

First Look at TechStars Historical Results Data - dannyr
http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/03/techstars-historical-results-data.php

======
pg
According to our data, 98/145 or 67.6% of companies we funded in s2009 or
before are funded and/or profitable and/or acquired.

We don't focus on that number, though (I had to write code to calculate it)
because the big returns in startup investing often come from outliers that
look very risky at first. For example, Drew Houston of Dropbox, who was a
single founder when we funded the company, or Sam Altman of Loopt, who was
only 19. If we focused on the ratio of successes to failures, instead of the
absolute number of big wins, it would make us conservative, and only pick
companies we knew would be safe bets to get follow-on funding.

~~~
netcan
What _do_ you use for feedback then.

~~~
pg
The number we care most about is the number that become really big. It takes
years to know that of course, but the number that raise series A rounds from
tier 1 VC funds is a reasonable proxy (since they won't invest in a startup
unless they think it will become really big).

~~~
netcan
Out of interest, how many years?

~~~
pg
3-4 perhaps. Though interestingly enough, the bigger the company, the longer
it takes to know; most people would have underestimated Google after 3 years.

~~~
wheels
Even more dramatic, Microsoft didn't release it's first version of MS DOS
until it was 6 years old.

~~~
poronski
MS DOS was Microsoft's lucky break. It's not like they were established as an
OS developer that needed 6 years to get noticed.

------
webwright
That blog post that this one links to about YC is miles off (at least for
W08). 6 of the companies listed as "active" actually have received funding (7
if you include SnapTalent). I think TechStars deserves a big congrats, but
this is pretty shoddy reporting.

