[vonnik]

Shallow ahistorical analysis.

Apple and Microsoft were born in the oil shocks of the late 70s and survived Volcker’s high rates through the early 80s.

Google barely took off before the tech crash wiped out the Valley in 2001.

Many companies we use today were young and dicey affairs during the 2008-2009 financial crash.

Just because the bloom is off the rose, and both VCs and financial tourists like Tiger are overfunding fewer ideas, doesn’t mean the fundamental engine of innovation leading to huge companies is dead.

Quite the contrary. The engine is still ticking, but there is less noise.

[dartos]

Implying there was any analysis is being generous.

[geniium]

Just wanted to say that!

[pier25]

Maybe but Apple, Google, and Microsoft are improbable anomalies.

[pembrook]

Everything that becomes successful is an improbable anomaly. Any company in the S&P500 is an extreme outlier. That’s the whole point of the venture model — you know 95% of startups won’t succeed, but 5% might return multiples of your investment and 1% might return multiples of your entire fund. But often not. Hence why the average VC fund can’t beat the S&P. This is how it has always been.

[pier25]

> Everything that becomes successful is an improbable anomaly

Exactly my point. The above comment is trying to make a point with cherry picked data.

[dartos]

They are. That’s why they’re called “unicorns.”

Most startups fail regardless of the economic climate.

[ZephyrBlu]

No, a unicorn is simply a private company valued at $1B or more.

Apple, Google and Microsoft are on an completely different level of anomaly.

[geniium]

Totally agree, thanks for your comment vonnik!