Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

techcrunch.com

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#61

What's interesting is that if 2-3 years ago, ycombinator had the ability to identify and pick winners. I have the impression that in the past year it became the other way around. Y combinator by picking companies are in fact the kingmakers and are creating the winners.

Last I checked you still have to get users/customers to be a winner in business. YC has clout with investors, so their companies are more likely to get investment, but that's not the right measure of who is a winner. The millions of consumers you need as customers (or, if B-to-B, say fortune 500 companies) don't give a damn about the YC stamp of approval. Increased investment only turns into increased "wins" if you u…

But if the end result is an acquisition, the YC brand may actually matter much more.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#62
post #48
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are HNers so dense when it comes to fundraising? No, the treatment doesn't come off at all sounding like profits or income. Yes, fundraising is definitely a point of success. Why do HNers have such a hard time with this? Money is an important resource for growing companies! Sheesh.

I think they're not so much dense as bitter. There's a subset of HN readers who regard startups as a whole as a sort of con game, and are angry that the participants get so much attention. There may not be that many of them, but their anger makes them disproportionately active as commenters and voters.

I've noticed a lot of anger and bitterness creeping into comments on all topics, not just those related to startups.

But there is definitely a category of commenters with tall-poppy syndrome. I guess that has it's own distribution as well.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#63
post #48
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are HNers so dense when it comes to fundraising? No, the treatment doesn't come off at all sounding like profits or income. Yes, fundraising is definitely a point of success. Why do HNers have such a hard time with this? Money is an important resource for growing companies! Sheesh.

I think they're not so much dense as bitter. There's a subset of HN readers who regard startups as a whole as a sort of con game, and are angry that the participants get so much attention. There may not be that many of them, but their anger makes them disproportionately active as commenters and voters.

I love startups. Worked at them my whole career.

At my practice, I've worked with a bunch of YC startups. Uniformly enjoyed the experience.

I'm wary of venture capitalists. I've watched them do skeezy things firsthand.

More importantly, every time I see people cheerleading some startup for raising 50MM, all I can think is, "that poor team isn't going to be able to exit unless they can beat 150MM". It's very hard to do that, and huge investments almost guarantee that dubious companies are going to waste a lot of time trying.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#64
post #34
post #5

How very Silicon Valley of the author to treat these numbers almost like they're profits, or any reasonable sort of "income" at all. The real question is: how much of that money has already been multiplied tenfold, through exits, IPOs or exorbitant profits?

Why are HNers so dense when it comes to fundraising? No, the treatment doesn't come off at all sounding like profits or income. Yes, fundraising is definitely a point of success. Why do HNers have such a hard time with this? Money is an important resource for growing companies! Sheesh.

>"Yes, fundraising is definitely a point of success."

Really? When your bank gives you a mortgage, do you deem that a "success"?

The fact that there are people who see raising funds as a sort of "end game" is a problem, at least in my opinion. Pets.com, Kozmo.com and Webvan all raised lots of money. So did Enron and Worldcom, in a different way.

Success occurss when you produce net economic gains to society.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#65
post #63
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're not so much dense as bitter. There's a subset of HN readers who regard startups as a whole as a sort of con game, and are angry that the participants get so much attention. There may not be that many of them, but their anger makes them disproportionately active as commenters and voters.

I love startups. Worked at them my whole career. At my practice, I've worked with a bunch of YC startups. Uniformly enjoyed the experience. I'm wary of venture capitalists. I've watched them do skeezy things firsthand. More importantly, every time I see people cheerleading some startup for raising 50MM, all I can think is, "that poor team isn't going to be able to exit unless they can beat 150MM". It's very hard to d…

True. But it's also hard to exit at $150m+ without a $50m raise. The lean startups and bootstraps simply don't have big exits like their well-funded counterparts.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#66
post #39
post #5

How very Silicon Valley of the author to treat these numbers almost like they're profits, or any reasonable sort of "income" at all. The real question is: how much of that money has already been multiplied tenfold, through exits, IPOs or exorbitant profits?

What on earth did the author say that conflated fundraising with revenues? All he did was compute an average and list some individual amounts raised. Also, a 10x return is the sort of target a VC will have for a series A round. Investors in later stage rounds have lower expectations. And since later stage rounds are much bigger, that means most of the money invested in a successful startup is done with the expectatio…

Essentially, my complaint is exactly that: he just reported the numbers. In a more mainstream financial magazine, I would've expected the author to also do his best trying to find out what those investments are doing. Basically, what I find an interesting question is "Ok, so $1B has been invested in YC companies. How much are those worth now? Of those which exited, how much did they exit for?". Essentially: how healthy is the startup ecosystem economy?

Why can't TechCrunch ask and answer questions like these?

The impression I get from articles like these, which don't balance the equation but just say "investment, hooray!!", is that the common conception in Startupland is that you're already halfway done when you secured a large amount of funding. In other words, that getting investors implies success. Some other commenters in this thread called me bitter and even jealous for that, but I don't understand that. Sure, getting investment increases the chance for success. Admittedly, I'd go and share a few drinks if someone just gave me a few million dollars for me to spend on making my dream reality. But it's not success yet. I'm still very much in the red!

Now, what I find really interesting is the last line of your comment. Do you have any numbers about that? How much is that $1B worth right now? (and, why didn't TechCrunch ask?)

ps. I really believed that tenfold returns were expected in later rounds, too. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#67
post #39
post #5

How very Silicon Valley of the author to treat these numbers almost like they're profits, or any reasonable sort of "income" at all. The real question is: how much of that money has already been multiplied tenfold, through exits, IPOs or exorbitant profits?

What on earth did the author say that conflated fundraising with revenues? All he did was compute an average and list some individual amounts raised. Also, a 10x return is the sort of target a VC will have for a series A round. Investors in later stage rounds have lower expectations. And since later stage rounds are much bigger, that means most of the money invested in a successful startup is done with the expectatio…

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#68
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth did the author say that conflated fundraising with revenues? All he did was compute an average and list some individual amounts raised. Also, a 10x return is the sort of target a VC will have for a series A round. Investors in later stage rounds have lower expectations. And since later stage rounds are much bigger, that means most of the money invested in a successful startup is done with the expectatio…

Essentially, my complaint is exactly that: he just reported the numbers. In a more mainstream financial magazine, I would've expected the author to also do his best trying to find out what those investments are doing . Basically, what I find an interesting question is "Ok, so $1B has been invested in YC companies. How much are those worth now? Of those which exited, how much did they exit for?". Essentially: how heal…

> Why can't TechCrunch ask and answer questions like these?

And this is why I no longer click on TC links.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#69
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth did the author say that conflated fundraising with revenues? All he did was compute an average and list some individual amounts raised. Also, a 10x return is the sort of target a VC will have for a series A round. Investors in later stage rounds have lower expectations. And since later stage rounds are much bigger, that means most of the money invested in a successful startup is done with the expectatio…

Essentially, my complaint is exactly that: he just reported the numbers. In a more mainstream financial magazine, I would've expected the author to also do his best trying to find out what those investments are doing . Basically, what I find an interesting question is "Ok, so $1B has been invested in YC companies. How much are those worth now? Of those which exited, how much did they exit for?". Essentially: how heal…

Surely also the big question is how much real long term value has been created, versus how many photo-sharing apps aqui-hired.

I bet that $1b could do a lot of good finding cures for diseases, rather than pumping up web startups to be sold on. But I guess there's not so much profit in that.

Note that I'm not beating up on YC here, I'm just stating an opinion on web-startups in general and the ridiculous valuations of them lately.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#70
post #43
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are HNers so dense when it comes to fundraising? No, the treatment doesn't come off at all sounding like profits or income. Yes, fundraising is definitely a point of success. Why do HNers have such a hard time with this? Money is an important resource for growing companies! Sheesh.

If anyone is dense, it's you. It is certainly odd that the number of HN postings that follow the pattern "Company X raised $Y" far exceeds that of postings about revenue or profits, which are undeniably more important metrics for success. To some degree that can be explained by the fact that many incubated startups are legitimately in a phase where raising capital is important and revenue/profits not yet achievable.…

You do see posts about massive profits - from companies like PayPal & Google.

These are the startups that made it.

Post reply on HN