5 ms·

I agree with the general sentiment of your post, and luck is definitely a factor. But investors ultimately care about ROI, and if you didn't invest in Google b

I agree with the general sentiment of your post, and luck is definitely a factor. But investors ultimately care about ROI, and if you didn't invest in Google before the dot com bust then there's a very good chance your entire fund failed. > I doubt investors, who do this everyday and win some and lose some, worry all the time about why they passed on Google. A very famous investor once said to me "you either invested in Google or you lost money."

omarchowdhury 7y ago
> But investors ultimately care about ROI, and if you didn't invest in Google before the dot com bust then there's a very good chance your entire fund failed. Google is up 4000% since its 2004 IPO and 1000% from local bottom during the housing bubble crash. Didn't even need to be a VC to get access to VC level gains buying GOOG.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  I guess I should have specified VC investors (we are talking about tech startups).
- spaceflunky 7y ago
  >Didn't even need to be a VC to get access to VC level gains buying GOOG. That's a great point. Anyone who shits on a VC for not investing in Google ought to be asked how much Google stock they bought in 2004. 4000% gains is better than most VC get on even the best exits and that opportunity was open to EVERYONE.
- mattrp 7y ago
  I believe it is Steve jurveston who made the claim that on average, post ipo gains are roughly equal to pre ipo. I Don’t know how one calculates that but it’s an interesting thought.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    > I Don’t know how one calculates that but it’s an interesting thought. You could get a good estimate of this just checking Crunchbase. Assuming the company is doing well, none of the weird stuff like ratcheting kicks in. So just look at how much money went in and what valuation, apply dilutions for later rounds, and calculate what percentage you own by the time you get to an IPO. This method still isn't perfect (employee option pools being adjusted will not show up, as well as other possibilities), but it'll definitely give you a rough estimate.

omarchowdhury 7y ago

> But investors ultimately care about ROI, and if you didn't invest in Google before the dot com bust then there's a very good chance your entire fund failed. Google is up 4000% since its 2004 IPO and 1000% from local bottom during the housing bubble crash. Didn't even need to be a VC to get access to VC level gains buying GOOG.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
I guess I should have specified VC investors (we are talking about tech startups).
spaceflunky 7y ago
>Didn't even need to be a VC to get access to VC level gains buying GOOG. That's a great point. Anyone who shits on a VC for not investing in Google ought to be asked how much Google stock they bought in 2004. 4000% gains is better than most VC get on even the best exits and that opportunity was open to EVERYONE.
mattrp 7y ago
I believe it is Steve jurveston who made the claim that on average, post ipo gains are roughly equal to pre ipo. I Don’t know how one calculates that but it’s an interesting thought.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  > I Don’t know how one calculates that but it’s an interesting thought. You could get a good estimate of this just checking Crunchbase. Assuming the company is doing well, none of the weird stuff like ratcheting kicks in. So just look at how much money went in and what valuation, apply dilutions for later rounds, and calculate what percentage you own by the time you get to an IPO. This method still isn't perfect (employee option pools being adjusted will not show up, as well as other possibilities), but it'll definitely give you a rough estimate.