Conway: During The Bubble, 77% Entrepreneurs Failed. Now, It’s Around 40%
MG Siegler
Jul 30, 2010

Today, during our Social Currency CrunchUp, angel investor Ron Conway had some interesting data to share for the first time. Conway says that his company, SV Angel, has recently done an audit on the over 500 companies they’ve invested in over the past 12 years. And he was surprised with the results.

Conway expected it would show that about one-third of companies fail, one-third get investors their money back, and one-third bring a 2x to Google-x return (Conway invested in Google early on). But that’s not the case. Conway noticed that during the Internet Bubble in 1997 to 2001 — the failure rate (startups that go out of business and the investors get nothing) was a staggering 77 percent. “It was catastrophic,” he said.

But things improved. The failure rate in recent years — since 2002 — has dropped to about 40 percent, Conway says. He makes sure to note that that’s just his portfolio — which they’re picky about. They only invest in about one of every 40 companies they see.

Conway notes that he was able to make it through the Bubble years because of a very few smart investments in Google, PayPal, and others that also took place at that time. “We were lucky, others weren’t,” he notes.

He also notes that entrepreneurs have a 66 percent chance of being successful on a startup if it’s their second one. But that’s also partially because they’re often doing a second startup if they were successful the first time around.

All that said, Conway notes that his data shows that regardless of the time period — Bubble or Boom — the rate of very successful outcomes has stayed roughly the same. With that in mind, “anytime is a good time to start a company,” he concludes.

Conway says there is a misconception that “every 10 years we get a Google.” “That’s not true,” Conway says. He notes that AskJeeves came, then six years later, Google came. But then six years after that was Facebook. And now the big companies are coming faster. After Facebook, it was only four years until Twitter came around. Then it was two years later that Foursquare, Zynga, and others have come along. “Great companies are being created at a much greater rate,” Conway says.

You can watch the rest of the Social Currency CrunchUp live here.

Advertisement
  • Related Topics
Advertisement
  • Randy N. Welsh

    Conway expected it would show that about one-third of companies fail, one-third get investors their money back, Randy N. Welsh and one-third bring a 2x to Google-x return (Conway invested in Google early on). But that’s not the case. Conway noticed that during the Internet Bubble in 1997 to 2001 — the failure Randy N. Welsh rate (startups that go out of business and the investors get nothing) was a staggering 77 percent. “It was catastrophic,” he said.

    But things improved. The failure rate in recent years — since 2002, Randy N. Welsh that failure rate has dropped to about 40 percent, Conway says. He makes sure to note that that’s just his portfolio — which they’re picky about. They only invest in about Randy N. Welsh one of every 40 companies they see

  • http://www.pennygrabber.com Kameko Oliver

    Mr. Conway is a smart guy. I still think 40% is high though given the whole “due diligence” and limited investments they commit to. I would think the numbers would be more favorable.

    Then again, seeing how some VCs evaluate a business which is pretty much structured to be highly profitable, and still end up passing on it justifies the high failure rate I guess.

  • giuvilas

    Hi guys i need your help for my thesis. I did in collaboration with SDA Bocconi this survey..it takes no more than 1 minute..it speaks about smartphone scenario..this is the link:

    http://learninglab.sdabocconi.it/surveybuilder/fill-in/b2athv6e?c=techcrunch

    thx to everyone in advance

  • http://www.kidmercuryblog.com kid mercury

    yes. austrian business cycle theory confirms the notion that there will be more failures in a bubble, the reason being that because government has created so much excess capital cheap money it distorts entrepreneurs/investors ability to effectively value everything. investors overvalue companies, entrepreneurs overvalue how much they should spend on customer acquisition, as well as what exactly they should invest in.

    the issue is likely to be more pronounced in whatever sector is being bubble-ized by monetary policy. i.e. if you look at investments in the real estate business during that bubble i wonder if we would see a similar story. i’m inclined to think we would.

    as we still do not have sound money, with interest rates at zero and the fed perpetually granting itself more powers to print as money and intervene in the economy as much as it would like to, are we going to experience the same thing again? and in what sector? the green hype i think is one of the places most likely to get a false bubble going, due to legislation that will encourage all the fake money going there. but IMHO this type of economy is not sustainable, eventually the dollar will break. and i think we are closing in on that point. luckily, we have social currencies to save the day!

  • Tony the tiger

    Go away, 9/11 conspirator. No one will ever invest in you.

  • Rajnish Jollipolly

    What he fails to describe is Founder success — not getting shot in the head and loosing your job, or worse yet — getting diluted down to nothing.

    This is the true measure of a success — not whether an Angel can recoup losses.

    The numbers I have analyzed show that 90% of founders get nothing. That’s averaged over the last 12 years as well.

  • http://sidemirror3940.insanejournal.com/ nick

    would love to see some of your data to back this up. 90% is a crazy number

  • Washed Out

    @Ranjish

    Good point. He’s only tracking the outcomes for investors, who always have liquidation preferences and other protections that put them ahead of founders. I was washed out of one heavily backed company, and got swindled in another M&A deal, so from my own experience, there are many many ways founders can get screwed over while “special” people do just fine. Ron Conway may be better than most tech finance people, but the majority of them are snakes.

  • Mark L

    No data to back it up, except experience working in 7 startups and knowing about 50+ founders.

    I’ld agree that 90% of founders get $0-$200K from of their options (which given their lower salaries during the startup’s life is effectively negative).

    This largely agrees with RConway’s data. 40% of startups fail (both investors and founders make nothing). But another 30-50% of startups just make their money back for their investors, which means the founders make nothing or very little.

    This is the way it should be.

  • Matt

    Ignores the fact that most entrepreneurs have nothing to do with Silicon Valley or tech.

  • Cory W.

    Conway is genuinely a good person who likes to help entrepreneurs. I wish him more success.

  • Josh D.

    It’s a little premature to compare Zynga and Foursquare to Facebook and Twitter. Methinks he’s got his hands in those pots…

  • Brian C

    I don’t have any numbers, but this also lines up with my experience. Most of the money from an M&A/IPO goes to the VC’s. The liquidation preferences take most of the value. Sometimes you’ll see the management get some type of carveout, but there’s rarely anything for the original founders (if they’re no longer in the company) or regular employees.

    Also, as the venture industry scales down, so will valuations. Over time you’ll see the management/founders/employees taking away significantly less than the tiny amounts they get now.

    This is not to say VC’s take too much. It is only to say that this is one of the core reasons why the venture model is broken. Until someone can make 2+2 =5, the returns won’t work for VC’s or entrepreneurs.

  • MC Jiggler

    The article states the obvious. Of course failure rate is much higher during the BUBBLE, the sample is entirely different. You have everyone hopping on the trends with optimistic venture capitalists funding every other idea. People in non-bubble times tend to invest more time, effort, and capital into their entrepreneurial efforts.

    Skewed stats.

  • David

    Revenue ? If you got revenue you don.t need these guys or if you do to grow quickly , it’s on much better terms.
    Try building something that users will actually pay to use.
    Mobile apps are an example, not easy but possible and could prove to be a stepping stone into something bigger since this is a pretty new space.
    There’s a lot to be said for having paying customers from an early stage?

  • siegfried & roy

    I second that, BTW thanks for bending over.

  • http://www.guiaslocal.com GuiasLocal

    Conway knows everything he is conwaypedia

  • danny z

    zynga makes much more $$ than twitter; who’s premature?

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement
Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us