4 ms·
At some point, isn't it in the best interest of the VC firms to pioneer innovative methods for screening, analyzing and funding large amounts of quality smaller
by jonmc12 18y ago
At some point, isn't it in the best interest of the VC firms to pioneer innovative methods for screening, analyzing and funding large amounts of quality smaller deals?
1) In addition to building relationships, funding a significant portion of smaller businesses would increase the number of available quality deals at later stages.
2) Lowering the transaction cost of attracting, analyzing and screening deals to the point where smaller deals could be profitably funded, would likely have efficiency impacts throughout the funding process of any VC firm. In fact, you could make the argument that if a VC firm really masters this process, it could obsolete the need for the 'bulge bracket' model entirely.
YC did something innovative - they figured out how to invest <$20k in early stage companies in order to help those companies get to the level where they can bring a product to market. If the VC community really brought their perspective and resources to targeting this opportunity, it seems they would only stand to benefit in the long-term.
- netcan 18y agoI know virtually nothing about YC so it seems off for me to be jumping in on this. But is YC really pioneering methods of investing. Aren't the other components: motivation, introductions, community, promotion, etc. more substantial the the "investment" element. I guess you could call those things investment too, but not capital investment. Basically, is YC in the same industry as VCs at all?