Isn't this flawed, though? If a venture company has a billion dollars in LP funding secured, then instead of having that 1 1 billion fund, they could have ten of the 100 million funds listed in the article. Sure, it's more work, but it's also, hypothetically, a vastly larger return, both for GPs and LPs. Not to mention, doing the billion dollar, lower-returning fund makes VC less attractive to the LPs that put up most of the money, as they're paying more in management fees for a lesser return.

It seems to me that funds getting larger is driven by a flawed expectation from VCs that large funds will perform as well as small funds, not based on a cynical extraction of money from their LPs, but maybe I'm mistaken.

Wouldn't getting 50% on a billion be a harder problem than getting 300% on 100MM.

> Wouldn't getting 50% on a billion be a harder problem than getting 300% on 100MM.

Seems unlikely. Does whatever you were doing with the 100MM really scale that badly?

When it comes to investing in startups, I think the answer is yes, because there are presumably a limited number of winners

You found 5 unicorns. Can it really be that hard to find 45 more???

You've only gotta find 3 more to hit that 50%, and you get 9x as many tries as it took you to find the original 5. I like those odds, shrug.

Ahh I did the math wrong. I agree now the initial premise is a little silly. Although, don't discount that it will take you 9x the amount of time to spend those resources. So this is going from a 1 year search to a 9 year search. Or, you're building a team and trusting other people, which scales better long term, but not in the short term.