undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjpdoctor14y ago0 comments

> you'd better be right

Did I get wrong 1. hit rate, 2. negative IRRs or 3. the take?

> Practically all

But not all.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

pg14y ago· 2 in thread

I don't know Sequoia's hit rate (and I doubt you do either) but you got 2 and 3 wrong, yes.

Practically all is enough to falsify your claim.

jpdoctorOP14y ago

Re 1: You have not heard that saying from Sequoia?

Re 2: Linked elsewhere, but again here wrt negative IRRs

http://www.matrixpartners.com/site/press_detail/63/ And the lawsuit ISTR that resulted from that article: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/9917

Re 3: Please let us know the carry and take numbers.

pg14y ago

The first article doesn't talk about the final returns from any Sequoia fund but merely points out one was down halfway through its 10 year life.

The second does talk about final returns and says "UC investments in partnerships managed by Sequoia Capital (Funds III to X) have returned over $508 million on an investment of about $110 million for a 4.6-fold return."

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse