4 ms·

I think you've reinforced pg's point - 24/106 (~20%) is a huge effect as compared, like you've done, to every other place on the planet. Basically, from this da

by robg 18y ago

I think you've reinforced pg's point - 24/106 (~20%) is a huge effect as compared, like you've done, to every other place on the planet. Basically, from this data, if you're a tech company and want to eventually get acquired would you rather choose a 1 in 5 chance or, based on a quick guess at second-best - NY area (7 in 106) or MA area (8 in 106), a 1 in ~15 chance? Great idea. I'd love to see 2007 as well.

jdale27 18y ago
"N% of startups acquired were located in city X" does not mean "startups located in city X have an N% chance of being acquired".
- robg 18y ago
  Take the data at face value (irrespective of whether it's the right data). More deals are going to SV and by a significant margin. You can parse causality any way you'd like (funding, connections, etc.) but that's a correlational point in the Valley's favor. Given everything else we know about the region, we don't have to work hard to see the effect. More problematic, the data doesn't show N% because we don't know the denominator. It could be that SV is terribly inefficient at exits relative to a place like Austin or Israel. Still, the magnitudes are so different it doesn't really matter one way or another.
webwright 18y ago
Yaw, I think it's a large number. 23% for one little collection of cities. Right now, the data is really only merely interesting. The question I want to know the answer to is more related to ratios. i.e. for every 100 startups that spins up in the valley, what percentage ever have an exit vs. the rest of the world? It would also be interesting (as PG suggests) to screen by deal size. Once I get 2007 and spreadsheet it all out, I might try a fiddle with a few reports.
- robg 18y ago
  I'd love to see an answer but intuitively it feels like you're entering dissertation territory! I wonder if the Valley is less efficient than other locales, but like Hollywood, I wonder if investors would really care one way or another.

by robg 18y ago

jdale27 18y ago

"N% of startups acquired were located in city X" does not mean "startups located in city X have an N% chance of being acquired".

robg 18y ago
Take the data at face value (irrespective of whether it's the right data). More deals are going to SV and by a significant margin. You can parse causality any way you'd like (funding, connections, etc.) but that's a correlational point in the Valley's favor. Given everything else we know about the region, we don't have to work hard to see the effect. More problematic, the data doesn't show N% because we don't know the denominator. It could be that SV is terribly inefficient at exits relative to a place like Austin or Israel. Still, the magnitudes are so different it doesn't really matter one way or another.

webwright 18y ago

Yaw, I think it's a large number. 23% for one little collection of cities. Right now, the data is really only merely interesting. The question I want to know the answer to is more related to ratios. i.e. for every 100 startups that spins up in the valley, what percentage ever have an exit vs. the rest of the world? It would also be interesting (as PG suggests) to screen by deal size. Once I get 2007 and spreadsheet it all out, I might try a fiddle with a few reports.

robg 18y ago
I'd love to see an answer but intuitively it feels like you're entering dissertation territory! I wonder if the Valley is less efficient than other locales, but like Hollywood, I wonder if investors would really care one way or another.