4 ms·

Google Ventures beefs up fund size to $300 million a year

45 points by EzGraphs 14y ago

001sky 14y ago
The firm's recent hiring of high-profile entrepreneur Kevin Rose as a partner could help attract higher-profile deals. -- Is there a people problem at GV?
- rdl 14y ago
  Not sure exactly what you mean by that. Digg seems to have been a colossal fuckup, especially toward the end, but Kevin Rose was a pretty successful and well regarded angel investor separate from that. Entrepreneurs, even failed ones, who become VCs do seem to have a lot of advantages -- look at Marc Andressen, Ben Horowtiz, Chris Dixon, or Paul Graham... I'm sure Google Ventures has the same people problem as anyone else in the valley -- it is hard to find and hire great people due to all the other opportunities -- but I don't think they have a lower quality of people than other funds. They may have some unique issues (I'd rather work for Google itself, which is amazing in a lot of ways, than Google Ventures, which is mid pack), but for a company affiliated semi-strategic, I don't think they are bad.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    The author implies a staffing delta up would change (increase) the performance of the fund. That may or may not be the view that others share, hence the query. GV have strong brand affinity, deep pocketed sponsor, potential strategic/bus-dev angles, strong networks from current/xooglers etc. The two contra's are : (1) Strategic Fund (generically==not good); and (2) People (generic ==unkown). I'd be surprised if GV didn't get good looks at deals, unless issues were tied to the these last two points. But it's also possible the author is just editorializing or ad-libbing or name-dropping or what-you-will.
    - rdl 14y ago
      I think one of the differences is that GV doesn't invest tiny amounts in late stage hot deals at high valuations just to get their name on the investor list -- that's the traditional way for newer funds to inflate their reputation. Being a "strategic seed" is hard to bootstrap since basically no seed company is going to be Twitter inside of a couple years. Other new funds have definitely brought in high profile partners from other funds (or been due to a schism within an existing fund...), or successful tech CEOs, or whatever.
debacle 14y ago
> Still, Google Ventures lacks superstar companies such as microblogging service Twitter or online bulletin-board company Pinterest. Neither of those companies are on the road to profitability, IIRC, though Pinterest would of course have a much easier time of it.
- atomical 14y ago
  Is Twitter running out of money?
  - debacle 14y ago
    I don't know what their financials look like, but a company with 100 million but no revenue is only worth 100 million.
    - jonknee 14y ago
      Twitter has revenue. Though either way I think Instagram would like to disagree with your valuation statement.
      - debacle 14y ago
        Instagram was a tactical pre-IPO aquisition to stave off uncertainty. Facebook likely made their money back in the IPO deal, and Instagram's valuation has fallen drastically with Facebook's stock price adjustment.
        davidu 14y ago
        None of your points has anything to do with "worth." Worth as we are using it is almost universally defined as the price an arms-length buyer is willing to pay for the total sum of an entity. So Twitter is worth far more than $100mm. It's currently worth billions of dollars. Tomorrow, that could all come crashing down, but today, it's a fact. What you suggest is not anything remotely associated with fact. Deciding a company is worth whatever amount of cash they have on hand, or have raised (you weren't clear on which metric you got your worth basis from) is really a naive view of valuation. And now I'm sure I'll get flamed off News.YC like I always do.
loceng 14y ago
I really wonder how competitive Google Ventures is when it comes to valuation. Seed round they put in $250k, though how much do they expect equity wise? Anyone know what those deals look like?
loceng 14y ago
$300 million a year isn't much for a company worth so much, and where in a space that costs to develop are relatively low; Costs are with expansion and breaking into competitive markets, and also physical technology they've also been investing in.

45 points by EzGraphs 14y ago

The firm's recent hiring of high-profile entrepreneur Kevin Rose as a partner could help attract higher-profile deals. -- Is there a people problem at GV?

rdl 14y ago
Not sure exactly what you mean by that. Digg seems to have been a colossal fuckup, especially toward the end, but Kevin Rose was a pretty successful and well regarded angel investor separate from that. Entrepreneurs, even failed ones, who become VCs do seem to have a lot of advantages -- look at Marc Andressen, Ben Horowtiz, Chris Dixon, or Paul Graham... I'm sure Google Ventures has the same people problem as anyone else in the valley -- it is hard to find and hire great people due to all the other opportunities -- but I don't think they have a lower quality of people than other funds. They may have some unique issues (I'd rather work for Google itself, which is amazing in a lot of ways, than Google Ventures, which is mid pack), but for a company affiliated semi-strategic, I don't think they are bad.
- 001sky 14y ago
  The author implies a staffing delta up would change (increase) the performance of the fund. That may or may not be the view that others share, hence the query. GV have strong brand affinity, deep pocketed sponsor, potential strategic/bus-dev angles, strong networks from current/xooglers etc. The two contra's are : (1) Strategic Fund (generically==not good); and (2) People (generic ==unkown). I'd be surprised if GV didn't get good looks at deals, unless issues were tied to the these last two points. But it's also possible the author is just editorializing or ad-libbing or name-dropping or what-you-will.
  - rdl 14y ago
    I think one of the differences is that GV doesn't invest tiny amounts in late stage hot deals at high valuations just to get their name on the investor list -- that's the traditional way for newer funds to inflate their reputation. Being a "strategic seed" is hard to bootstrap since basically no seed company is going to be Twitter inside of a couple years. Other new funds have definitely brought in high profile partners from other funds (or been due to a schism within an existing fund...), or successful tech CEOs, or whatever.

debacle 14y ago

> Still, Google Ventures lacks superstar companies such as microblogging service Twitter or online bulletin-board company Pinterest. Neither of those companies are on the road to profitability, IIRC, though Pinterest would of course have a much easier time of it.

atomical 14y ago
Is Twitter running out of money?
- debacle 14y ago
  I don't know what their financials look like, but a company with 100 million but no revenue is only worth 100 million.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    Twitter has revenue. Though either way I think Instagram would like to disagree with your valuation statement.
    - debacle 14y ago
      Instagram was a tactical pre-IPO aquisition to stave off uncertainty. Facebook likely made their money back in the IPO deal, and Instagram's valuation has fallen drastically with Facebook's stock price adjustment.
      - davidu 14y ago
        None of your points has anything to do with "worth." Worth as we are using it is almost universally defined as the price an arms-length buyer is willing to pay for the total sum of an entity. So Twitter is worth far more than $100mm. It's currently worth billions of dollars. Tomorrow, that could all come crashing down, but today, it's a fact. What you suggest is not anything remotely associated with fact. Deciding a company is worth whatever amount of cash they have on hand, or have raised (you weren't clear on which metric you got your worth basis from) is really a naive view of valuation. And now I'm sure I'll get flamed off News.YC like I always do.

loceng 14y ago

I really wonder how competitive Google Ventures is when it comes to valuation. Seed round they put in $250k, though how much do they expect equity wise? Anyone know what those deals look like?

loceng 14y ago

$300 million a year isn't much for a company worth so much, and where in a space that costs to develop are relatively low; Costs are with expansion and breaking into competitive markets, and also physical technology they've also been investing in.