According to Statista there were 16,464 VC deals signed in 2022. There were 181 IPOs in that year. The most IPOs in a year ever is 1,035. Obviously the two aren't directly comparable, but the point I'm getting at is that an IPO exit for any company is really unusual. If you found a company and take on VC funding your exit event is much more likely to be getting acquired if you don't fail. It does happen, and deservedly so, but if you're at a point prior to raising 'what if we IPO?' probably isn't a very useful question.
Many startups raise multiple rounds, so I think you're double counting? Don't you need to either divide 16,464 by the typical number of funding rounds or only count, say, series As?
(An extreme example to prime your intuition: imagine that there are one IPO and 10 VC deals annually. If every startup raises money annually and there are 10 startups at any one time, then every funded startup eventually IPOs.)
Didn’t know this was even possible. Had to research.
It wouldn’t be called “IPO” anymore, but a company can offer subsequent market shares through a Follow-on Public Offering (FPO.) This occurs when a business raises capital in a second round of stock through either dilutive or non-dilutive options. Good to know.
> But no less unusual than building a successful company to begin with.
Statistically, companies that raise venture capital are vastly less likely to succeed than those that are bootstrapped.
Think about it this way: from the perspective of VCs, the most successful apps of the iOS era were Uber and AirBnB. But from the perspective of entrepreneurs, the most successful app of the iOS era was the Flashlight app.
You're right that in numbers of survivors there bootstrapped ones are going to outnumber the VC ones. But in terms of total # of employees, total $ of turnover and profits I would expect it to be the reverse.
But for any individual founder, if you want to aim for 'successful enough to be relatively wealthy and worry free' then 'bootstrapped' is the way to go. If you aim for an outsize success, wealth for the next N generations and massive impact on the world (for good or for bad) it's going to be very hard to avoid the VC track.
I wrote about this long ago, but it is still quite relevant:
I sort of don't doubt that VC-funded companies are less likely to succeed than bootstrapped companies, simply because bootstrapped companies can keep afloat with consulting and VC-funded companies can't. But vastly lower odds of product success sounds like something that'll need a citation.
It seems likely that VC-funded app store pure plays without a recurring revenue SAAS component are much less likely to succeed than indie app store pure plays, but that's because VC is obviously the wrong model for one-and-done app store transactions. If you have a good idea for an app, don't raise for it (you'll have a hard time raising for it anyways).
Every time you raise a round, the outcome you're shooting for is magnified. If you're raising an A round, you're not getting acquired after your seed; you're rolling the dice on getting a much better outcome. If you're raising a B round, you've got some facsimile of product-market fit, and you've decided to take the company to the point where the only "successful" outcomes are denominated in hundreds of millions of dollars, etc.
So it's not surprising that there's a stat somewhere that says "committing to a 500MM sale decreases your odds of success over satisficing with a 50MM sale", right? Very few software companies of any provenance end up going public, but by the time you're raising a C, that's essentially what you're saying you're going to do.
It gets even worse, because a proportion of those raising another round are doing it because they're failing to grow fast enough, and are grabbing more cash before it's too late.
So you get a mix on those rolling the dice one more time in the hope of that next 10x, and those unable to get an exit, and unable to earn enough, but able to convince investors one more time that this round will pay off, and who will rarely pay off well for founders or early investors, if at all.
I've both been in companies like that and worked for a VC analysing round data to avoid putting money in companies like that...
In a company like that, I once got 10k for my original 25% stake when the company was finally acquired... I left after the 4th round or so, and there were at least a few more after I left (I stopped.paying attention. The company was acquired for only 40% above the size of the A round.
Once you're in the VC cycle though not being able to raise another round when you need it is a 100% decrease in your chance of success. So I'm not sure if that follows for any but the first. Essentially you need to keep raising until you either reach profitability at scale, are acquired or IPO, and even the latter won't help you if you aren't eventually profitable.
>Statistically, companies that raise venture capital are vastly less likely to succeed than those that are bootstrapped.
I'd wonder if taking VC money five times, failing 4 times and building a large and growing company 1 time, isn't better than bootstrapping a small and profitable company just 1 time.
The article is specifically about this value judgement. If you do not value making a profit as a company you have to find value in something else. Which is fine, different things motivate different people and should, but at least be clear that it is fundamentally a values conversation.
Disagree, it’s often best to leverage the profit motive as a tool for achieving your values-based mission, and companies are usually the best way to do that.
Companies scale up more effectively than NGOs, attract investment much more easily, and can undertake a wider array of activities to achieve their mission. Then there’s C-corps etc if you want to make it explicit.
Maybe for some of them just getting the VC funding is success. Pay yourself enough, last long enough, make good contacts... And if it fails, start over with the extra experience and contacts, or join an existing startup at a high level. Failure doesn't seem to hurt the careers of executives that much.
The definition of "success" is different between a bootstrapping business & a VC funded business. A consultant can define success as "making enough money to live off of". A VC funded business has a different definition.
So how would a study be conducted? A survey asking if the business was "successful"?
Actually, that's not a bad idea. Surveying founders at 5, 10, and 15 years after founding whether they were happy with the outcome could be enlightening. A little bit like the 7-up documentary series. It would be very interesting to see which path tends to provide the best outcomes according to the founders.
What is the Flashlight app developer success? At best the app sales supported them for a year or two. By this metric a failed VC funded company also has supported its founder (plus employees) for a year or two.
Failure is definitely the commonality. The BLS reports typically that 1/2 of all new businesses (in the US) will formally fail within five years. One can safely guess that at least half of those remaining are something between zombies and hanging on by a thread. 1/4 or fewer will make it 15 years or more. And of course it varies by sector, restaurants notoriously have an exceptionally high failure rate. For all businesses the failure rate is around one in five in the first year [0]; for restaurants the failure rate is ~60% in the first year, and ~80% fail within five years.
[0] And again, don't forget to assume the figures are even higher because the figures will never fully account for zombie businesses or quasi-zombies and the equivalent.
Those figures also do not account for selling all of the company's property with some profit and closing it down; the equivalent of an acquihire for small and medium companies is counted as failure. Running it successfully for a couple of years and changing your mind is counted as a failure too.
I don't have a link on hand, but I've seen studies from people that counted how many business actually closed due to money problems. The actual rate of non-problem business after 5 years is close to 80%.
I would expect it to be close to 100%. The difference between the 80% and the 100% is the ones that grow in spite of and sometimes because of their problems. Every business will run into trouble, sooner or later. In fact I don't recall a year in the past decade without some kind of crisis that needed fixing. Some self inflicted, some just circumstance and some outside malice. Never a dull moment if you run a small company.
There is somewhat fuzzy on where you even draw the line. Does someone moonlighting on their Wordpress side hustle count as a company? There are many of those which seem unlikely go bankrupt - the most frequent end state is the sole proprietor quits due to lack of work or interest.
Beyond the issues surrounding the failure rate, it's worth thinking about the extra work to keep satisfying investors, the likelihood that you'll lose at least some measure of control, and fundamentally the ethics of extraction that VC models necessitate, meaning you will need growth even if it's not good for the company or the customers in the long term, and that kind of growth often also means that there's an impetus to ignore the negative impacts on environments, communities, and economies.
This very much applies to Cloudflare, otherwise it wouldn’t tolerate hate groups hosted in the name of “freedom of speech” and all that PR bs. Ethics not only takes the back seat, it disappears without a trace.
And let’s not forget the ethics of continually selling a large chunk of their shares in the company they publicly believe will continue growing and is profitable.
There are plenty of other ways to exit that don't involve an IPO. Acquisition, selling shares on secondary markets or privately etc...
Doing VC the wrong way can make your life hell, but taking all the risk yourself and bootstrapping is in its own right a special kind of hell if you're not careful.
IMHO, it's all about time horizon. Working on a startup for 3-4 years without a clear product market fit or some kind of exit is a waste of time unless you're a Jensen (which most of us aren't anyways).
And is worse to fail losing your own time and money than to fail losing VC money. In the second case, you can get up and try it again easier than in the first case.
According to the same source, 2022 was the second-most VC deals since 2006, and ca the 4th worst for IPOs according to stockanalysis.com. There's clearly a massive upward trend in VC deals, while IPOs are much more stationary. Eyeballing those charts, the average number of VC deals, especially in the relevant period for today's IPOs (10+ years ago), is probably closer to 5-6k, and the average number of IPOs to 250, ie ~5%. Combining this with the folk wisdom that 90% of all startups fail, this seems to suggest that half of the successful startups go public, actually. Lots of things that we'd need to account for (not all IPOs are probably startups, # VC deals != # of startups,...), but speaking about tendencies, the data doesn't seem to support such a strong statement.
You’d want to compare this with the base rate of failure for a business venture (ideally across the economy and specifically bootstrapped tech companies).
Spoiler: most businesses fail.
I’d also believe that VC funded companies are more likely to fail as they are making all-or-nothing swing for the fences plays. But you need to compare to the correct baseline to avoid confusion.
My intuition is that rate of failure in software, where its much more winner take all, would be higher than brick and motor businesses, which constantly fail.
I think it's entering a winner take all market that's strongly correlated with VC money. There's plenty of software companies that outlive restaurants and startup cycles, doing pretty common B2B work, but they are unlikely to accidentally get a valuation based on a probability of winning a winner take all market.
