Paul : The math does not support this strategy but if other investors want to try it that’s fine. Also, it is not just returns we are looking for but really impactful companies. When you sell too early you don’t realize the full potential.
Paul : The math does not support this strategy but if other investors want to try it that’s fine. Also, it is not just returns we are looking for but really impactful companies. When you sell too early you don’t realize the full potential.
I think Jasper and Paul are talking past each other here. The math doesn't support the strategy of small exits if you are an investor in a large fund. If you are an individual starting a company, though, I've seen a lot of math that says you have a much better chance at success if you swing for a "$20 million niche" than a $10 billion company.
Maybe angels?
Angel investments can make sense but usually only if you know you will be going for a larger round later.
In the US a young, single developer who follows a budget should be able to save at least $2k/month.
$80k/year income less 25% for payroll & income taxes leaves $60k/year. $1.5k/month in housing & $1.5k/month in food/utilities/cell phone/clothes/etc. is $36k/year in spending, leaving $24k for savings. (This also ignores the tax advantages of retirement accounts, which allow for more room to save or spend)
The average nominal returns of the stock market are over 10% per year: a very simple & conservative investment portfolio of 60% S&P 500 index fund & 40% US Treasury bonds yields about 8.7%/year. If we assume 2.7% inflation we get 6% real return/year.
(add another 13% if California though)
>> When you sell too early you don’t realize the full potential.
For every company you can find that sold too early, I can probably find 10 companies that had a good chance to sell that they should have taken.That, and there's a power law distribution of start-up results. The majority of returns come from the minority of companies that end up doing really well.
There are a lot of startups that fail. Then there are a fair number that do okay, but never really get big. Then there are a tiny number that gets big.
Nor do we push founders to try to become one of the big winners if they don't want to. We didn't "swing for the fences" in our own startup (Viaweb, which was acquired for $50 million), and it would feel pretty bogus to press founders to do something we didn't do. Our rule is that it's up to the founders. Some want to take over the world, and some just want that first few million. But we invest in so many companies that we don't have to sweat any one outcome. In fact, we don't have to sweat whether startups have exits at all. The biggest exits are the only ones that matter financially, and those are guaranteed in the sense that if a company becomes big enough, a market for its shares will inevitably arise. Since the remaining outcomes don't have a significant effect on returns, it's cool with us if the founders want to sell early for a small amount, or grow slowly and never sell (i.e. become a so-called lifestyle business), or even shut the company down. We're sometimes disappointed when a startup we had high hopes for doesn't do well, but this disappointment is mostly the ordinary variety that anyone feels when that happens.
I would have thought there would be no way to predict this when looking at the initial barebones product from a few hackers building something that barely works.
If Sam can do this consistently he is a genius. Except maybe Amazon, I can't think of a single company I would have identified as "having the potential to grow into a 10 billion dollar company" in its initial form. :-(
You might be able to do that if you had enough amazing people / companies offering you equity.
I mean they literally funded a company that opens bottles of wine and sells it by the glass through the mail.
It's hard to reconcile that behavior with his stated investment approach is all I am saying.
Stealing - locks, cameras, alarms.
If an idea is very niche like "Maserati custom accessories sold online" then that isn't likely to grow to $10Bn+ company or have any major impact.
I feel like a nice interactive JS widget letting you play around with portfolio variables (duration, %win, company size distribution, etc) would dissuade so many fledgling company founders.