Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

venturebeat.com

91–100 of 175 posts

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#91

If the artificially-created real estate "shortage" problem in the Bay Area was solved, lots of other problems would be solved. - Companies raising money just to pay inflated (yet still insufficient) labour costs - People who would love to work for startups but realize that most startup salaries barely gets you a studio apt, pretty cool until you have a family - Companies who "cant find" talent Is it any surprise comp…

I'm not sure how much bay area real estate shortages drive this; I suspect little. 1. It's unclear how much additional housing will drop prices. There's enormous demand and denser housing costs more to build per square foot. Realistically, we're talking 10 to 20% drops as upper bounds of cuts (think Seattle costs) 2. [Edited to clarify price driving] These companies have decided to be in the bay area for some reason…

Consider how much of the pay of well-paid big Corp talent goes to real estate rentiers in the Bay Area.

30% of base?

That’s almost greater than the US gov’t’s cut.

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#92
Early YC: Small, gets disproportionate number of wins. Develops top tier reputation.

Later YC: Expands significantly due to the added prestige, and now performs much closer to the mean.

Today: Sam says that "too many YC companies are getting funded".

Is this fundamentally different from a mutual fund that yields 25% above market for a few years in a row and then performs closer to the mean for the following decade? In the mutual fund game, it's very common (hence Vanguard).

Surely during those top performing years the mutual fund managers strongly believe that they have deep insights that are the root cause of their funds' performance. But the following decade proves otherwise.

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#93
I know a fair bit of YC companies, and a trend is clear from the last few years. As they say: it's not that YC picks the best startups, it's that the startups they pick "become" the best startups (i.e. crappy companies look good just for being in YC).

This definitely isn't healthy, and I'm glad they at least recognize it.

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#94

Early YC: Small, gets disproportionate number of wins. Develops top tier reputation. Later YC: Expands significantly due to the added prestige, and now performs much closer to the mean. Today: Sam says that "too many YC companies are getting funded". Is this fundamentally different from a mutual fund that yields 25% above market for a few years in a row and then performs closer to the mean for the following decade? I…

Mutual funds and VCs have an incentive to increase fund size due to the 2/20 compensation. They make a 2% of funds under management win or lose, so it pays to up-size the bucket.

With early stage that is not an incentive, and the merit lines are so much fuzzier (is the fund adding value) and for smaller funds - how do you maximize odds of finding and funding the few winners. With increased late stage funding, the early money also get less priority, not to mention the delayed liquidity (unless they can sell to later investors).

Some real perks of having YC in the startup ecosystem is that it:

1. Grows the "seed variety" and "size of land planted" to get more founders with broader backgrounds and in more disciplines to build startups. That dramatically increases the odds of an unintuitive next-big-thing sprouting in Silicon Valley.

and

2. Fertilizes the soil - as YC alumnae help each other and can strike better deals or give each-other an early lift.

Demo day pressure-cooks many to fail or fly fast, and if too many are raising money means they is either a selection problem or a program decision to make:

- Startups picked are too early, or in less VC-worty sectors that need more incubation, or founders don't always have an incentive or plan to build a sustainable business beyond doing YC and raising a lot of money for bragging rights. They can easily an expectation that fundraising happens in 3 months, or narrow the selection of RFPs to later stage more immediately provable.

- Or YC just lets startups pick any demo day they want, but has to carry an ever-increasing load of zombies, or startups too-niche to accelerate with every increasing demand on partner's time. The latter helps both 1 and 2, but it has to be done in a sustainable way. Use Startup School as alumnae-expandable program for on-going incubation?

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#95

Early YC: Small, gets disproportionate number of wins. Develops top tier reputation. Later YC: Expands significantly due to the added prestige, and now performs much closer to the mean. Today: Sam says that "too many YC companies are getting funded". Is this fundamentally different from a mutual fund that yields 25% above market for a few years in a row and then performs closer to the mean for the following decade? I…

There probably are deep insights that lead to the root cause of success in both situations. Once these insights are made public or more people discover and exploit them on a widespread level, the market inefficiencies that gave the possibility for outperformance then disappear. If you don't find a new edge, you revert to the mean (or maybe rather, the "mean" catches up to you).

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#96
post #95

Early YC: Small, gets disproportionate number of wins. Develops top tier reputation. Later YC: Expands significantly due to the added prestige, and now performs much closer to the mean. Today: Sam says that "too many YC companies are getting funded". Is this fundamentally different from a mutual fund that yields 25% above market for a few years in a row and then performs closer to the mean for the following decade? I…

There probably are deep insights that lead to the root cause of success in both situations. Once these insights are made public or more people discover and exploit them on a widespread level, the market inefficiencies that gave the possibility for outperformance then disappear. If you don't find a new edge, you revert to the mean (or maybe rather, the "mean" catches up to you).

I think olfactory’s implication is that they get lucky at first, develop a reputation due to that luck, then revert to the mean. That there is no secret sauce at all.

It’s an interesting theory.

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#98

Early YC: Small, gets disproportionate number of wins. Develops top tier reputation. Later YC: Expands significantly due to the added prestige, and now performs much closer to the mean. Today: Sam says that "too many YC companies are getting funded". Is this fundamentally different from a mutual fund that yields 25% above market for a few years in a row and then performs closer to the mean for the following decade? I…

“A fool and his money are soon parted.”

Given the world population, that’s and endless supply.

Marketing and psychology are kings of science.

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#99
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am interested in trying some version of this! Have been thinking about all the edge cases.

In the beginning YC kind of was a UBI experiment. $20k isn’t enough for more than living expenses for some amount of time. Of course, $120k is a bit more, but in my mind YC was a very successful implementation of UBI.

It was a BI experiment, the U being eliminated by heavy selection. Xerox PARC started that way as well - select very talented people, then give them money to work. UBI presumes you are ready to give the guy begging on the street with an alcohol habit the same check you'd give Drew Houston.

A company can pick its most favorable market to make a profit (people with money to invest then boost the companies with most favorable returns). Government is a silent partner in all commercial transactions because it has to serve all of the other citizens too at a basic level (it can't just pick and choose). Non-profits get a pass on taxation by the government to serve the markets missed by profit-makers.

Re: Sam Altman: ‘Too many’ Y Combinator companies raise money

#100
post #25

Is there any way for YC to build its prestige and the sense of value it delivers without being a positive signal?

Yes, this forum. This forum makes it marginally easier for their companies to get recognition and hire employees. Additionally, if you look at the really successful companies that have come out of the program, they were all funded by YC when they took on far less companies.

Well, companies take many years to reach that stage of success, so of course all the successful companies will have come from the past batches when batches were smaller.
Post reply on HN