I was sent a link a few days ago from Inside CRM. They have their list of 20 Worst VC investments. I've taken a look at them and do remember vividly when most of these companies were funded. It's easy to look back in hindsight and say that a venture investment is bad. From the outside, all you see is the amount of money put into an investment. Some time later you hear that they are bankrupt.
I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of VCs out there that have thrown lots of good money after bad ideas. But venture capital as an industry involves both "good" and "bad" investments. One could argue that all of the excesses of a frothy investment cycle are necessary for progress. Would Google or YouTube have been funded without this history of excess? If every venture investment was a winner, everyone would be a VC and undoubtedly, the value of successful companies as a whole would probably be less.
It's clear to me that "bad" investments are a necessary evil in the venture industry. Sometimes the only way to see if an idea will work is to fund it and give it your best shot. If you take a closer look at many of these companies, there are similar concepts that exist today on the internet that either made it through the crash or were revived through a new startup. This tells me that either the original strategy implementation was incorrect, the management could not execute, or it was the wrong time for the concept.
Thanks to InsideCRM for this blast from the past.
Comments