

Chris Yeh responds to Arrington's blog: Yes, there is a super-angel conspiracy - ganjianwei
http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/21/yes-there-is-a-super-angel-conspiracy/

======
Robin_Message

      >Even if we assume that Silicon Valley seed rounds only
      >account for 10 percent of angel investing in the US,
    

Surely they are way, way less than 10%. I mean tech is less than 10% of the US
and the valley isn't the only place for angels. At 1%, which sounds more
plausible, we are talking about controlling 50% of deals. That's not an
innocuous number.

So, screw the 500,000 angels figure. Anyone with any actual knowledge want to
tell us how much of the relevant market the top 10 angel firms control?

------
ig1
The article makes the false assumption that all angels are the same. Super-
Angels aren't super angels purely because of the money they control, but
rather their expertise and connections that make them the first choice for
startups looking for investment.

~~~
jacquesm
Exactly. It's the start-ups that make super angels 'super angels', ignore them
for a year or so and the situation would change dramatically. Some of them are
so well connected that people would consider giving them some equity just to
get them and their network on board.

It also serves as validation to some extent, if 'X' is on board that validates
your start-up in the eyes of others.

Nice example, plenty of the YC companies would never receive so much as a
byline on the major tech / news sites but as soon as YC invests they're
headline news.

------
paulsingh
This title is misleading...

"I’m not saying that angels don’t wish that valuations are lower (I certainly
do). But there simply is no way that such a conspiracy could be effective,
given the economics of the market."

