Live data from Hacker News

Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

medium.com

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#11
I kind of doubt that doing VC without being very high profile has better risk adjusted returns than SPY. Of course this somewhat hard to calculate on the VC side due to the lack of transparency and illiquidity of the market.

But in fact that author is going about this all wrong. It doesn't really matter if VC outperforms. The point of VC or hedge funds or any other alternative investments isn't to outperform the market on a risk adjusted basis (though that would be nice), but to provide a uncorrelated return stream.

When these uncorrelated or less correlated return streams is mixed into the standard market return stream, the risk adjusted return of the entire portfolio is enhanced. This is why you shouldn't focus on the individual risk/return profile of an asset or investment, but instead focus on the entire portfolio.

A great example of this somewhat counterintuitive statistical phenomenon is gold. Gold historically has had both high volatility and low returns. However, due to the low correlation to the market, mixing in gold to a SPY portfolio and performing a minimum variance optimization to determine the weights actually boosts the return/risk profile.

If anyone is interested, I have a blog post about it: https://cryptm.org/posts/2020/07/09/alt.html

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#13
post #9
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

250k/yr in income or 1m in net worth. So many (most?) SV engineers are qualified.

Maybe at FAANGs, but $250K is far above the median SWR salary in SV.

Maybe for salary but not for TC. I suspect median TC in the bay area is close to $250,000 just because of how many people are earning $300k+ at public companies.

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#14

The author lists ETFs as performing as well as a conservative estimate. I think that is the key takeaway.

In case the profile pic of the author didn’t give it away, I’m pretty sure “he” is a “she”.

https://www.crunchbase.com/person/yun-fang-juan

Gender neutral language can help avoid this kind of bias.

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#15
I have mixed feelings about this.

The figures assumed to be right, this demonstrates that with knowledge and skill you can drive to a very satisfactory outcome. 2013 to present is a 7 year investment timeline, and on a sustained normal investment return scale you'd expect it to be double-and-a-bit, he went to arguing 6x so he's ahead of the market.

But, thats also arguably a non-sustainable ROI longterm. Not that it doesn't happen, but that the luxury of being able to retain the risk side, for the large multiplier, is confined to a lucky few.

This is about the latent value of early-stage ideas, as opposed to the sustained value of enterprise which continues in role and is not game-changer forever (what is?) but becomes an industry: the Angel is not talking about industrial continued value, but about that initial rise of the curve.

And, since the angel can swoop away, they can confirm their inner sense by denying capital injection at the point it might have rescued things, to focus on something else: So in effect there is no neutral arbiter "was it right" -It simply is what it is.

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#16
"Clever googling" the revenue numbers and "probably reaching X" don't count as real numbers. This writeup is up-in-the-clouds optimistic. The 409a or any other speculative valuation also doesn't mean much. I'm behind the first part -- It's worth investing in real business and job growth, but I'd like to see more grounded and practical ROI calculations.

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#17

Anyone angel on a FAANG salary, not FB IPO millions?

Not sure how common but I know quite a few angel investors that have just been employees at tech companies. Most weren’t even at primarily FAANG companies. Realistically at least by SV income standards, it doesn’t take much to be an entry level angel investor.

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#18
> I also had no clue that KiwiCo could become so ubiquitous and my kids love them.

Bits like this read like an advertisement to me, especially since my child has tried Kiwi crates and we found them to be pretty awful value. Maybe they're fun if you're an investor and you get a whole bunch of them at no cost, but for 20 bucks each we'd rather buy Legos.

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#19
post #3

Anyone angel on a FAANG salary, not FB IPO millions?

You have to be an accredited investor, most even non-faang-but-sv-sfbay senior swes can demonstrate this after 3 years.

You can also pay a few hundred dollars to take the Series 65 license exam and obtain accredited investor status through certification.

Re: Real-Life Angel Investing Returns 2012–2016

#20
post #14

The author lists ETFs as performing as well as a conservative estimate. I think that is the key takeaway.

In case the profile pic of the author didn’t give it away, I’m pretty sure “he” is a “she”. https://www.crunchbase.com/person/yun-fang-juan Gender neutral language can help avoid this kind of bias.

Oh how embarrassing. Thanks for correcting me in a kind way.
Post reply on HN