2 ms·
True, but must be viewed in context (a small IPO in the mid-1980s, for example, might raise $2M - it was a different world altogether back then).
by grellas 17y ago
True, but must be viewed in context (a small IPO in the mid-1980s, for example, might raise $2M - it was a different world altogether back then).
- jkopelman 17y agoBut even if you adjust it for inflation, it's still under $50M for a VC fund...
- grellas 17y agoYes, it is undoubtedly a striking statistic - a really dramatic reflection of how the VC world has grown.
- ciscoriordan 17y agoI think "engorged" might be a better word to use.
- btilly 17y agoWrong context. The amount of money raised is a function of how much money is chasing that particular kind of deal. A better context is the current cost of doing business. The inflation adjusted costs of computers, licensing, and marketing are all down. Therefore startups need less funding, not more. People forget that there is a cost to receiving too much funding, which is that you now need a success that justifies the money spent. Which means that if you spot a viable opportunity which is smaller than that target, you can't explore it. Even though in other circumstances it could have been perfectly appropriate for that company. For an interesting book that covers the dynamics of how over-funding kills success, I highly recommend The Innovator's Solution. It is a follow-up to The Innovator's Dilemma, but the discussion of how money distorts organizational dynamics is only in the sequel.