Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
$UBER went public on Friday. Notwithstanding the initial stumble, Uber will go down in history as one of the most lucrative venture capital investments of all time.
The stock is down from its IPO price of $45 per share, but at that price, the initial seed investment of $510,000 that First Round Capital made back in 2010 was worth about $2.5 billion on Friday.
Here is a list of some of the other notable investors from Uber's seed round and what their initial investments grew to over the course of 9 years (chart from the WSJ):
Of course, for every Uber, there are many more failed companies. And for every investor who turns $5,000 into nearly $25 million, there are many more who decided to pass on the opportunity.
In the case of Uber, many early investors couldn't see how the product could go mainstream. It initially started upmarket with limousines, which was actually a clever way to hack the chicken-and-egg problem that plagues marketplaces.
Many also wondered how many metro areas outside of San Francisco had the kind of urban density and supply and demand drivers to support this kind of a service.
Today, some nine years later and many billionaires later, lots of people -- including myself -- are still wondering: Will Uber turn out to be a great (i.e. profitable) business? Hindsight is always 20/20.
$UBER went public on Friday. Notwithstanding the initial stumble, Uber will go down in history as one of the most lucrative venture capital investments of all time.
The stock is down from its IPO price of $45 per share, but at that price, the initial seed investment of $510,000 that First Round Capital made back in 2010 was worth about $2.5 billion on Friday.
Here is a list of some of the other notable investors from Uber's seed round and what their initial investments grew to over the course of 9 years (chart from the WSJ):
Of course, for every Uber, there are many more failed companies. And for every investor who turns $5,000 into nearly $25 million, there are many more who decided to pass on the opportunity.
In the case of Uber, many early investors couldn't see how the product could go mainstream. It initially started upmarket with limousines, which was actually a clever way to hack the chicken-and-egg problem that plagues marketplaces.
Many also wondered how many metro areas outside of San Francisco had the kind of urban density and supply and demand drivers to support this kind of a service.
Today, some nine years later and many billionaires later, lots of people -- including myself -- are still wondering: Will Uber turn out to be a great (i.e. profitable) business? Hindsight is always 20/20.
Wired's oral history of how the London startup scene came to be is a good reminder that, typically, a city needs some great big exits (acquisition or IPO) to really kickstart an ecosystem. In the case of Silicon Valley, you could perhaps trace things back to Fairchild Semiconductor (1950s). But a more recent example of this phenomenon would be the PayPal Mafia, whose members have gone on to found Tesla, LinkedIn, YouTube, and other companies that you may have heard of.
Put simply: success begets success. When a startup does really well and the founders and employees of that company get rich, it is likely that many will go on to found/fund other successful companies in that same city. In the case of London, that catalytic startup was arguably Skype (at least according to Wired). Microsoft acquired the company in 2011 for $8.5 billion, giving birth to the Skype Mafia. Of course, that wasn't the only ingredient, but it sure helped (excerpt from Wired):
Since 2008, according to data compiled by Dealroom.co, the UK has created 60 unicorns (tech companies valued at $1bn or more) – 35 per cent of the 169 created across Europe and Israel. In the past three years, the UK has created more unicorns (25) than France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden combined (19). And London has produced 23 unicorns with a combined value of $132bn, compared with Berlin’s eight, worth $32bn.
The world has changed since Skype was founded. It's now cool to be doing a startup. But given that every city seems to be trying to establish a thriving startup scene, I think it's valuable to point out just how important a single big exit can be, not just for the people within the company, but for the broader city. Easier said than done, right?
Photo by Benjamin Davies on Unsplash
The word on the street is that Sonder -- the marketplace for vacation rentals and competitor to Airbnb -- is close to finalizing a $200 million investment round that would value the company at $1 billion.
I first wrote about Sonder back in 2016 after I met someone from their business development team here in Toronto. I have yet to stay in a Sonder, but I've looked at their rentals a few times.
One of the main differences between Sonder and Airbnb is that the former head leases their rental supply. And they do this by trying to go higher up on the food chain and partner with developers and real estate operators.
In this regard, they are similar to WeWork. And it allows them to sit somewhere in between Airbnb and a conventional hotel. The supply is distributed, but the service offering is more consistent.
Of course, this arguably makes their business model slower (they have to negotiate leases) and more costly (they're committing to fixed costs). So it becomes a question of: How valuable is that consistent service offering?
Lately when I travel, I've been trending more toward hotels, as opposed to Airbnb-like rentals. I like the experiences that many hotels are now focused on creating and I like knowing that if my flight arrives late (in a place like Brazil), I'll be able to get into my room.
I guess consistency does matter.
Photo by Spencer Watson on Unsplash
Wired's oral history of how the London startup scene came to be is a good reminder that, typically, a city needs some great big exits (acquisition or IPO) to really kickstart an ecosystem. In the case of Silicon Valley, you could perhaps trace things back to Fairchild Semiconductor (1950s). But a more recent example of this phenomenon would be the PayPal Mafia, whose members have gone on to found Tesla, LinkedIn, YouTube, and other companies that you may have heard of.
Put simply: success begets success. When a startup does really well and the founders and employees of that company get rich, it is likely that many will go on to found/fund other successful companies in that same city. In the case of London, that catalytic startup was arguably Skype (at least according to Wired). Microsoft acquired the company in 2011 for $8.5 billion, giving birth to the Skype Mafia. Of course, that wasn't the only ingredient, but it sure helped (excerpt from Wired):
Since 2008, according to data compiled by Dealroom.co, the UK has created 60 unicorns (tech companies valued at $1bn or more) – 35 per cent of the 169 created across Europe and Israel. In the past three years, the UK has created more unicorns (25) than France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden combined (19). And London has produced 23 unicorns with a combined value of $132bn, compared with Berlin’s eight, worth $32bn.
The world has changed since Skype was founded. It's now cool to be doing a startup. But given that every city seems to be trying to establish a thriving startup scene, I think it's valuable to point out just how important a single big exit can be, not just for the people within the company, but for the broader city. Easier said than done, right?
Photo by Benjamin Davies on Unsplash
The word on the street is that Sonder -- the marketplace for vacation rentals and competitor to Airbnb -- is close to finalizing a $200 million investment round that would value the company at $1 billion.
I first wrote about Sonder back in 2016 after I met someone from their business development team here in Toronto. I have yet to stay in a Sonder, but I've looked at their rentals a few times.
One of the main differences between Sonder and Airbnb is that the former head leases their rental supply. And they do this by trying to go higher up on the food chain and partner with developers and real estate operators.
In this regard, they are similar to WeWork. And it allows them to sit somewhere in between Airbnb and a conventional hotel. The supply is distributed, but the service offering is more consistent.
Of course, this arguably makes their business model slower (they have to negotiate leases) and more costly (they're committing to fixed costs). So it becomes a question of: How valuable is that consistent service offering?
Lately when I travel, I've been trending more toward hotels, as opposed to Airbnb-like rentals. I like the experiences that many hotels are now focused on creating and I like knowing that if my flight arrives late (in a place like Brazil), I'll be able to get into my room.
I guess consistency does matter.
Photo by Spencer Watson on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
