3 ms·
He is a VC, and a good one, so success = exit valuation by definition. This is implicit when a VC is talking about success. Fred talks about he defines succes
by asanwal 13y ago
He is a VC, and a good one, so success = exit valuation by definition. This is implicit when a VC is talking about success.
Fred talks about he defines success here - http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/06/how-we-measure-success.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/06/how-we-measure-success.html
"We are financial investors and we do want to see our portfolio companies become valuable."
- loceng 13y agoNo, it really doesn't imply that...
- asanwal 13y agoSorry, but I don't understand this comment. If exit size is not one of the primary metrics VCs look at and how they define success, I'm at a loss for what would be. More specifically, how do you think USV and Fred define success? Fred says that financial returns (hence exits) are important on his own btw [1] [1] http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/06/how-we-measure-success.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/06/how-we-measure-success.html
- loceng 13y agoExit size doesn't matter on its own - you have to take into account how much equity you own. 40% of $100 million exit is better than 10% of $300 million - as an example. I would describe the first scenario as more successful than the second.
- legutierr 13y agoIf you paid $50 million for the 40% and $5 million for the 10%, I think you would be hard-pressed to describe the 40% investment as more successful.
- loceng 13y agoI am taking this from the founder's point of view, where no money is paid to buy the equity. You highlight the good point that it depends on the context and point of view - who's success is being talked about.
- loceng 13y agoTo further my other comment - I'm a regular commenter at AVC.com and Fred generally talks from the perspective of what's best for the founder, for the entrepreneur. This is why I am making these insights.