Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Let's go to the original post [1]. Fred says "To my mind, maximizing runway is not the game startups should be playing. Getting somewhere fast is the game they should be playing." This is consistent with the VC playbook. They invest in high growth companies and want to fund expansion, not an extension of "As is".

Let's look at a few issues with the OP's analysis:

1) As others mentioned, there is a survivor bias.

2) Runway should be measured in months, not in millions. Size of funding to log size of exit is the wrong metric. Months of runway to IRR of exit is the better comparison.

3) I forgot what #3 was.

Even when the counter-argument isn't great, I still like the discussion.

[1] http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/09/maximizing-runway-can-minimi...




Thanks for the comment.

1) We include asset sales/talent acquisitions but yes, private company data is imperfect. That said, we have the best in the biz (highly biased)

2) Runway in months and millions is semantics. If you have more millions in the bank, you have a longer runway in months almost by definition. IRR of exit - not sure I follow how that is better (and more importantly, an impossible metric to get at scale for private companies)

3) Agree :)


Thanks for the reply. On #2 - isn't runway money/burnrate? I always viewed it as measured in months. "We have 12 months of runway" versus "we have 24 months". I mention this because the original Wilson post was encouraging people not to stay too lean purely to increase the runway, implying the runway could be variable for a given amount of money.

IRR data is semi public, no? Isn't it possible to see how much a company gave up in the A round by comparing valuation to money raised? Then back out the IRRvat the IPO?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: