/status/1159660549615116294/photo/2 https://mobile.twitter.com/zavaindar/status/1159660549615116... I look forward to seeing how the newer larger biotech funds do/seeing more recent data during a time where public tech outperformed rest of public market.

by jwahba 7y ago

aaavl2821 7y ago

The small funds on that list are all tech funds. The larger funds are all biotech. Biotech funds are "specialist" but they aren't really small. Biopharma is a top 5 subsector of VC (by some estimates it is the 2nd biggest sector after software) and the largest sector by far of healthcare VC, with $17B+ invested in 2018. Orbimed manages $10B+ (though some of that is public equity). Flagship manages many billions (latest fund was $800M+). Foresite manages over $2B, last fund was $668M. Many other examples I mentioned i was writing a longer post on the topic, that chart is a snapshot. If you invested in biotech VC as a basket recently it would outperform tech [0]. There's more recent data as well but i dont have the link offhand [0] https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbusting-redux/ https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbu...

jwahba 7y ago
I was more referencing the tweet which looked at the performance of a particular vintage of those funds: https://mobile.twitter.com/zavaindar/status/1159660549615116294 https://mobile.twitter.com/zavaindar/status/1159660549615116... none of which reached $1 billion vs the largest funds on the second page https://mobile.twitter.com/zavaindar/status/1159660549615116294/photo/2 https://mobile.twitter.com/zavaindar/status/1159660549615116... I look forward to seeing how the newer larger biotech funds do/seeing more recent data during a time where public tech outperformed rest of public market.