I just lived through a startup where the board, led by the Angel Investors representative turned down a multi-million dollar offer because they thought they could get a better one. (They were wrong.)
So instead of getting their money back plus a bit, they are losing it all and trying to recover it by trashing what's left of the business.
Eventually I will write my blog post on "More tales of greed and incompetence on the electronic frontier."; right now I'm too busy picking up the pieces and making sure that our customers aren't going to be left stranded when we fold up the circus and put it away.
Article's definition of "angel investor" includes "friends and family" (which they claim make up 92%, in myth #5). Whereas I think of investors as: founders, friends/family, angel, VC rounds, IPO.
I think the other myths are more true of angels, if friends and family were excluded from the definition.
I think that this post along with similar ones I've seen (eg Guy Kawasaki) are misleading in a sense that they define the Universe of discourse more widely then the 'Myths.'
I imaging the majority of Angels described here just would not meet normal definitions.
Median investment $10,000, 92% friends & family, fewer than 5% go on to get VC money.
These are statistics about a (seemingly) very wide category of investors. Since most of these are not relevant to those that take these 'Myths' into consideration, these stats aren't really worth that much.
What would be interesting is to hear about the 10, 5 or 1% of those that are 'angels' in the sense that they do conform to the 'stereotype.' How many of them are in groups? How many of them are around? ...
It sounds like they're defining angels differently than is typically meant around here. This sounds more like a write-up of asking your rich uncle for a push. That said, it's nice to see it as a counterpoint to some of the conventional wisdom.
Yes. There two senses of the word "angel:" people who invest in private companies, and a narrower sense meaning people who invest in startups. A study of the former will yield a portrait of an investor very different from the latter, who are a tiny minority of the total.
The stock market is zero sum? That is hilarious. I guess you haven't heard of dividends?
I totally understand people being wrong about basic facts. But what motivates you to go out of your way to post your ignorant nonsense to the internet?
8 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 33.2 ms ] threadAngel Investors are competent negotiators.
I just lived through a startup where the board, led by the Angel Investors representative turned down a multi-million dollar offer because they thought they could get a better one. (They were wrong.)
So instead of getting their money back plus a bit, they are losing it all and trying to recover it by trashing what's left of the business.
Eventually I will write my blog post on "More tales of greed and incompetence on the electronic frontier."; right now I'm too busy picking up the pieces and making sure that our customers aren't going to be left stranded when we fold up the circus and put it away.
I think the other myths are more true of angels, if friends and family were excluded from the definition.
I imaging the majority of Angels described here just would not meet normal definitions.
Median investment $10,000, 92% friends & family, fewer than 5% go on to get VC money.
These are statistics about a (seemingly) very wide category of investors. Since most of these are not relevant to those that take these 'Myths' into consideration, these stats aren't really worth that much.
What would be interesting is to hear about the 10, 5 or 1% of those that are 'angels' in the sense that they do conform to the 'stereotype.' How many of them are in groups? How many of them are around? ...
Angel Investing = Not Zero-Sum
I totally understand people being wrong about basic facts. But what motivates you to go out of your way to post your ignorant nonsense to the internet?