There is a common discouraging sentiment, at least online, among Venture Capitalists that the financial returns of Venture Capital’s glory days are no longer available. The rise in seed funding, pre-seed funding, and capital overall have made the venture scene more competitive, driving down returns. A report on the past 20 years of the Kauffman Foundation’s investments showed that the majority of funds generated returns equal or below that of the public market, after the payment of fees and carry. This was echoed by Bill Hambrecht, who commented that “when you get an above-average return in any class of assets, money floods in until it drives returns down to a normal.” This trend pushed the Kauffman Foundation to reassess their involvement in many funds.
These concerns seem misguided, especially coming from investors. Economically speaking, this is exactly what should happen in an efficient market. Pretty much everyone would agree that we should strive for efficient markets. Neoliberalism is even built around the concept that a market inefficiency is the only instance where the government should take action to influence the economy. It is thus incredibly frustrating to see some investors use the invisible hand’s influence on returns to suggest that VC is no more worthwhile an investment platform than the public markets.
What is truly exciting about VC in relation to other forms of investment is not captured by looking at the returns of billion-dollar funds. VC bridges the gap between risky impactful new ideas and the investment that helps them scale and reach their full potential. By making decisions based on potential value that could be created, VCs further innovation and economic growth by design; if you agree with Tyler Cohen, this is the key to improving quality-of-life across demographics and incomes. Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu even argues that the innovation furthered through venture investment in startups played an essential role in the United States’s continued dominance as a world power–while players like Japan and Germany have stagnated. These benefits are why the government funded scientific research in the first place. However, as the government has slowly stepped away from emerging technologies and space exploration, Venture Capital has doubled down.
The positive externalities of VC investment are impossible to fully capture. While unicorn valuations provide a reference point, the growth enabled by the development of new platforms and technologies has touched nearly every market and most of the world’s population. The wide adaptation of Google’s services, for example, has arguably had a far broader impact on people’s lives than any law passed by the federal government in the last fifty years. The growing political power of innovative companies has also forced policymakers to speed up the legislative process and adapt to the changing economic landscape. Companies like Uber, Tesla, and DraftKings have all become regulatory entrepreneurs. Each company was able to leverage consumer demand to build policy, at the city and state level, around the needs of their product/service.
In a market where VC returns are equal to or less than those on the public market, the inherent impact of investing in innovation warrants VC investment to persist. However, investors in this market should be those who derive personal gratification from helping create these positive externalities. As returns decline to a normal, only those striving to fund impactful ideas and responsibly further their vision of the future should remain.
In a fantastically circular manner, the VCs who invest in transformative ideas are the ones keeping the dream of 5x returns alive. Directing capital to transformative technologies is a pillar of Founders Fund’s “Manifesto.” It is no coincidence that this firm has significantly outperformed the rest of the market–returning $4.60 on every dollar from its 2011 fund while the returns of other funds from this vintage averaged at $2.11. There are plenty of counterexamples where a VC’s brand for innovation is more of a buzzword than a strategy. Additionally, a portion of top-tier funds’ success can be credited to their reputation and access to better deals. However, an honest application of mission focused investment bolsters the success of longstanding firms as well as newcomers.
Sourcing and investing in impactful ideas reinforces itself as an effective strategy to build a prestigious brand and yield high returns. Impactful startups are able to recruit the best talent. Once these intelligent recruits are at the company, they also are more productive. Purposeful startups naturally cultivate a culture where their talent can take ownership of their ideas. This is a notable key to productivity. The combination of these factors is certainly no guarantee for a startup’s success. However, with the assistance of hindsight bias, the most successful and interesting VC-backed startups have had a massive impact through innovation led by bet worthy talent. A few successful investments earn VCs an impressive reputation that grants them access to more LPs and better deals in the future.
Venture Capital’s true purpose is to connect innovative ideas with the investment that helps them scale and fulfill their potential. Venture Capitalists who do this well have perfected the art of leveraging their professional network of founders, experts, and other investors to find impactful ideas and get the right talent involved. This networking component creates a major obstacle for anyone without Ivy League pedigree or longstanding ties to the tech world. However, it is also an opportunity for that same group of outliers who are excited about Venture Capital because of the industry’s mission for responsible innovation.
From my conversations with friends and clients in the technology and entrepreneurship space, I’ve learned how difficult it is to even secure a meeting with a VC to pitch a company. While most ideas won’t be the next unicorn, there certainly are a few that are missed. Small VC firms are not the only ones missing out. Before he departed from the venture firm, Sam Altman’s main critique of Y Combinator was that they couldn’t meet with enough founders. When deciding who to fund every cycle, the partners are only able to meet with around 2,000 of the 25,000 startups that apply.
There are clearly many ideas still on the table. The low cost of capital, which some VCs have disparaged, shows that there’s still money on the table. Venture Capital needs new players to find these ideas. These new players should be focused on impactful and innovative ideas to create the positive externalities and high returns Venture Capital is known for. These new players shouldn’t be coming from the same Ivy League background that has permeated the industry.
By looping in these mission-focused curious connectors, the Venture Capital industry will become a more rewarding and fulfilling space in the finance world. Allowing these new players to reshape the culture of VC will accelerate change and economic development while generating historic returns. This is the role I want to take on. This is why I’ve decided to start sharing my thoughts on venture capital, emerging markets, and regulatory entrepreneurship. This is why Venture Capital deserves a 15/10.
Comments