Really cool of First Round to share this data. Whenever I see interesting data it makes me ask more questions and these are some of the things I'm wondering about after reading the post.
Female founders outperforming male teams: My hunch would be that the bar for women to get funded (at least historically) has been higher than men so the female led start-ups would be a better calibre of company. Related, since this is based on investment performance, could it be that the female founders received smaller initial investments so performing on par with male teams would make the ROI look better?
Halo effect: This to me would indicate that we shouldn't be encouraging fresh college graduates to work at start-ups and instead get experience at a more mature company. I wonder how much tenure they had at their halo company prior to founding the start-up and how it ties with the average age of founding.
Solo founders perform worse: I wonder what happens if you frame this from the point of view of the founder. If the solo founder had a $100 return and the team had a $260 (160% better) return; assuming equal dilution and equal division between founders, solo founder get's $100, a two founder team get $130 each (30% better), a three founder team gets $85 (15% worse).
Next big thing from anywhere: Also interesting, I'd like to see how this varies by referral source. Do companies referred by other investors perform better than non-investor referrals (or can other investors pick companies better than social connections).
I think we should be encouraging college students to get that experience at mature companies earlier -- ideally as soon as the summer after freshman year. College students can do just fine without summer vacations. That way, by the time they graduate from college (or hit third year and drop out) they'll be poised for success (assuming that a successful startup is your definition of success).
Interesting angle on female founders. My initial thought was "I wonder if they're a much smaller % of the overall pool and so vulnerable to the 'Uber' effect of one or two big exits dragging all the women up" But yours is a great point too. They face more obstacles and so it's a higher calibre out of the gate getting funded.
Female founders outperforming male teams: My hunch would be that the bar for women to get funded (at least historically) has been higher than men so the female led start-ups would be a better calibre of company. Related, since this is based on investment performance, could it be that the female founders received smaller initial investments so performing on par with male teams would make the ROI look better?
Halo effect: This to me would indicate that we shouldn't be encouraging fresh college graduates to work at start-ups and instead get experience at a more mature company. I wonder how much tenure they had at their halo company prior to founding the start-up and how it ties with the average age of founding.
Solo founders perform worse: I wonder what happens if you frame this from the point of view of the founder. If the solo founder had a $100 return and the team had a $260 (160% better) return; assuming equal dilution and equal division between founders, solo founder get's $100, a two founder team get $130 each (30% better), a three founder team gets $85 (15% worse).
Next big thing from anywhere: Also interesting, I'd like to see how this varies by referral source. Do companies referred by other investors perform better than non-investor referrals (or can other investors pick companies better than social connections).