There was a discussion on HN about a week ago on a16z and its performance[0]. Does anyone know how a16z's funds' IRRs compare to those of other top-tier VC firms (Accel, Benchmark, Greylock, Sequoia)? And are these "top-tier" firms actually providing the best returns for their LPs, or have they just created that perception?<p>With so few IPOs or acquisitions, how are the LPs actually getting their cash back? And how much of that money is eaten up by the "services" that a16z provides to its portfolio companies, not to mention the insane amount of content marketing they've done over the last few years (blogs, podcasts, books, etc.)?<p>0: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11836341" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11836341</a>
Unlike most VC firms which may be paying MPs millions in cash comp, a16z takes their management fee and plows it back into the platform (marketing, HR, research, etc). a16z's core team would never half to towel again in their life, so they don't care much about a couple hundred k here or there. They're looking for the next G/FB/TW/AirBnB/Uber.
Is there any evidence that VC firms are any better at predicting the future than hedge funds? I understand a few years ago that perhaps there were some inefficiencies in the startup market which could be exploited, but now that everyone focused on SV (and elsewhere) startups, is there really a reason to pay 2% of AUM for someone to make guesses on your behalf?
Pretty sure Instagram was in the second fund (although they didn't actually make huge money off it).<p>Second fund also had Nicira ($1.2B), and possibly the Zynga and GroupOn IPOs.<p>Seems decent results to me.