Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YC Stats

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 148 posts

Re: YC Stats

#41

Post by kevin »

lordnacho wrote: post #10

Since applications are opening tomorrow, it would be interesting to have a breakdown of interviews/acceptances based on various criteria: sole founder, has revenue, has user, etc... It would allow prospective applicants to think about whether to apply, and hopefully keep the pile a manageable size for the people reading it.

Might be interesting, but the odds are the wrong way to think about this. Our wins come from the margins and we're looking for people to beat the odds. Most of the time we are surprised what ends up becoming big.

The numbers reveal that it's hard, but startups were ALWAYS hard. It's still the hardest thing I've ever done and most founders say the same. As far as YC is concerned, we don't want people to try to make this easier for us. One of the unique properties of YC is that we're trying to fund startups at scale and that means we don't want founders thinking about trying to make it manageable for us by bowing out. That's how I miss out on someone on the margins. It's one of the reasons why I love working on the YC software team to try and solve these challenges. So please, don't take away my work. :)

My favorite founders are filled with grit and perseverance. They don't calculate whether they can change the world before starting, they just start. So if you're ready to do something hard and feel like it's within you to change the world, please do apply...the numbers be damned.

Re: YC Stats

#42

Post by harmegido »

Ok, so I did some quick numbers on performance. It looks like the first batch was in 2005, meaning ycombinator has been at this for 10 years. Have they always funded with 120k? Assuming that (and not present valuing the older money):

Total Investment: ~$131,600,000 Total Companies Value: >$65,000,000,000 YCombinator's 7% Value: $4,550,000,000 Total Return: 3357% Annualized Return: 42.5%

Obviously, it costs more than the initial investment, but these are really nice numbers if compared to a mutual fund, etc. Did I make any mistaken assumptions?

Re: YC Stats

#43

Post by iaw »

cbr wrote: post #34
cm2012 wrote: post #17

Considering there is probably a vintage effect, and currently 5% of YC companies are worth over $100 million, that means that most likely 5-10% of founders that join YC will become millionaires over time. That's pretty impressive.

That's not a super high bar. Most of these founders could get $200k jobs at top tech companies, invest $100k/year, and be a millionaire in ~10 years. Much better than 10% odds!

Founders also get paid well at startups once they've raised funds. There's a large difference between having a couple million dollars amassed as retirement savings and having millions amassed long before retirement. The lifestyles and opportunity spectrums are wildly different between the two.

Re: YC Stats

#44

Post by [deleted] »

harmegido wrote: post #42

Ok, so I did some quick numbers on performance. It looks like the first batch was in 2005, meaning ycombinator has been at this for 10 years. Have they always funded with 120k? Assuming that (and not present valuing the older money): Total Investment: ~$131,600,000 Total Companies Value: >$65,000,000,000 YCombinator's 7% Value: $4,550,000,000 Total Return: 3357% Annualized Return: 42.5% Obviously, it costs more than…

[deleted]

Re: YC Stats

#45

Post by harmegido »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #16

"Market cap" is a poorly-chosen descriptor because the vast majority (all?) of the companies in YC's portfolio are private. The use of the term "market cap" is especially ironic given Sam's recent post on "financial misstatements"[1]. If founders are expected to use financial terms accurately and appropriately, shouldn't investors be expected to do the same? [1] http://blog.samaltman.com/financial-misstatements

It looks like it says "valuation" now. However, he's not trying to pitch you on investing in anything, so he can use whatever language he wants. The point of the blog post that I took was that it is illegal to mislead potential investors about your company.

Re: YC Stats

#46

Post by npkarnik »

harmegido wrote: post #42

Ok, so I did some quick numbers on performance. It looks like the first batch was in 2005, meaning ycombinator has been at this for 10 years. Have they always funded with 120k? Assuming that (and not present valuing the older money): Total Investment: ~$131,600,000 Total Companies Value: >$65,000,000,000 YCombinator's 7% Value: $4,550,000,000 Total Return: 3357% Annualized Return: 42.5% Obviously, it costs more than…

You're not factoring dilution in at all, for one. Also, the 120k is more recent.

Re: YC Stats

#47

Post by sydneyliu »

jordigg wrote: post #33
codingdave wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YC filters applicants for dedicated founders who will not give up easily. It is amazing what can be accomplished by manic perseverance.

Last week I saw this from Sam. > If we don’t invest in these companies, they don’t happen… The thing about Y Combinator that’s cool is that most companies won’t happen if we don’t fund them.[1] I thought YC was always looking to fund those that would exist with or without YC. I have seen less and less "crazy bets" every batch, but I have to say there's more diversity of founders and topics (biotech, energy, farming).…

I think Sam is saying that without YC, there are some companies that may not end up succeeding or being able to raise and continue on (without YC's network, advice, speed, focus etc. to help them)

The distinction is that they want to fund companies who would continue working on it even if they didn't get into YC. They are so passionate about the problem that they will try to make it succeed no matter what.

Re: YC Stats

#48

Post by sthomps »

harmegido wrote: post #42

Ok, so I did some quick numbers on performance. It looks like the first batch was in 2005, meaning ycombinator has been at this for 10 years. Have they always funded with 120k? Assuming that (and not present valuing the older money): Total Investment: ~$131,600,000 Total Companies Value: >$65,000,000,000 YCombinator's 7% Value: $4,550,000,000 Total Return: 3357% Annualized Return: 42.5% Obviously, it costs more than…

Need to take into account dilution in subsequent fundings. So much less than 7%. #s are still out of this world though

Re: YC Stats

#49

Post by DrNuke »

sama wrote: post #8
minimaxir wrote: post #7

Interesting way to bury the lede that 32 companies received a Fellowship offer. The estimate was 20. ( http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/20/y-combinator-just-introduce... )

Honestly if we were prepared to take 320 that would have been good. The quality was outstanding.

You will see many coming back stronger for YC W16 application: 2015 is big time in a lot of fields. The YC ecosystem (alumni and network) is so diverse and lively nowadays that it could even generate self-sustaining innovation, more than universities and corporations.

Re: YC Stats

#50

Post by 7Figures2Commas »

harmegido wrote: post #45
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #16

"Market cap" is a poorly-chosen descriptor because the vast majority (all?) of the companies in YC's portfolio are private. The use of the term "market cap" is especially ironic given Sam's recent post on "financial misstatements"[1]. If founders are expected to use financial terms accurately and appropriately, shouldn't investors be expected to do the same? [1] http://blog.samaltman.com/financial-misstatements

It looks like it says "valuation" now. However, he's not trying to pitch you on investing in anything, so he can use whatever language he wants. The point of the blog post that I took was that it is illegal to mislead potential investors about your company.

So in your mind the only reason one should use accurate language would be to avoid the risk of civil or criminal litigation? Fascinating.
Post reply on HN