Power Law in Venture Capital When Vilfredo Pareto conceived “the Power Law” concept in the late 19th century, little did he realise that over the years it will become the fundamental principle in venture capital industry, shaping the way investments are made and portfolios are constructed. Mr. Pareto noticed that 20% of the pea pods in his garden produced 80% of the peas. He extended this observation to wealth distribution in society, noting that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. This 80-20 rule, later termed the Pareto Principle, laid the foundation for the Power Law. For a VC, the Power Law means that only a few of its portfolio companies (say 20%) will generate vast majority of returns and most of the portfolio companies will fail. The Power Law continues to be a driving force for the VCs worldwide in their search for the one investment that will validate and overshadow all others. For example, in a VC portfolio of says 25 companies with total investment of ₹100 Crore, if the targeted return is say 3X, which means that the Fund has to generate ₹300 Crore, a bulk of that ₹300 Crore would come from 5-6 companies (20% of 25 portfolio companies), 8-10 companies will fetch only a decent return and rest all companies will fail. I was looking at a report of PitchBook which evaluated the DPI performance of 1500 VC Funds globally (vintages 1976-2014) (see the picture attached) and it reports: 💰 For $0- $100Mn funds, 12% of their portfolio gave >3X return, 10% of the portfolio gave 2X-3X return and 47% of the portfolio gave <1X return 💰 For $101Mn- $250Mn funds, 12% of their portfolio gave >3X return and 12% gave 2X-3X return. 💰 For $251Mn- $500Mn funds, only 6% of the portfolio gave >3X return and 12% gave 2X-3X return. 💰 However, for funds >$500Mn, only 2% of the portfolio gave >3X return and 14% gave 2X-3X return. For those VCs who did not have a Power Law success in their portfolio might have a flawed strategy or it's a sheer misfortune. 💡 However, Power Law assumes that the Fund has almost equal distribution of fund corpus among portfolio companies, otherwise it becomes inadequate and unequal distribution which does not fetch these returns! That is why it is important for the VCs to meticulously craft their portfolio strategies, all in pursuit of that one startup that embodies the Power Law! Will write about how a VC should structure its ideal portfolio next time 😎 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ♻️ If you found this post helpful, please repost it so your network can also learn from it. #venturecapital #investing #powerlaw #funds #investment #VC #startup #portfolio
Dhiraj Kumar Sinha’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Power law in practice!
⚔️ Nothing governs Venture Capital returns more than the Power Law… 📊 Here are some stats which emphasise this point: —— 📈 Horsley Bridge have invested in just 5% of the world’s venture firms yet have exposure to 80% of global unicorns ($bn + outcomes)! 💡 Their data (1985-2014) analyzing 7000+ underlying companies showed that 90% of fund returns came from 20% of “home run” investments! —— 💰 Morgan Creek has backed 25 funds with 500 underlying companies. 🤯Just 2 positions out of 500 account for 25% of the fair market value of the portfolio. —— 📈 Mucker Capital fund I was a $12mn fund with 50+ investments. 🍯But their single investment in coupon finder Honey (which sold to Paypal for $4bn) returned them $280mn. —— 🚀 Summit Peak has backed 11 early stage fund managers with 592 underlying companies. ➜ The Top 5 companies (0.8%) represent 50% of the fair market value! ➜ The Top 25 companies (4%) represent 77% of the fair market value! —— 📊 Between 1986-2018, Vencap backed 259 funds w/ 11,350 underlying companies. 🏆These were funds raised by some of the best firms in the industry. 🔍 Including realised & unrealised investments: ▶ Just 614 companies (5%) returned 10x capital invested ▶ Just 121 companies (1%) were “Fund Returners” (ie. Returned the total fund size) —— 📊 Verdis investment management backed a $27mn fund w/ 120 portfolio companies where a $75k cheque into 1 company returned $30mn (a 400x)! —— 📈 Single positions can yield extraordinary results as they compound over time… 💰 Sequoia Capital invested: ▶ $11mn (1999) into Google. If they still hold, it would be marked at ~ $120 BILLION - A 11,000 x return ▶ $4mn (1993) into NVIDIA. If they still hold, it would be marked at ~ $120 BILLION - A 30,000 x return (some estimate ~ 120,000x excl. dilution) —— 🔍 BUT, the power law is not limited to VC… 📊 Bessembinder’s research showed that for 28,000 US public stocks from 1928-2022: 📈The top 2% generated 90% of the shareholder value created ($55 TRILLION)! —— 🚀 If you’re a family office or angel embarking on your VC journey 📊 It’s important to embrace risk & diversify - esp. at the early stage. ➜ The Top VC funds paradoxically have higher loss ratios than mediocre funds…. ….BUT they inevitably have 1 or 2 massive outliers which more than make up for this! ✅ These mammoth outcomes not only drive absolute returns.. …but also increase the probability of a future “hit” due to persistence in performance. 🍀Previously backed entrepreneurs act as valuable references for VCs & reputation compounds! 🙏🏽Respecting the power law is the MOST important first step when investing! —— Would love to hear your thoughts in comments 👇 Sources: 10X Capital (David Weisburd) & Aleph’s ( Michael Eisenberg) podcasts. 📣 PS- If you enjoyed this, ♻️ consider sharing it with others & 👉🏽follow me Akhil Paul for more! Cc. Apurva, Jamie, David, Kathryn, Frank #startups #venturecapital #investing
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Fundamental to understanding venture capital….
⚔️ Nothing governs Venture Capital returns more than the Power Law… 📊 Here are some stats which emphasise this point: —— 📈 Horsley Bridge have invested in just 5% of the world’s venture firms yet have exposure to 80% of global unicorns ($bn + outcomes)! 💡 Their data (1985-2014) analyzing 7000+ underlying companies showed that 90% of fund returns came from 20% of “home run” investments! —— 💰 Morgan Creek has backed 25 funds with 500 underlying companies. 🤯Just 2 positions out of 500 account for 25% of the fair market value of the portfolio. —— 📈 Mucker Capital fund I was a $12mn fund with 50+ investments. 🍯But their single investment in coupon finder Honey (which sold to Paypal for $4bn) returned them $280mn. —— 🚀 Summit Peak has backed 11 early stage fund managers with 592 underlying companies. ➜ The Top 5 companies (0.8%) represent 50% of the fair market value! ➜ The Top 25 companies (4%) represent 77% of the fair market value! —— 📊 Between 1986-2018, Vencap backed 259 funds w/ 11,350 underlying companies. 🏆These were funds raised by some of the best firms in the industry. 🔍 Including realised & unrealised investments: ▶ Just 614 companies (5%) returned 10x capital invested ▶ Just 121 companies (1%) were “Fund Returners” (ie. Returned the total fund size) —— 📊 Verdis investment management backed a $27mn fund w/ 120 portfolio companies where a $75k cheque into 1 company returned $30mn (a 400x)! —— 📈 Single positions can yield extraordinary results as they compound over time… 💰 Sequoia Capital invested: ▶ $11mn (1999) into Google. If they still hold, it would be marked at ~ $120 BILLION - A 11,000 x return ▶ $4mn (1993) into NVIDIA. If they still hold, it would be marked at ~ $120 BILLION - A 30,000 x return (some estimate ~ 120,000x excl. dilution) —— 🔍 BUT, the power law is not limited to VC… 📊 Bessembinder’s research showed that for 28,000 US public stocks from 1928-2022: 📈The top 2% generated 90% of the shareholder value created ($55 TRILLION)! —— 🚀 If you’re a family office or angel embarking on your VC journey 📊 It’s important to embrace risk & diversify - esp. at the early stage. ➜ The Top VC funds paradoxically have higher loss ratios than mediocre funds…. ….BUT they inevitably have 1 or 2 massive outliers which more than make up for this! ✅ These mammoth outcomes not only drive absolute returns.. …but also increase the probability of a future “hit” due to persistence in performance. 🍀Previously backed entrepreneurs act as valuable references for VCs & reputation compounds! 🙏🏽Respecting the power law is the MOST important first step when investing! —— Would love to hear your thoughts in comments 👇 Sources: 10X Capital (David Weisburd) & Aleph’s ( Michael Eisenberg) podcasts. 📣 PS- If you enjoyed this, ♻️ consider sharing it with others & 👉🏽follow me Akhil Paul for more! Cc. Apurva, Jamie, David, Kathryn, Frank #startups #venturecapital #investing
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
We just had a conversation about why we look at so many companies in the initial meetings of our Angel accelerator education program. It is about deal screening and the ability to analyze what makes a good investable company. This is early power law. Then we talk about how just one Angel investment is not usually enough. You need to have multiple bids out there to get the successful ones. Here is an example of this in the VC space.
⚔️ Nothing governs Venture Capital returns more than the Power Law… 📊 Here are some stats which emphasise this point: —— 📈 Horsley Bridge have invested in just 5% of the world’s venture firms yet have exposure to 80% of global unicorns ($bn + outcomes)! 💡 Their data (1985-2014) analyzing 7000+ underlying companies showed that 90% of fund returns came from 20% of “home run” investments! —— 💰 Morgan Creek has backed 25 funds with 500 underlying companies. 🤯Just 2 positions out of 500 account for 25% of the fair market value of the portfolio. —— 📈 Mucker Capital fund I was a $12mn fund with 50+ investments. 🍯But their single investment in coupon finder Honey (which sold to Paypal for $4bn) returned them $280mn. —— 🚀 Summit Peak has backed 11 early stage fund managers with 592 underlying companies. ➜ The Top 5 companies (0.8%) represent 50% of the fair market value! ➜ The Top 25 companies (4%) represent 77% of the fair market value! —— 📊 Between 1986-2018, Vencap backed 259 funds w/ 11,350 underlying companies. 🏆These were funds raised by some of the best firms in the industry. 🔍 Including realised & unrealised investments: ▶ Just 614 companies (5%) returned 10x capital invested ▶ Just 121 companies (1%) were “Fund Returners” (ie. Returned the total fund size) —— 📊 Verdis investment management backed a $27mn fund w/ 120 portfolio companies where a $75k cheque into 1 company returned $30mn (a 400x)! —— 📈 Single positions can yield extraordinary results as they compound over time… 💰 Sequoia Capital invested: ▶ $11mn (1999) into Google. If they still hold, it would be marked at ~ $120 BILLION - A 11,000 x return ▶ $4mn (1993) into NVIDIA. If they still hold, it would be marked at ~ $120 BILLION - A 30,000 x return (some estimate ~ 120,000x excl. dilution) —— 🔍 BUT, the power law is not limited to VC… 📊 Bessembinder’s research showed that for 28,000 US public stocks from 1928-2022: 📈The top 2% generated 90% of the shareholder value created ($55 TRILLION)! —— 🚀 If you’re a family office or angel embarking on your VC journey 📊 It’s important to embrace risk & diversify - esp. at the early stage. ➜ The Top VC funds paradoxically have higher loss ratios than mediocre funds…. ….BUT they inevitably have 1 or 2 massive outliers which more than make up for this! ✅ These mammoth outcomes not only drive absolute returns.. …but also increase the probability of a future “hit” due to persistence in performance. 🍀Previously backed entrepreneurs act as valuable references for VCs & reputation compounds! 🙏🏽Respecting the power law is the MOST important first step when investing! —— Would love to hear your thoughts in comments 👇 Sources: 10X Capital (David Weisburd) & Aleph’s ( Michael Eisenberg) podcasts. 📣 PS- If you enjoyed this, ♻️ consider sharing it with others & 👉🏽follow me Akhil Paul for more! Cc. Apurva, Jamie, David, Kathryn, Frank #startups #venturecapital #investing
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Akhil Paul Thanks for the post. Regarding power law in public markets, there’s a difference I want to highlight. Even if you missed investing in those companies with supernormal returns, you will not lose money. Very likely, you will still get some returns. The companies have reached a stage that they are listed and the risk is low. But in VC or angel investing, your portfolio may even be zero if you missed investing in potential unicorns. It’s far more brutal in the private space.
⚔️ Nothing governs Venture Capital returns more than the Power Law… 📊 Here are some stats which emphasise this point: —— 📈 Horsley Bridge have invested in just 5% of the world’s venture firms yet have exposure to 80% of global unicorns ($bn + outcomes)! 💡 Their data (1985-2014) analyzing 7000+ underlying companies showed that 90% of fund returns came from 20% of “home run” investments! —— 💰 Morgan Creek has backed 25 funds with 500 underlying companies. 🤯Just 2 positions out of 500 account for 25% of the fair market value of the portfolio. —— 📈 Mucker Capital fund I was a $12mn fund with 50+ investments. 🍯But their single investment in coupon finder Honey (which sold to Paypal for $4bn) returned them $280mn. —— 🚀 Summit Peak has backed 11 early stage fund managers with 592 underlying companies. ➜ The Top 5 companies (0.8%) represent 50% of the fair market value! ➜ The Top 25 companies (4%) represent 77% of the fair market value! —— 📊 Between 1986-2018, Vencap backed 259 funds w/ 11,350 underlying companies. 🏆These were funds raised by some of the best firms in the industry. 🔍 Including realised & unrealised investments: ▶ Just 614 companies (5%) returned 10x capital invested ▶ Just 121 companies (1%) were “Fund Returners” (ie. Returned the total fund size) —— 📊 Verdis investment management backed a $27mn fund w/ 120 portfolio companies where a $75k cheque into 1 company returned $30mn (a 400x)! —— 📈 Single positions can yield extraordinary results as they compound over time… 💰 Sequoia Capital invested: ▶ $11mn (1999) into Google. If they still hold, it would be marked at ~ $120 BILLION - A 11,000 x return ▶ $4mn (1993) into NVIDIA. If they still hold, it would be marked at ~ $120 BILLION - A 30,000 x return (some estimate ~ 120,000x excl. dilution) —— 🔍 BUT, the power law is not limited to VC… 📊 Bessembinder’s research showed that for 28,000 US public stocks from 1928-2022: 📈The top 2% generated 90% of the shareholder value created ($55 TRILLION)! —— 🚀 If you’re a family office or angel embarking on your VC journey 📊 It’s important to embrace risk & diversify - esp. at the early stage. ➜ The Top VC funds paradoxically have higher loss ratios than mediocre funds…. ….BUT they inevitably have 1 or 2 massive outliers which more than make up for this! ✅ These mammoth outcomes not only drive absolute returns.. …but also increase the probability of a future “hit” due to persistence in performance. 🍀Previously backed entrepreneurs act as valuable references for VCs & reputation compounds! 🙏🏽Respecting the power law is the MOST important first step when investing! —— Would love to hear your thoughts in comments 👇 Sources: 10X Capital (David Weisburd) & Aleph’s ( Michael Eisenberg) podcasts. 📣 PS- If you enjoyed this, ♻️ consider sharing it with others & 👉🏽follow me Akhil Paul for more! Cc. Apurva, Jamie, David, Kathryn, Frank #startups #venturecapital #investing
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Understanding Power Laws in VC: A Double-Edged Sword In venture capital, the power law theory—the idea that a small number of investments generate the vast majority of returns—drives much of the strategy from a General Partner (GP) perspective. It’s why so many funds double down on high-risk, high-reward investments, chasing those outliers that can make or break a portfolio. From a GP’s seat, this strategy makes sense: you’re betting that one or two companies will achieve explosive growth, justifying the entire portfolio between vintages. But for Limited Partners (LPs), this approach presents challenges unless they’re invested and diversified in multiple vintages across various funds under one manager. If you’re only in a few of their funds and miss the “unicorn” vintages, your returns are likely to underperform relative to the broader VC market. And as an employee of a fund, you better be able to hang on for every vintage. If you’re sidelined or decide to leave, there goes the theory—and all the deferred compensation tied to it! Bye-bye phantom equity. The reality is that LPs, especially those investing in just one or two funds, often take on considerable risk with no guarantee of exposure to the outliers that power the returns. Unlike GPs who build a diversified portfolio of startups within a single fund, LPs often don’t have that same diversity unless they consistently commit across multiple fund cycles. In a world driven by power law dynamics, it’s crucial for LPs to consider a strategy that mitigates the variability inherent in individual fund outcomes. For those who can’t invest in every vintage, there’s a case for a more balanced approach that offers diversification across sectors and geographies—a hedge against the cyclical nature of VC returns. Would love to hear others’ thoughts on how LPs and fund employees can best navigate the ups and downs of the VC landscape in a power law-driven world.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
"The 'venture capitalist' who was forced to sell." 📉 (A cautionary tale, taken from the book on investment funds and syndications I'm currently writing.) ----- Investment managers (GPs) to venture capital funds enjoy a special exemption from registering as a Registered Investment Adviser under the Investment Advisers Act. However, fund managers can only use this exemption if all of their managed funds and syndications are venture capital funds (as defined in the Investment Advisers Act). A client once came to us ready to raise their first multi-asset venture capital fund, and they wanted to use the venture capital exemption to the Investment Advisers Act. However, they had previously syndicated a large number of startup investments, and some of these syndications were to purchase “secondary” shares (bought from another investor instead of acquired directly from the company). Unfortunately, under the Investment Advisers Act, a manager cannot use the venture capital exemption if they have any funds or syndications that are not venture capital funds. Under the law, a syndication to purchase secondary shares is not a venture capital fund. As a result, the GP had blown their venture capital exemption. To fix the problem, they were forced to sell or otherwise transfer all of their secondary syndications to other GPs so they could properly rely on the venture capital exemption. Not what they had in mind when they formed those secondary syndications!
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The Power Law of Venture Fund Returns — If you ain’t first, you’re last https://buff.ly/4dYAAeY The concept of the Power Law in venture capital returns emphasizes that in this industry, securing the top spot is crucial for success. This principle suggests that the majority of a venture fund's returns are driven by a few standout investments, often making the difference between success and failure. For instance, data shows that in many venture portfolios, a small percentage of companies, often less than 20%, account for over 80% of the returns. This underscores the importance of identifying and backing the right startups. To learn more about this topic, check out the full article here: https://buff.ly/4dYAAeY. #VentureCapital #InvestmentStrategy
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Why a venture capitalist (VC) often aims to lower the valuation of a company before investing in it. 1. Maximizing Ownership: By negotiating a lower valuation, VCs can obtain a larger equity stake in the company for the same amount of investment, giving them more influence and potential returns. 2. Risk Mitigation: Investing at a lower valuation reduces the financial risk for the VC. It provides a cushion in case the company's performance does not meet expectations. 3. Future Rounds: A lower initial valuation can make it easier to attract additional investors in future funding rounds, as it increases the likelihood of achieving higher valuations later, showing growth and increasing the value of the VC’s stake. 4. Return on Investment (ROI): Lower valuations increase the potential ROI. If the company grows significantly, the value of the VC's investment can multiply more substantially. 5. Downside Protection: Lower valuations provide some protection against potential losses if the company's value decreases or if the market conditions worsen. 6. Leverage in Negotiations: A lower valuation often gives the VC more leverage to negotiate favorable terms, such as board seats, veto rights, or other control mechanisms. 7. Attractiveness to Other Investors: A lower entry point can make the investment more attractive to other potential investors, as it indicates the company has room for growth and can yield substantial returns. However, it's important to note that while VCs aim for a lower valuation, they must also balance this with the need to keep the founders and existing stakeholders motivated and sufficiently rewarded. A valuation that's too low can discourage the founding team and key employees, potentially harming the company's future performance and growth. A valuation should aligns both parties' interests, ensuring the company has the resources and incentives to grow while providing the VC with a favorable investment opportunity. One mechanism for reducing valuation is identifying IP risks and holes in an IP strategy. IP experts at Foley & Lardner LLP can help to mitigate these risks and fix problems with the target company's IP.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
📈 VC Power Law In venture capital, the power law is a guiding principle and foundation for investment decisions. This concept originated from the work of Vilfredo Pareto in the 19th century when he noticed that 20% of the pea pods in his garden produced 80% of the peas. Meaning, a few early investments in startups can yield returns that far surpass the combined performance of the rest of a portfolio. 🔍 What Founders Should Pay Attention To When Raising From VCs? For micro-funds (<$250M), it only takes one transformative investment to deliver extraordinary returns. These VCs are willing to back founders with exit strategies between $50M-$250M and offer support—even if your startup isn't chasing a billion-dollar IPO. On the other hand, larger funds (>$250M) need multiple unicorns to deliver the kind of returns they seek. If you're not on track to hit a multi-billion-dollar valuation, they may not have the bandwidth to help. 💡 How Can the Power Law Apply to Life? The power law isn’t limited to investing—it’s a reminder that in life, too, a few key decisions, relationships, or moments can make all the difference. Whether in business or personal growth, identifying and focusing on these pivotal factors can drive exponential results.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
At Selva Ventures we operate a highly concentrated strategy Each fund invests in 10 to 15 companies (for reference, the average seed / series A venture firm invests in 25+ and some upwards of 50) Our largest positions represent 10-15% of a fund This strategy is a key foundation of our firm, for a few key reasons: 1. Diminishing marginal conviction Investing in 10 to 15 companies per fund means 2 to 4 investments per year This creates an incredibly high bar for conviction, which we think is a good thing We believe that a fund making 3 to 4 times as many investments can’t maintain that conviction threshold. By the way, they might not need to; if they’re hunting for a 500x, their best bet might be maximizing shots on goal But in our experience, beyond the 4th or 5th investment in a given year you start to see declining conviction in the marginal ideas And we think generating high conviction is key to our purpose and service offering 2. Attention per portfolio company We genuinely aspire to provide our companies with an unfair advantage We have no delusions of grandeur in the value we provide, but we listen to what they need help with and invest in capabilities to solve their problems We’re only capable of identifying and providing that value if our portfolio is a manageable size — when a fund invests in 50+ companies I do not know how they can fulfill that promise… 3. Size our winners to matter The worst thing you can do in venture or growth is be right in a big way, but not size your bet large enough to matter Nearly all of the best performing funds have at least one fund returning company Our space (consumer facing wellness companies) has much fewer 50x opportunities, so if you land a 10-20x you need it to return your fund (so the bet must be 5-10% of the fund) 4. More proof means fewer losses While we have smaller winners, we have the benefit of more proof at the time of investment In tech, a seed stage co hasn’t launched and a series A co is barely in market In consumer products at that stage, we have a clear sense of customer reception, repeat purchase, margin structure and growth With that data, we should have a much higher batting average, and therefore a lower loss ratio and the opportunity to take fewer swings 5. Our investors want outperformance To do right by our customers (our LPs) we need to consider what they are looking for from us They are taking meaningful risk in stage and illiquidity, and for it they want higher return potential Diversification is ultimately the enemy of outperformance — by definition it’s reversion to the mean Our savviest LPs have told us: “we’re already diversified, we want to be invested in your best ideas”
To view or add a comment, sign in