« VCs and Recruiting | Main | Revealing Insights »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Avi Deitcher


I think you hit the nail on the head, two points that are often missed by many early-stage entrepreneurs.

1) Everyone has to make money, or no one does. If VCs, over the medium to long term, do not make money on their investments, then these investments dry up. The return has to be competitive compared to other potential investments. The same is true for the entrepreneurs: they won't sell their services at a loss, because then they go out of business. Smart buyers - consumers and businesses - get this, and want to pay the best price they can that still allows their provider to remain in business.

2) Cheap money creates lots of high-risk low-return investments. Return and risk are normally correlated, but too much cheap money creates lots of risk for low return. Reference: Real interest rates last 5 years prior to financial meltdown. Good entrepreneurs not only want to make money for their companies and their investors, they want only good competitors. I never worry about a few good competitors; we will all find target markets we are after, and even if a few compete head-on, with a big enough market, we will all get share. I do worry about 20 or 30 highly funded companies selling services at a loss, run by people who do not know how to make money, making it hard for me to get capital or souring customers on paying good money for good service.

But now for the downside: VCs share heavily in the responsibility for this mindset. How many poor firms have been funded? How many firms have been pushed to, "not worry about revenues or profits, just scale up, we can worry about the financials later?" This is true even in the decade after the dot-bomb meltdown. Just yesterday, I had a conversation with an entrepreneur friend who regrets following that precise VC advice... in 2008-2009!

You are right... but we need to keep the investors out of the herd mentality and in this good business sense mode.

Rob K.

Chip- If you believe that one big reason for low returns is overfunding, then he has to be wrong. At least with the "eternity" comment. As you point out, low returns will drive LPs elsewhere, leading to smaller VC funds and fewer of them. Less capital produces fewer "me too" companies, raising returns for the VCs as a whole.

Chip Hazard

Avi - thanks for the thoughtful comments. I agree with the shared responsibility note as well, althought it is scary to hear 1999 advice being doled out in 2009.

Rob - I agree and is why we are very optimistic looking forward


The assumption of 0% returns to eternity assumes steady state. A shake out of the VC world would not be a bad thing as it will drive innovation in the VC industry. Having been in VC late 90's to bust and in P.E. and seed stage since, I think that the VC model has done little to adapt to the new economics of investing. Combined with the fact that many are reaching the end of their 3 year investment period they are actively trying to put money to work in the old way. i think there will be another VC bubble pop but as I wrote in my blog a few weeks ago that might not be a bad thing http://bit.ly/d6FBVk

dave broadwin

Bill Sahlman is just being Bill, but the venture industry is well on its way to being half the size it was in 2007. All in accordance with the laws of supply and demand. Having said that, funds as they currently exist are not well suited to fund the "new" types of businesses that are being created. At one end of the spectrum, many cleantech and renewable energy companies require very large investments and will only pay off over very long investment horizons. Most ten year funds (even with a couple of extensions) can' carry these investments for these time periods. At the other end of the spectrum, capital efficient start ups (like many communications companies -- where a lot of VC investment money is going today) require a lot less capital than "traditional" VC investments. Here is my prediction, exits for these capital efficient companies will be relatively quick and relatively small in absolute dollars (although they may have big multiples). VCs will need to make very many investments to get the returns they need. They are not set up to have 20 or more investments per partner. (Let alone the issued you have raised about multiple entrants for each opportunity.) In the end I have come to the conclusion that many different types of funds (by which I mean funds with different sizes, terms, amounts of carry, level of management fees, and etc.) are needed. The one size fits all ten year fund will not work for every investment any more.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Become a Fan