4 ms·
Partially true; practically not. Most VC funds do have exit dates and specific life spans (typically 7-10 years). The way it was explained to me that if you ha
by exelius 13y ago
Partially true; practically not.
Most VC funds do have exit dates and specific life spans (typically 7-10 years). The way it was explained to me that if you have 10 companies in your portfolio, by year 7 you will have:
* 3 total busts. Out of business; zero return on investment.
* 4 "walking dead". Still in business, but just barely breaking even. Might as well be zero return because these investments are not liquid (who wants to buy a 7-year-old risky business with no profit?) Anymore these end up as acqui-hires with the VC getting pennies on the dollar.
* 2 minor successes. Good, profitable companies that will probably never produce a hockey-stick graph. 2x-3x return.
* 1 home run. If you're lucky. 10x return (though usually closer to 5x).
Her example was bad, but it was just an example. VC is a tough industry to actually make any money in. VCs don't pressure founders to do things because they are greedy, it's because they're scared of losing their shirts.
- wpietri 13y agoSome actual numbers from Fred Wilson are here: http://www.usv.com/posts/why-early-stage-venture-investments-fail http://www.usv.com/posts/why-early-stage-venture-investments... He makes the interesting point that 2/3rds of his successful investments made major changes along the way.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- exelius 13y agoBig changes in approach are inevitable in early-stage companies: things become apparent after 1-2 years that weren't initially. Early stage companies involve so much uncertainty that trying to stick to a plan for the sake of sticking to a plan is folly. His numbers are in a different context; but I get his point. Venture investing is a portfolio business; you fully expect a high failure rate.