3 ms·

Just looking at YCs returns, the vast majority of the wealth appears to be concentrated into 3 of 600+ starts (Dropbox, AirBnB, and Stripe). Even a Heroku sale

Just looking at YCs returns, the vast majority of the wealth appears to be concentrated into 3 of 600+ starts (Dropbox, AirBnB, and Stripe). Even a Heroku sale for 200M+ is a drop in the bucket compared to $10B private market valuation, say it out loud and it will sound weird. "Dropbox is worth 50 Herokus" Betting the farm implies that they have no other options, which is not the case with VCs, and it's impossible to know which will be their "super unicorns" when they write the checks, so they write lots of checks. There's not much reason to believe YC is unlike other angel groups, individuals, or VC firms, and their data should back up that the majority of their returns is 1 or 2 companies every so often with huge wins.

andrewchoi 13y ago
The difference is that YC isn't investing $15m into companies, they're investing $20k. The corresponding valuations for the companies that they invest in is $1m on the high end (20k / 2%), not $100m. The risk profile for different check sizes is vastly different.
- scootklein 13y ago
  The risk profile as you seem to be thinking of it is an irrelevant metric when you're only interested in the return profile. They're optimizing for dollars returned, not % of companies sold for greater than money put in. Consider a "soft landing" (VC gets their money back), vs complete death (VC gets no money back). When put alongside a $3B acquisition they're both completely irrelevant, even if on paper the 1x money back is not considered a "failure". Check size doesn't appear to matter, the data for YC and for VC that I've seen suggests a similar power-law-ish distribution of returns.
  - andrewchoi 13y ago
    Nitpick: VCs are optimizing for % return, not on an dollar return basis. I would say that the risk profile is not irrelevant: if you're betting that 1/10 of your investments are returning your fund, then just one miss is the difference between a good year and "I don't have a VC firm anymore". Compare that to betting that half of your investments are returning your fund: one miss is the difference between a good year and an "ehh" year.[0] That's true; when you compare both of them to a 30x, the difference between a 1x and 0x is small. But what I'm saying is that at a $15m investment, very few VCs expect to see a 30x, and when you compare it vs. a 3x or a 5x acquisition, the difference between no money back and your 1x liquidation pref paying out is much larger, proportionally. The same power law may apply, but you see more of the tails in when you have a much larger sample size. If there were just as many $15m investments happening as $20k investments, you'd see the same result, but there aren't. Off-topic: are you the same Scott Klein I talked to over the summer re: statuspage.io? [0] Of course, that glosses over different probabilities of success and failure, but what I'm trying to say is that VCs are risk averse.
    - mbesto 13y ago
      > if you're betting that 1/10 of your investments are returning your fund, then just one miss is the difference between a good year and "I don't have a VC firm anymore" To add to this, the top 10 VC firms make up around 85% of all of the returns of VC firms combined, and the top 15 VC firms make up around 95%. (don't quote me on those specific numbers, but I believe they are roughly accurate based on a report from a16z). Long story short - very very few VC funds see worthwhile returns. The one's that do are absolutely killing it.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - exelius 13y ago
        The best VCs have basically created a self-fulfilling prophecy: many of these firms do well BECAUSE the top VC firms invested in them. If a16z or KPCB invests in you, it makes it a lot easier to get press and additional rounds of funding from other VCs because one of the top firms "blessed" you.
  - exelius 13y ago
    I get the feeling that YC (and similar incubators) are less about making a profit and more about connecting successful entrepreneurs with up-and-coming entrepreneurs. This isn't bad; it gives the YC partners (most of whom never need to work another day in their lives) a way to give back to their community, and I suspect many of them enjoy it. It can't be based on pure charity because that's not a sustainable model, so there's got to be an equity component. But I suspect YC barely breaks even. Regardless, the way VC measures returns is typically at between 70% and 100% of the life of the fund. If after 7 years, you're getting 1x your money back, that's a pretty big loss considering you could have just put it in an S&P index fund and earned ~7%. Even a 2x return after 10 years isn't that great; you're looking at an equivalent annual interest rate of ~7%. Things don't even get interesting till you start talking 5x or more (~17%). The time component of the equation is very important; the only reason people invest in VC is because it has the potential to provide greater returns than other asset classes if you're patient enough to wait 10 years for the payoff.
exelius 13y ago
YC is seed stage; you expect a higher failure rate and higher returns from your successes. Basically, you can break VC firms down into categories based on the size and timing of their investment. Typically you have the following: * Seed / angel funds. <$1M investment, 90-99% failure rate (failure rate is higher the less you invest). Astronomical returns because they buy equity when it is at its cheapest; a "home run" here can net you several thousand times your initial investment. Your founders are often very raw and you have to work with them on basic business fundamentals. * Series A funds. ~$1-3M investment, 70-90% failure rate (though this is dropping as more funds move from Series A to seed funding.) Probably the riskiest of the bunch since you're placing pretty big bets on a lot of companies; this is typically what people think of when they think "VC". Returns for a "home run" are 10-100x initial investment. Your founders think they know what they're doing but they don't; good VCs will help the founders through their network and by letting them make enough mistakes to learn from. * Growth funds. $10-25M investment, 50% failure rate. These guys go after companies that have proven a market exists and there's an opportunity for huge growth if only they can scale. Still risky because scaling a business is hard. Returns for a "home run" are closer to 10x, but these guys can pull their funding if things are starting to circle the drain so a "failure" doesn't always mean a loss. Good founders here are starting to realize they are in way over their head and ask their VCs for help. * Pre-IPO funds. $25M+ investment, very low failure rate. Returns are relatively low but also much safer: investors here are basically funding you pending an inevitable IPO. This is basically your traditional private equity firms at this point. Founders here need guidance on how to take their company public (legal, cultural, etc.) -- hence why PE guys who are often ex-investment bankers play in this space.

andrewchoi 13y ago

The difference is that YC isn't investing $15m into companies, they're investing $20k. The corresponding valuations for the companies that they invest in is $1m on the high end (20k / 2%), not $100m. The risk profile for different check sizes is vastly different.

scootklein 13y ago
The risk profile as you seem to be thinking of it is an irrelevant metric when you're only interested in the return profile. They're optimizing for dollars returned, not % of companies sold for greater than money put in. Consider a "soft landing" (VC gets their money back), vs complete death (VC gets no money back). When put alongside a $3B acquisition they're both completely irrelevant, even if on paper the 1x money back is not considered a "failure". Check size doesn't appear to matter, the data for YC and for VC that I've seen suggests a similar power-law-ish distribution of returns.
- andrewchoi 13y ago
  Nitpick: VCs are optimizing for % return, not on an dollar return basis. I would say that the risk profile is not irrelevant: if you're betting that 1/10 of your investments are returning your fund, then just one miss is the difference between a good year and "I don't have a VC firm anymore". Compare that to betting that half of your investments are returning your fund: one miss is the difference between a good year and an "ehh" year.[0] That's true; when you compare both of them to a 30x, the difference between a 1x and 0x is small. But what I'm saying is that at a $15m investment, very few VCs expect to see a 30x, and when you compare it vs. a 3x or a 5x acquisition, the difference between no money back and your 1x liquidation pref paying out is much larger, proportionally. The same power law may apply, but you see more of the tails in when you have a much larger sample size. If there were just as many $15m investments happening as $20k investments, you'd see the same result, but there aren't. Off-topic: are you the same Scott Klein I talked to over the summer re: statuspage.io? [0] Of course, that glosses over different probabilities of success and failure, but what I'm trying to say is that VCs are risk averse.
  - mbesto 13y ago
    > if you're betting that 1/10 of your investments are returning your fund, then just one miss is the difference between a good year and "I don't have a VC firm anymore" To add to this, the top 10 VC firms make up around 85% of all of the returns of VC firms combined, and the top 15 VC firms make up around 95%. (don't quote me on those specific numbers, but I believe they are roughly accurate based on a report from a16z). Long story short - very very few VC funds see worthwhile returns. The one's that do are absolutely killing it.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - exelius 13y ago
      The best VCs have basically created a self-fulfilling prophecy: many of these firms do well BECAUSE the top VC firms invested in them. If a16z or KPCB invests in you, it makes it a lot easier to get press and additional rounds of funding from other VCs because one of the top firms "blessed" you.
- exelius 13y ago
  I get the feeling that YC (and similar incubators) are less about making a profit and more about connecting successful entrepreneurs with up-and-coming entrepreneurs. This isn't bad; it gives the YC partners (most of whom never need to work another day in their lives) a way to give back to their community, and I suspect many of them enjoy it. It can't be based on pure charity because that's not a sustainable model, so there's got to be an equity component. But I suspect YC barely breaks even. Regardless, the way VC measures returns is typically at between 70% and 100% of the life of the fund. If after 7 years, you're getting 1x your money back, that's a pretty big loss considering you could have just put it in an S&P index fund and earned ~7%. Even a 2x return after 10 years isn't that great; you're looking at an equivalent annual interest rate of ~7%. Things don't even get interesting till you start talking 5x or more (~17%). The time component of the equation is very important; the only reason people invest in VC is because it has the potential to provide greater returns than other asset classes if you're patient enough to wait 10 years for the payoff.

exelius 13y ago

YC is seed stage; you expect a higher failure rate and higher returns from your successes. Basically, you can break VC firms down into categories based on the size and timing of their investment. Typically you have the following: * Seed / angel funds. <$1M investment, 90-99% failure rate (failure rate is higher the less you invest). Astronomical returns because they buy equity when it is at its cheapest; a "home run" here can net you several thousand times your initial investment. Your founders are often very raw and you have to work with them on basic business fundamentals. * Series A funds. ~$1-3M investment, 70-90% failure rate (though this is dropping as more funds move from Series A to seed funding.) Probably the riskiest of the bunch since you're placing pretty big bets on a lot of companies; this is typically what people think of when they think "VC". Returns for a "home run" are 10-100x initial investment. Your founders think they know what they're doing but they don't; good VCs will help the founders through their network and by letting them make enough mistakes to learn from. * Growth funds. $10-25M investment, 50% failure rate. These guys go after companies that have proven a market exists and there's an opportunity for huge growth if only they can scale. Still risky because scaling a business is hard. Returns for a "home run" are closer to 10x, but these guys can pull their funding if things are starting to circle the drain so a "failure" doesn't always mean a loss. Good founders here are starting to realize they are in way over their head and ask their VCs for help. * Pre-IPO funds. $25M+ investment, very low failure rate. Returns are relatively low but also much safer: investors here are basically funding you pending an inevitable IPO. This is basically your traditional private equity firms at this point. Founders here need guidance on how to take their company public (legal, cultural, etc.) -- hence why PE guys who are often ex-investment bankers play in this space.