Actually the VCs don’t make out so well either; VC as an asset class generally underperforms the public markets. A few whales (Kleiner, Sequoia, et al) run the market, and they’re market-makers who prop up valuations and bring in other folks.
VC is a gladiatorial ring where rich people do economic battle with each other. But it’s largely zero sum with some small, highly localized gains.
Very true. To be honest, it's a bit of a crapshoot, but in comparison to other asset classes VC managers are very well compensated for the mostly meager returns they deliver.
If you're a two person VC fund managing €50m, and you return 50% in 10 years on that money, you'll make close to €5M + a €1m management fee for 4 to 7 years.
The only reason why I assume that is, is because it's not super closely aligned with the performance of the stock market (well, it sort of is -- you often need public companies to acquire some of these startups).
Right, even then you have more funds end in the red or very close to break-even than the black. It’s definitely a portfolio game.
My hypothesis is that the Unicorns need public-company levels of financing but don’t want the oversight used to have to go public to get money. But now that Goldman and SoftBank are writing $10B checks, they can also set terms favorable to late stage investors. This can wipe out many of the mid-late VC investors’ gains, but they are under pressure to take the money in the short term just to get to an exit, so they agree to it.
I actually think that what took Travis Kalinik down was the fact he diluted his early investors so much they just want to get to an IPO. That wasn’t going to happen any time soon under Travis. The sexual harassment stuff was legit, but his days were always numbered once he diluted as much as he did.
Anyway just some speculation. Would love to hear others’ opinions.
VC is a gladiatorial ring where rich people do economic battle with each other. But it’s largely zero sum with some small, highly localized gains.