Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by will_brown 4624 days ago
These statistics are very meaningful because of YC's transparency. The math is simple: YC has invested in 511 companies, this calculation uses an investment of $18,000 (the max YC investment) per company, equaling $9,198,000 total YC investment. YC investment results in an average of 6% ownership, 6% of $13.7B is $822,000,000. That ROI is phenomenal.

I personally believe YC is in a more enviable than Sequoia. Further, YC or at least the partners are in a position to participate in future rounds of funding for the YC companies, of course they will likely be paying a lot more for a lot less at that point...just like Sequoia.

2 comments

"YC investment results in an average of 6% ownership, 6% of $13.7B is $822,000,000." - this statement is not actually correct. YC ownership averages 6% at the time when YC enters but that doesn't mean that YC gets 6% of $13.7B. Companies contributing most of these $13.7B have probably gone through additional financing rounds diluting YC's stake. But even if YC is diluted 10x, it's still remarkable ROI.
Confirmed YC ownership is subject to dilution. I appreciate your tact in pointing out my error.
As I am writing this your comment is the top comment. The comment below it reads:

> And Sequoia backed startups now have a combined valuation of almost a trillion. These statistics are a bit meaningless. I'll wager that the median YC company has a negative opportunity cost for the founders.

When reading your comment first I agreed and thought, Wow! YC is killing it. Then I read the next comment and thought, Hmm, perhaps not? Now I don't know what to believe.

If I own one share of Apple, Exxon, and Wal-Mart, then benmanns-backed companies have a valuation of 481.19B+387.73B+246.74B = 1.12 trillion dollars, but my personal stake is less than one thousand dollars.

YC has a diluted 6% of 13.7B. I would have an estimated 8.9286 x 10^-8% of 1.12 trillion.

You are correct about the diluted 6%. That was not so much an oversight, I was outright wrong I did not believe it was subject to dilution, but I stand corrected.