AngelList raises $24 million at a heavenly valuation
finance.fortune.cnn.com
finance.fortune.cnn.com
AL is the first to solve this. They have quality investors and startups (the 2 critical sides of this network) which is what gets the flywheel turning on these marketplaces.
We see lots of Crowdfunding platforms getting funded and all focus on competing on features and fees but fail to build out credible network participants on both sides and getting liquidity on the platform. AL is doing this well.
Given that Naval also seems smart as heck, this is going to be big and I suspect quite disruptive to the broken VC model.
I'm always curious when I see comments like this. What is broken about the VC model?
http://www.geekwire.com/2013/vc-returns-improve-10year-horiz...
This may sort itself out on its own, however, as LPs are investing less and less in the VC asset class.
Anyway, you can take a certain time frame, slice the start/end dates to match when certain companies sell or are the market is doing well and make your point look in either side's favor, especially for short time intervals like 1-3 years. Also curious as to how NVCA collects this data.
That said, it's the best of what's available today.
The best indicator or proxy that returns suck is that LPs are voting with their wallets and leaving the asset class and investing in it less.
For what it's worth, my impression has been that there is too much capital chasing too few funding-worthy startups and in recent years this has been driven in large part by monetary policy, which is producing capital misallocation and malinvestment across many asset classes.
I'd guess that when the game is over, angels and super angels will be especially affected and many will drop out of the market altogether. That, of course, would negatively impact AngelList.
- marginal VCs die sooner. This is already happening but more competition for deals hurts VCs who don't bring a lot to the table. This either brings in new smarter blood or right sizes the industry.
- can allow for a set of investors whose criteria for success is more in line with reality. A $100M exit doesn't get most VCs excited but angels and syndicates of angels prob love those. And 60% of tech M&A exits last year were less than $100M.(1)
(1) http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/acquisitions/tech-mergers-acq...
Sure, I could see an angel who put $50,000 into a $250,000 seed round for a company at a $2 million pre-money valuation being happy about a $100 million exit if said company never raises additional capital, but I'd be interested in knowing a) how typical this type of scenario is and b) what the overall returns are, on average, for angels actively making these kinds of investments.
That technicality aside, two points worth making: (1) VC funds are like startups. All of the money (that is made) investing in the winners, not the losers; and (2) The other side of the coin: VC is also like investing in hollywood Films and pro-sports franchises. People have an irrational desire 'to be in the game', and much value can be extracted through (what is best thought of as) dark externalities.
I love Naval and think AngelList will be a wild success (arguably it already is). But it's not a zero sum game. There is too much liquidity chasing too few venture partnerships and too much hope of being the one to invest in the next Google|Facebook|Twitter for AngelList to be destructively disruptive to venture investing.
To quote PG from http://paulgraham.com/fr.html: "The best type of intro is from a well-known investor who has just invested in you. So when you get an investor to commit, ask them to introduce you to other investors they respect."
AL just automates the above behavior.