News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv... by jonwachob91 on Friday May 19, 2017 @02:28PM (#14378211)
>> VCs survive by maintaining portfolios of companies in which 1-2 in 10 survive (most VCs fail to generate returns that beat the public markets). This means more than that you need 10 companies --- it also governs the kinds of companies you can invest in. Despite being a message board in part dedicated to startups, it feels like very few of the relatively specialized people here understand why VCs don't back quietly, steadily profitable companies.

You're assuming all VC funds are like SV/NYC type funds. Most VC funds in FL (and I'm assuming most of the US), are small funds that invest fewer than 10 times a year, and take large equity positions in companies that are steadily profitable (but will NEVER be crazy big). They prefer companies that are making profits over companies that have growth potential, low risk low reward funds.

Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv... by lenzm on Friday May 19, 2017 @03:42PM (#14378791)
You aren't describing venture capital. By definition, venture capital is high risk and therefore must potentially have crazy big returns.
Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv... by morgante on Friday May 19, 2017 @04:20PM (#14379017)
That sounds more like PE than VC.
Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv... by notahacker on Friday May 19, 2017 @04:30PM (#14379085)
And whilst PE might be ostensibly lower risk than VC, PE firms' ability to not lose money depends entirely on their ability to actively restructure companies and find a buyer, two things retail investors have no chance whatsoever to do
Re:U.S. Startups Fail to Attract Expected Crowd of Small Inv... by morgante on Friday May 19, 2017 @04:36PM (#14379134)
Oh I agree that equity crowdfunding is generally a bad idea for all involved.