You're missing Cambium capital partners Fund I - 4M tiny fund, wrote early checks into 4 companies : IonQ, Groq, SeeQC and Vorticity (the only non-unicorn)
The broader problem is that acquisitions aren't necessarily deals done at intrinsic value (you have to factor synergies, etc), and it's not clear how much sustaining value the acquired companies provide. It's very easy for hot market conditions to skew M&A pricing, whereas long-term public market performance will smooth that.
That said, I'm working on an update with M&A data for the future, with a slightly different focus.
Hi Dan! An interesting read. I think an interesting area to look at in the future would be Solo GPs who have created big outcomes. I think this also shows us very lean venture firms, especially with AI being capable of deal sourcing, market research and diligence I the next set of venture firms will be lean, solo-GP driven. It'll be interesting to compare that vs firms with higher headcount in the context of the sizes of their outcomes.
This would be interesting, for sure - though there are challenges with getting the data on their performance as they're typically making smaller investments which may not be tracked easily via SEC filings etc.
That said, as we build this out my hope is to create a collaborative, verifiable, open source database of VC transactions so the ranking can get more accurate and more granular over time.
Hey, yeah, absolutely, most of them do not put that many details on their websites because of how lean they are. I write on LegalTech, AI-Native Services, and Venture Capital. I'd love to know your thoughts on my blog.
bit surprised not to see Long Journey in the top 50
If this was a ranking of investors I’m sure Cyan and Scott would have been on there!
You're missing Cambium capital partners Fund I - 4M tiny fund, wrote early checks into 4 companies : IonQ, Groq, SeeQC and Vorticity (the only non-unicorn)
This methodology looks at companies which have gone public, which only includes IonQ in that list (and it hasn't done spectacularly since).
Sounds like an excellent fund, it just doesn't quite fit with the methodology here which isn't particularly friendly to emerging managers.
You don't count M&As with publics like Groq and SeeQC ?
I mean, I get the methodology, just that I'd consider NVDA stock, for instance, to be as good as going public ?
Certainly that's a compelling example!
The broader problem is that acquisitions aren't necessarily deals done at intrinsic value (you have to factor synergies, etc), and it's not clear how much sustaining value the acquired companies provide. It's very easy for hot market conditions to skew M&A pricing, whereas long-term public market performance will smooth that.
That said, I'm working on an update with M&A data for the future, with a slightly different focus.
Hi Dan! An interesting read. I think an interesting area to look at in the future would be Solo GPs who have created big outcomes. I think this also shows us very lean venture firms, especially with AI being capable of deal sourcing, market research and diligence I the next set of venture firms will be lean, solo-GP driven. It'll be interesting to compare that vs firms with higher headcount in the context of the sizes of their outcomes.
This would be interesting, for sure - though there are challenges with getting the data on their performance as they're typically making smaller investments which may not be tracked easily via SEC filings etc.
That said, as we build this out my hope is to create a collaborative, verifiable, open source database of VC transactions so the ranking can get more accurate and more granular over time.
Hey, yeah, absolutely, most of them do not put that many details on their websites because of how lean they are. I write on LegalTech, AI-Native Services, and Venture Capital. I'd love to know your thoughts on my blog.