3 ms·
The first article doesn't talk about the final returns from any Sequoia fund but merely points out one was down halfway through its 10 year life. The second do
by pg 15y ago
The first article doesn't talk about the final returns from any Sequoia fund but merely points out one was down halfway through its 10 year life.
The second does talk about final returns and says "UC investments in partnerships managed by Sequoia Capital (Funds III to X) have returned over $508 million on an investment of about $110 million for a 4.6-fold return."
- jpdoctor 15y agoYes the second article is about the appeal. UCal did not wish to be kicked out of Sequoia funds so they played up the internet bubble funds to present to the judge. It was the disclosure on negative IRRs that led to the first article that got them disinvited from Sequoia iirc. UC was just obeying disclosure laws. Do you remember differently? Of course, VCs could just release their performance history numbers so that investors and prospective entrepreneurs know what the percentages are. Who does it serve that they don't release these numbers?