[HN Gopher] On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       On $600B of Y Combinator startup success
        
       Author : merename
       Score  : 53 points
       Date   : 2022-05-11 16:43 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (jaredheyman.medium.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (jaredheyman.medium.com)
        
       | drumhead wrote:
       | How much profit are they generating and how much free cashflow?
        
       | 1270018080 wrote:
       | Seems like every public YC company has fallen 50%+ within the
       | last 12 months. I'm sure the private ones are even worse off. I'm
       | hoping the definition of success changes. I'd like to see
       | "rational valuations", "cash flow positive", or "a sustainable
       | business model" as metrics in the future.
        
         | vmception wrote:
         | This is success because the fund's cost basis is so low
         | specifically because of the financial engineering involved when
         | they were private companies. The valuations of the public
         | companies could fall 99% and still be highly profitable bets
         | for the angel/seed investor.
        
         | instance wrote:
         | I wouldn't say that's a YC-specific issue. Look at Nasdaq, this
         | is a general issue with tech stocks right now, just this
         | immense selling all across the board.
        
         | somethoughts wrote:
         | Yes it's probably going to round trip back to $300B given
         | AirBNB and DoorDash have taken their hits as of late. That said
         | - I do think since the lock-up periods have probably expired on
         | the big ones - the pre-IPO investors like YC/founders/VC
         | probably made it out just fine already.
         | 
         | It's really a message to those of us retail investors buying
         | the IPO or post IPO shares of YC companies that need to be
         | aware of the track record w.r.t. an investment. Most of the
         | gains have been extracted already and future post IPO growth
         | has already been priced in.
         | 
         | It also does suggests that YC was perhaps a beneficiary of easy
         | monetary conditions that lifted valuation.
        
           | whiplash451 wrote:
           | Why would this be specific to YC IPOs vs other IPOs?
        
             | somethoughts wrote:
             | I agree - It isn't specific to YC IPOs - it applies to all
             | IPOs. I think the point is that YC perhaps is a good early
             | stage VC in maximizing the IPO price for the benefit of LPs
             | and founders and unloading at the right time onto the
             | market.
             | 
             | Perhaps its less clear given the current state of things
             | whether their companies are good for long term earnings
             | performance for long term ownership by retail investors.
        
               | dntrkv wrote:
               | It's not just IPOs, the whole market is experiencing a
               | correction. We're way overdue for one anyway.
        
               | somethoughts wrote:
               | Its relative - high PE, high growth multiple stocks (such
               | as YC IPOs) have generally been reverting to mean. Most
               | stocks that were already at the mean w.r.t. PE are still
               | sticking to the mean with flat earnings.
               | 
               | What needed correcting is getting corrected. What was
               | correct is staying correct.
               | 
               | The rise in interest rates means that companies that have
               | been producing their own cash can fund growth initiatives
               | internally. Companies who were funding growth initiatives
               | using outside capital (debt, VC investment) are now going
               | to be paying 10%+ to do so.
        
           | pc86 wrote:
           | I search for it but can't find it, but I do recall reading an
           | article that if you put the same amount of money into every
           | tech stock at IPO, you actually beat the market by a hefty
           | bit. It was probably a year ago so who knows if that's held
           | as I think tech has been particularly hard hit by the latest
           | correction, but who knows.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | gsibble wrote:
           | Indeed. The market cap of YC backed companies has tanked in
           | the last few months, even days.
        
         | adamsmith143 wrote:
         | This is pretty much the case for the entire market so I'm not
         | sure it says anything in particular about YC companies.
        
       | rkk3 wrote:
       | > YC recently published an updated Top Companies list including
       | 271 companies with a combined official valuation of over $600B
       | (we now estimate it closer to ~$900B). Much can change in a year!
       | 
       | 900B! Is this time travel or cognitive dissonance?
       | 
       | #3-5 on the list are being valued significantly above 50B and
       | closer to 100B Meanwhile...
       | 
       | #3, Instacart now 24B (private valuation)
       | 
       | #4, Doordash now 20B
       | 
       | #5, Coinbase now 12B
        
       | dmitriid wrote:
       | How come most "successful" Y Combinator startups lose hundreds of
       | millions of dollars per year, every year.
       | 
       | Well, they suffer no consequences, and get more money to lose, so
       | that's success, I guess.
        
         | kevingadd wrote:
         | Sometimes losing tons of money is an intentional decision, so
         | if the board/investors are OK with it, it's not a failure.
         | Certainly not the best way to run a company though...
        
         | droopyEyelids wrote:
         | A "dumping" period where your business gains marketshare and
         | undercuts competitors to drive them under is an essential part
         | of establishing monopoly power.
        
           | cannaceo wrote:
           | Dumping doesn't work unless there is customer lock-in. Many
           | companies believe they have moats and find their moats have
           | evaporated 2 years later.
        
           | pc86 wrote:
           | Also strangely enough it's illegal if you're already a
           | successful company and try to do it in a new vertical, but
           | completely fine if you're a couple unknowns with a few
           | hundred million of venture capital.
        
             | 21723 wrote:
             | Ninety-nine percent of private equity profits come from
             | taking strategies that are illegal with regulated, public
             | companies and applying them to unregulated assets. And
             | venture capital is a subset of private equity. Almost every
             | conversation VCs have amongst themselves would be
             | considered market manipulation if it pertained to an
             | exchange-traded company, and of course the fact that it's
             | all insider trading goes without saying. So no one should
             | be surprised.
        
       | hmate9 wrote:
       | My main takeaway from this was how much B2B SaaS companies
       | dominate their unicorn distribution.
        
       | 21723 wrote:
       | It's astonishing how much money can be made while providing
       | absolutely nothing of value to society.
        
         | georgehill wrote:
         | > ...absolutely nothing of value to society.
         | 
         | Are you serious? I am interested to hear your perspective.
        
           | 21723 wrote:
           | Most venture-funded startups solve silly non-problems or in
           | fact cause serious harm to society, but make billions of
           | dollars in doing it.
           | 
           | Meanwhile, we haven't been to the moon since the '70s, life
           | expectancy in the US is declining, and a substantial
           | percentage of our energy comes from coal. Oh, but if you want
           | to bet your life savings on (entries in a distributed ledger
           | that say you own) digital pictures of dog penises, I imagine
           | there's a way to do it.
           | 
           | Technology didn't fix the evil of neoliberalism. It didn't
           | clean anything up. It accelerated the corrosion.
        
             | sillysaurusx wrote:
             | How many of your arguments would apply to a casino?
             | 
             | Do you feel that the world shouldn't be allowed to have
             | casinos?
        
       | jamesmcintyre wrote:
       | I wonder if it'd be an overall boon for Rebel Fund to open up
       | their data sets?
       | 
       | Pros:
       | 
       | - The HN/YC community would almost certainly contribute new
       | models with new types of signal.
       | 
       | - It's been proven many times that we mere mortals often
       | unknowingly either bake-in our own biases into models or act on
       | model output unaware that the models arrived at what could be
       | undesirable, unintentional bias. Having more eyes on the data &
       | methodology could not only prevent unintended biases but reveal
       | signals that turn out to be much more insightful.
       | 
       | - If these signals point to real, underlying fundamentals (which
       | they likely do) perhaps YC startups could benefit by learning
       | from them or using them as guideposts.
       | 
       | Cons:
       | 
       | - Obviously Rebel Fund may risk giving away their competitive
       | advantage.
       | 
       | - YC startups and applicants may over-optimize for these signals,
       | distracting them from their unique challenges and overall end-
       | user value generation.
       | 
       | On one hand it seems obvious for Rebel Fund to protect their IP-
       | on the other hand what if more value could be generated for YC,
       | YC startups and Rebel Fund by finding a way to introduce a
       | cooperative positive feedback loop? Any loss of their slice could
       | be outweighed by growing the pie. This is likely an
       | oversimplification and naive to the many factors being weighed
       | but it's an interesting space for thought!
       | 
       | (edited for formatting)
        
       | gsibble wrote:
       | Personally, I want to know how much Y Combinator companies have
       | lost in Market Cap in the latest route. Many are trading below
       | their IPO prices and have lost a huge amount of value.
        
         | mensetmanusman wrote:
         | At a long enough time scale everything is below value because
         | our star collapses.
        
           | eloff wrote:
           | The oldest company in the world is only 1443 years old (Kongo
           | Gumi of Japan.) Most companies don't last a single human
           | lifetime. It's completely besides the point to bring up
           | things that play out over billions of years in that context.
           | It's just trolling.
        
             | mensetmanusman wrote:
             | https://worksthatwork.com/3/kongo-gumi
             | 
             | Interesting that it started by building Buddhist Temples
             | and has been building and maintaining them for that long.
             | Cool!
        
             | jjtheblunt wrote:
             | Pseudo-blasphemously, I immediately thought "Is the
             | Catholic church older, and in some sense a company, selling
             | salvation?".
        
               | eloff wrote:
               | Haha, yeah that raises some interesting questions about
               | what a company is. I feel like you could look at it
               | through that lens.
        
           | gmmeyer wrote:
           | Hate to be pedantic but our star won't collapse it's not
           | large enough for that, it will simply puff out and die
           | leaving behind a very hot core called a White Dwarf
        
             | mensetmanusman wrote:
             | Won't the white dwarf be a smaller diameter than the sun?
             | 
             | That's what I meant by collapse, but maybe in astronomy
             | collapse means supernova?
        
             | gcheong wrote:
             | Well, talk about anti-climatic!
        
             | ProAm wrote:
             | You're underestimating humanity's future potential to add
             | more gas to our star!
        
               | c0brac0bra wrote:
               | Not at these prices.
        
           | whatshisface wrote:
           | There are a lot of good responses, but another is that these
           | companies are all expected to pay dividends, do buybacks or
           | liquidate some time between now and the end of the universe.
           | Every stock contains that promise, or a chance of it,
           | supplying the ultimate justification for a nonzero price.
        
           | lordnacho wrote:
           | There are other stars
        
           | garbagetime wrote:
           | Prove it
        
         | jrlocke wrote:
         | You're looking for rout, not route :)
        
           | skeeter2020 wrote:
           | Though a bad one can lead to the other!
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | ShivShankaran wrote:
       | > data-driven approach to our investments
       | 
       | This is as absurd as saying "data-driven approach for finding out
       | successful humans".
       | 
       | I am kind of aggravated to see drivel like this from VC's. This
       | is similar to algorithm trading on stock market and not funding
       | deserving startups. This 'data-drive' garbage is how you end up
       | with more grocery delivery, food delivery and pet walking
       | startups.
        
         | exolymph wrote:
         | > data-driven approach for finding out successful humans
         | 
         | not absurd at all, simply do IQ tests
        
         | sam0x17 wrote:
         | Don't forget about hover-board-renting!!
         | 
         | But yes, these days I think "data-driven" is really just a
         | convoluted way of saying "we approximate the informed decisions
         | of others without specifically understanding what we're doing".
         | This is ML in a nut-shell after all. Is it possible to use ML
         | and data science to find insights and draw conclusions that you
         | then base your activities off of? Sure, but most are just
         | looking for a magic black box that makes decisions for them
         | specifically because they don't want to go to the trouble of
         | understanding X. Once you abstract things away to that extent,
         | you're inevitably training your algorithms to do what others do
         | in an informed way, because where else would the training data
         | come from?
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | ksajadi wrote:
         | Absolutely! Looking at the success in hindsight is not data
         | driven. Just because the most of the past YC unicorns have been
         | in industry X, doesn't mean the next ones are going to be like
         | that. This is even more pronounced when it comes to the year of
         | the batch, which is already past. Unless he wants to suggest
         | companies in batches of the years with even numbers achieve
         | higher valuations.
        
       | jomjomv wrote:
       | Those pie charts should either a) be sorted by size---not by name
       | :eyeroll: or b) be tables.
        
         | boringg wrote:
         | For real those are visualization fails.
        
         | yawnxyz wrote:
         | maybe Lagos, Nigeria DOES have the most unicorns...!
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-05-11 23:01 UTC)