Does anyone know where one could find (if YC's published the stat) of the median/average age for the founders of the companies worth > $1 billion and $100 million?
YC Stats
121–130 of 148 posts
Re: YC Stats
#122(Since no one is pointing out Elephant in the room, I will do that). YC has been around for 10 years. Average age of a company from First Investment to IPO in 2014 is less than 10 years ( http://lifescivc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Time-From-VC... Source 1.) Personally, I believe startups excel when odds were stacks against us (forced to innovate and make founders strong and tested). I think YC or any incubator h…
VCs don't invest at the idea stage, so most initial funding comes from angels or accelerators (or bootstrapped because founders are already rich, but that doesn't count). Since having industry experience does not necessarily equate to having a vast angel network, accelerators fill in the gap.
Re: YC Stats
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's more intriguing is how was YC able to see through what the other investors saw as an issue? Even to this day I'm astonished that AirBnB exists and yet YC was able to see something in them years ago.
YC also despised the idea, but invested because they liked the founders. But they also presumably liked the 600+ YC founders that failed, so you can see how much investors can really predict.
You mean at the series A? Their original idea was really different.
Re: YC Stats
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because I can guarantee you that the "valuation" of $65B+ is a totally meaningless number. This includes every single company that had a huge, unsustainable up round which will almost certainly be devalued based on future financings or exits. "Meaningless" is hyperbolic. How much would you pay for a share of Airbnb? More than nothing, I assume. I think one can conclude something from consummated, informed responses…
No - I stand by that as a literal use. Does 65B represent the actual money value that people will pay for the shares of 100% of the ~600 currently existing YC companies? Does it tell us the average value? The mean? Standard deviation? Quintile distributions? P/E? Is that number just based on valuations from funding rounds? Projections? It is literally meaningless. It is not verifiable. The standards that are used to…
AirBnB: $24 Billion.
DropBox: $10 Billion.
Zenefits: $4.5 Billion
Stripe: $3.5 Billion.
Instacart: $2 Billion
Twitch: $1 Billion
Total: $45 Billion.
Source: http://graphics.wsj.com/billion-dollar-club/
So they value the rest of the portfolio at $20 billion. Does that seem reasonable?
Re: YC Stats
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Need to take dilution into account here. If we assume a (optimistic?) 1% stake, that's $650M. YC recently (1-2 years ago?) started giving 120k. Before that, it was 10-20k. So let's say half of what you said is the total investment = 65M. That's a 10X return. I actually was expecting higher. Am I missing something in my numbers?
This is incredibly off in many ways. Someday we will just release our numbers.
Without stating where / how, can you give us an indication of dilution in a "YC Never invests again, company does series A, B & C" scenario?
It is complicated, I am sure, but YC participation in subsequent rounds, but just as a "what to expect as an investor", what dilution would / does one expect?
Re: YC Stats
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
YC also despised the idea, but invested because they liked the founders. But they also presumably liked the 600+ YC founders that failed, so you can see how much investors can really predict.
You mean at the series A? Their original idea was really different.
[deleted]
Re: YC Stats
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember: until there's an "event", there are no "returns". Until a buyout or an acquisition happens, there's no money made except on paper.
And after a liquidity event, the money is really just a bunch of electrons in a computer or magnetic domains on a disk somewhere...
Not sure why this is downvoted, it's a very interesting point.
Equity in a privately-held company has value in precisely the same abstract sense that money has value. Both are tokens of, and therefore exchangeable for, real work. Why else do people take equity as part of compensation?
I think what beambot is getting at here is the value of 'what you own' doesn't become any more or less real after you trade equity for money in a liquidity event. It's fundamentally just as abstract as it ever was, or will be.
Re: YC Stats
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
And after a liquidity event, the money is really just a bunch of electrons in a computer or magnetic domains on a disk somewhere...
Not sure why this is downvoted, it's a very interesting point. Equity in a privately-held company has value in precisely the same abstract sense that money has value. Both are tokens of, and therefore exchangeable for, real work. Why else do people take equity as part of compensation? I think what beambot is getting at here is the value of 'what you own' doesn't become any more or less real after you trade equity for…
Spot on. The only differences are risk, liquidity, and fungibility. But the "money" aspect is fairly abstract up until you're actually trying to spend/exchange it.
Re: YC Stats
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
YC has said that Airbnb would have failed without their help. How could they not update their thinking? Being determined to succeed is necessary but insufficient. Every successful startup received a big helping hand early in its life. YC's business is to provide that opportunity to founders that otherwise wouldn't have it, such as Airbnb, which no other investor would back.
What's more intriguing is how was YC able to see through what the other investors saw as an issue? Even to this day I'm astonished that AirBnB exists and yet YC was able to see something in them years ago.
My understanding of the story was that YC was going to pass on Airbnb but then one of the cofounders mentioned the cereal box story and that changed PG's mind
Re: YC Stats
#130I think there's a big elephant in the room here. Companies usually take time to fail, especially with VC funding. The companies from the newer batches are going to be skewing those fail statistics. If you only look at companies from 4 years ago and older, you might get a more realistic impression. It still won't be 90% though, but YC companies are widely known to not be representative. It's the highest profile accele…
But if they choose to provide stats each year thatll work out over time right? I mean you have to start somewhere