[lifeisstillgood]

I always return to this bet with John Kay:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6BLqprHdwygC&lpg=PA15...

returns for the most successful railroad companies were mere 5% - competition kept things down (although speculation in early years lead to phenomenal returns - if sold)

However, a moderate VC return is 3fold over ten years - which is ~12.5% YoY (unless my maths is bad). But then that is 12.5% of millions and millions not just one company.

[antr]

I struggle to understand your point - I'd love to here a bit more to understand it.

The IRR numbers I mention refer to UFCF/equity, i.e. no exit (hence return) via company/asset sale.

[lifeisstillgood]

That the return (assuming no sale at top of a bubble) for the best companies in the biggest industry of 19C was only 5%-10%. (Based on equity, it seems Harford did not calculate dividend return which may make a difference)

Making 15-20% without an exit is a great deal - supporting I think your point.

[antr]

Indeed, I agree. I'd be curious to know how common was the use of debt during that period. 5%-10% is a good return on an unlevered asset, debt could provide an additional turn - then, I don't know how the Kd and CPI was during that period.

[lifeisstillgood]

During the 19th Century, U.S. railroads relied primarily on debt issues to finance their growth. This policy contributed to major financial crises (www.biu.ac.il/soc/ec/wp/16-01/16-01.pdf)

Is that what you mean - or derivatives?

[antr]

just wanted to know - now it's clear