My 'fantasy VC' scorecard since 2008 is nearly perfect, having hypothetically put money into snapchat, air BNB, Uber, and Facebook. Picking the future winners from the losers seems very easy, but the problem is if everyone did this strategy many companies would go unfunded. Just simply funding companies that are already big and growing rapidly and riding the momentum, seems to guarantee the most consistent returns. Investing in tiny startups seems not worth it since the expected value is not high enough and the liquidity is probably poor.
back
3 comments
> Just simply funding companies that are already big and growing rapidly and riding the momentum, seems to guarantee the most consistent returns
if you ever try raising money, you'll find this is pretty much what 99% of money people do. and they'll say it to your face, because what are you going to do about it? beg harder?
it's a bullshit job, to be honest. anyone with decent intelligence and basic social skills could do it. that's why they guard the industry tooth and nail.
i'm no yc fanboy but in my opinion that's what makes them "the 1%", they actually invest in risky startups, en masse. i try to picture some of the vc/pe firms i've talked to doing this, and it doesn't even compute.
<but the problem is if everyone did this strategy many companies would go unfunded>
Unfunded by VCs- Not unfunded per se. You can always bootstrap or get Angel-funded. If you are making a dentist office software, find a rich dentist- not a VC.
I bet you only watch the best SNL skits, too.