Live data from Hacker News

VCs aren’t your friends

openvc.app

341–350 of 383 posts

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#341

The way VCs filter out potential investments seems fairly similar to the way Ivy League schools filter out potential students. (Probably because they are comprised of the same people.) It is not really about technical brilliance, or innovation, or anything that is written on their website as a core value. It's more about whether you're smart enough and can follow instructions and fit into the overarching institutiona…

> I can't imagine Try imagining harder. (Or just google :-) Sequoia was their first VC. Got the Apple II off the ground.

First off, there is another comment in this thread talking about how that almost didn’t happen.

Secondly, I’m talking about VCs today. Do you think VCs today act the exact same way they did 50 years ago? The industry has grown dramatically since then.

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#342
post #221
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not if you have no capital -- You still have to eat and be housed and that costs a lot if you don't have family wealth or other income streams, even with a good salary. That's exactly their point; this exact same logic can be applied to VCs, too.

If startups had capital to coast on they wouldn't needs VCs. If VCs didn't have capital to invest they wouldn't be VCs. One of these groups clearly has more money at the start of this arrangement and you seem to be ignoring the change in npower dynamic that creates.

There are VCs, and there are LPs. VCs do the work of finding investments and setting up funds; LPs provide the money and wait for it to grow.

Of course, from a startup perspective, both really just look like VCs. But in reality, the people working at VCs but who are not LPs are not usually rich.

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#343
post #340
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it's tricky here because often it's upfront . The only reason it wasn't our case was that carry was unusually spread out over the team and the buying requirement was for everyone , so the LPs accepted that as long as there was a clear plan in place for everyone to buy in, it was ok. Note that given salary levels this means that over the 10 year runtime of the fund, most of us would be giving up nearly ~20% o…

> Yes, but it's tricky here because often it's upfront. Fair. These sorts of things are usually pretty nuanced. > it was a pretty steep sacrifice for a shot at that carry. I totally get that, but it also seems like the ideal balance of interests. To many obvious failure modes if you don't have enough skin in the game. Of course that works the other way too, the upside in good-to-great cases have to make it make sense…

I mean, I made the choice to join because I saw it as a good option. But even so, was an unusually risky tradeoff between an effectively low basic for a higher bet at the return. I also certainly think it's understandable that LPs want it that way. Main point is that it's only lucrative if the fund pays out on carry, and you take a high risk for something which might possibly pay out ten years in the future. If it doesn't pay out, you've worked years at a not very high (for tech) salary.

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VC management fees are typically 2%/y. if a VC fund has $100 million in committed capital, the annual management fees would generally be between $2 million and $2.5 million. it's a lot of money.

Is that 2% on cash the VC fund directly contributed, or is it 2% on total funds injected into the business including loans the VC saddles the business with? (Or is that kind of leverage typically only done by private equity funds?)

Whatever the percentage for a given fund is, this is the rate the investors in the fund (the limited partners) pays to the fund managers (the general partners) to manage the fund. It's separate from what the companies they invest in gets.

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#345

This is weird, because my understanding and experience of fundraising is that serious prospective investors never get deals from cold inbound slides; they've been introduced, and, most likely, have been talking to the company for months prior to a "formal" start to fundraising, in "no, no, we're not raising money yet, just looking for advice" mode, waiting along with 5-10 other investors for someone to preempt. This…

As long as I been around startups, about 15 years, the advice always have been had more success getting warm intro. Even more back in the day than now. I think PGs essays lays out the fundraising process this way too.

The advice is never just send deck to a VC. Same as just applying to a company. Private organizations have no need for any kind controlled process, you're always better having or building of personal relationships and convincing people directly first. It's often even about the pitch or pitching skills. It's more like relationship or case you build, then the pitching is just formal step to close the deal.

I think the cold approach only works start the relationship if you have proven business, great potential and can tell that story well. But also by then VCs might already know about you and come to you.

Otherwise it's always about building some level of personal connection first. Essentially you're asking to someone personally believe and bet their internal and external reputation on. They are not going to hand you the money after one hasty email and deck.

The anti-VC crowd often try paint this as some kind of exclusive country club, but it's not true. So many new founders raise capital all the time. VCs are always looking for new founders and companies.

But it's also true that if you just crawl out of the woods one day and go meet a VC and ask them for $2M is likely not going to happen. If you don't get a single person in the world with some kind of VC connection to make a warm introduction to you, it often considered as a filter that you're not serious enough about your business.

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#346
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly, I'm a CEO.

Is that supposed to mean something? Half of Hacker News is a startup CEO. By your own logic, you better pay yourself a $0 salary, $0 on secondaries, and invested all your personal savings into the project, because otherwise clearly you don't believe in your own company. Right? And I hope that is also true about every one of your employees?

Haha, yeah I’m still a CEO of a YC-backed company too. I wouldn’t use it as evidence of anything except that I’m capable of having a company not go bankrupt for 17 years. (Man typing that makes me feel old.)

CEOs of tech companies fall for the anti-capitalist propaganda as much as anyone, in fact maybe more. There’s always been a far-left political lean to tech. Which hey, whatever floats your boat.

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#347
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that supposed to mean something? Half of Hacker News is a startup CEO. By your own logic, you better pay yourself a $0 salary, $0 on secondaries, and invested all your personal savings into the project, because otherwise clearly you don't believe in your own company. Right? And I hope that is also true about every one of your employees?

Check the bio.

Looks like an interesting idea.

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#348

The way VCs filter out potential investments seems fairly similar to the way Ivy League schools filter out potential students. (Probably because they are comprised of the same people.) It is not really about technical brilliance, or innovation, or anything that is written on their website as a core value. It's more about whether you're smart enough and can follow instructions and fit into the overarching institutiona…

You don’t think Jobs would have noticed the wrong date on the pitch deck? I was under the impression he was fairly obsessive with attention to detail.

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#349
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep I'm sure I can speak for all of the $100M-fund work out of your home office types. Or at least > 99%. The Venn overlap between "content with promising people you'll make money for them believably", "too cheap to spend on office / marketing because your fake pitch was so good nobody will need it to feel comfortable", "enough executive function to make believable calls on believable companies while doing no sourcin…

I've not lost billions twice, but have definitely lost tens of millions, and worked alongside at lost one person who lost a billion once... It's an "interesting" business to be in...

Third time's the charm :)

Re: VCs aren’t your friends

#350
post #28

The way VCs filter out potential investments seems fairly similar to the way Ivy League schools filter out potential students. (Probably because they are comprised of the same people.) It is not really about technical brilliance, or innovation, or anything that is written on their website as a core value. It's more about whether you're smart enough and can follow instructions and fit into the overarching institutiona…

VCs like Don Valentine & The founder of Atari actually passed on Steve Jobs because "they were not impressive". It was only after Steve Jobs exploited their preferential attachment & tendency of VC to succumb to herding effects that he was given investment.

VCs or Record companies missing "Superstars" is as common as mud.

Here is a fun article showing everyone makes errors. https://medium.com/mba-chronicles/the-vc-antiportfolio-top-m...

Post reply on HN