I always find it amazing that applicants only have 10 minutes to present themselves. If I only had 10 minutes, I'd be nervous as hell and it would not give a true representation as me as a person and my project - unless the nervousness factor is a key decision factor as well.
> I always find it amazing that applicants only have 10 minutes to present themselves. Consider this as a strong sign that YC is looks for companies that are an "easy sell" to VCs (the same holds for products that such companies produce). You can easily guess why they want that ...
They always say that what matters most to them is the founders. How can they learn to know people in 10 minutes?
> I always find it amazing that applicants only have 10 minutes to present themselves. Consider this as a strong sign that YC is looks for companies that are an "easy sell" to VCs (the same holds for products that such companies produce). You can easily guess why they want that ...
They always say that what matters most to them is the founders. How can they learn to know people in 10 minutes?
> They always say that what matters most to them is the founders. How can they learn to know people in 10 minutes?
This is not (necessarily) a contradiction: they are interested in founders who can easily be marketed. ;-)
That's 0.39%, not sure if this is typical but seems pretty low to me. Anything we can learn from this number, or it's simply just a number?
The public markets are fucking stupid. A good company is managed for the next 25 years while a public company has to be managed for the next quarter. This is why private equity investing, including angel investing, beats the socks off of public marketing investing if you know what you're doing (barring access to things like public market manipulation capabilities or insider information)
True. But the money is too good on the public markets
> I always find it amazing that applicants only have 10 minutes to present themselves. Consider this as a strong sign that YC is looks for companies that are an "easy sell" to VCs (the same holds for products that such companies produce). You can easily guess why they want that ...
They always say that what matters most to them is the founders. How can they learn to know people in 10 minutes?
These kind of comments irritate me so much.
They would invest in mass produced bottled Himalayan air if they thought it would turn a quick buck.
If you think this is a bad sign, just wait til we're in a recession.
It's signs like these that cause a recession. A lot of recession (and growth) is about belief in the economy. If YCombinator tells everyone there will be a tech recession, it increases odds of a recession.
I don't read it that way. There is reduced funding available now . So the current batch is smaller. They are still thinking of more than 10 year horizon to mature opportunities but the funds available for that runway is smaller. Hence the small batch. That is my read any way. The depression may be over in 2 years (say), but that does nothing for investor sentiment and available cash right now.
This argument holds true for most VC firms in general. My contention is that YC's stance on defining the "bar for acceptance" seems to be on how much cash they have. So a mediocre company and founders could have got in the previous batch and a deserving one may not this year. I agree that this is fair and square in market economics. I simply expected more from this institution.
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. This reduction can still be consistent with a fixed bar for acceptance. Say that earlier everyone who cleared the bar got funded. Now, only 60% of those who clear the bar gets funded. The further selection can be on the basis of a performance criteria like value expectation or risk of failure, or it could be on the basis of investor preference to certain areas.
Anyone remember who wrote that doomsday deck for portfolio founders in like 2008? I can’t believe it’s escaping me, it caused quite the stir at the time.
Anyone remember who wrote that doomsday deck for portfolio founders in like 2008? I can’t believe it’s escaping me, it caused quite the stir at the time.
The emphasis on "downturn" concerns me. Aren't reputed firms like YC supposed to look at a 10+ year horizon? If this is true, it indicates that earlier investments were based on the market than the fundamentals of the founding team, market, and product.
In my opinion the pandemic era saw a significant increase in employee headcount, and now we are seeing a "correction" of the employee headcount. But I think the bigger point is that venture capital funding is really drying up and investors aren't investing as much. A lot of the market is basically "taking a loan to cover a loan that covers a loan.." and the market is no longer giving out loans as easily due to higher…
> In my opinion the pandemic era saw a significant increase in employee headcount
I am interested in hearing why you think that. I would have thought that the whole "Great Resignation" theme of the two pandemic years would suggest that people are instead looking to move away from the established companies.