Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Why exactly is it that there seems to be only the unicorn strategy? What happened to the investor who just wants to make a few x by investing in firms that are founded by experienced people with connections in their industry?

That exists but then on average you'll be losing money due to the normally expected rate of failure. That can still be a valid strategy, but then you're just not in it for the money, but for the social impact. And some of these funds, once they get good at it do turn into serious moneymakers which in turn allows them to go for the evergreen strategy. This is the holy grail for social impact investing. A good example of such a fund is GIMV from Belgium, but there are many more.




> That exists but then on average you'll be losing money due to the normally expected rate of failure.

Only if you cannot actually deliver on the promise of being a good investor. If you knew how to pick businesses you'd get fewer failures and more winners.


Sure, in theory. But in practice picking winners is a lot harder than it may seem to be at first glance and only very few investors beat random.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: