3 ms·
That graph does not imply anything about long term trends. It shows that there was a bubble in the late 90s, during which valuations spiked, and that the bubbl
by pg 14y ago
That graph does not imply anything about long term trends. It shows that there was a bubble in the late 90s, during which valuations spiked, and that the bubble caused a lot of lame people to start VC funds, which brought down average returns.
- demian 14y agoI wonder if the investors that got in the wagon of social media would invest in long-term cancer research instead.
- zerostar07 14y agoThe number of funds in the source data is not much bigger after 2001 (2002-2010 average: 46.2 funds / 1990-1998: 40.2). However there is a big difference in the number of VCs with >$150M capital post-bubble. Maybe the large available amounts make it easier to squander them?