Re:FundersClub Reports Unrealized Net IRR of 41.2%
by tanzam75 on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @02:45PM
(#7260569)
> Venture as an asset class has underperformed the S&P over the last 10 years[1], so you probably aren't missing out on much.
And that's actually biasing the comparison in VC's favor.
The S&P 500 is a large-cap index. Venture capital is supposed to invest in early-stage companies with high growth prospects. A fairer comparison would be to a small-cap index, or to private equity, or to private equity that only takes on small-caps.
Also note that venture capital is risky and illiquid. It should earn a risk and liquidity premium vs. the public stock market. If it can't earn at least this premium, then it would be producing negative alpha.
Re:FundersClub Reports Unrealized Net IRR of 41.2%
by lectrick on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @01:56PM
(#7260191)
Can you provide a link to this data, please?
Re:FundersClub Reports Unrealized Net IRR of 41.2%
by exelius on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @02:04PM
(#7260247)
I recall from my venture class in B-school that most venture funds basically match inflation. Sorry, I don't have a link to cite, but our prof had been a venture capitalist for 15 years. For every $100M return KPCB sees off of a Facebook or similar, they pump $90M into companies that either fail outright or exit in a break-even acquihire. $10M over the average 10 year life of a venture fund isn't a great return.
Most good VCs aren't in it for the money; they want to see people succeed. The money is obviously important, but they generally have enough of it before they start investing.
It's only the top firms that have been making good money.
[edit] - added source
[1] http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_dow...