A simulation of angel investing, part 2

This is a follow-up to my post A simulation of angel investing.

Several readers commented on Hacker News that my simulation was misleading because it showed negative average returns for low deal sizes, when in fact expected returns should be not only positive but constant regardless of deal size.

They are right.

I had been using payoff as the random variable, but rate of return as the measured variable. The formula for rate of return (x^(1/t)-1) places the most weight on the zero-payoff case (where return = -1.0), so the simulation results were skewed towards negative expectations, especially for low values of D.

In this new post, I present a simplified and more accurate simulation of angel investing.

As before, my goal is to shed some light on this question:

How many angel investments are needed to make the combined payoff look attractive from an investment standpoint?

Revised simulation

I coded the following simulation in Python. [view revised source code]

1. Create a pool of 10,000 different investors, each investing in D deals, with a fixed distribution of payoffs per deal. Randomly simulate each investor’s combined payoff, then compute the mean and standard deviation of all payoffs in the overall pool.

Note that this simulation just uses the straight payoff, not a calculated rate of return.

2. Assume all D deals are made at the same time and that the payoff occurs at the same time.

3. For each angel investment, assume the following distribution of payoffs. Note that this is the same distribution as in the previous post.

Prob. Payoff  
50% 0x lose entire investment
20% 1x get investment back
15% 3x  
13% 10x  
2% 20x  

(source: Gabriel Weinberg’s angel investing scenario spreadsheet)

4. New in the revised model: Calculate the median of all payoffs for each deal size. This gives an idea of what kind of results were achieved by the typical (not average, but typical) investor.

5. New in the revised model: Calculate the probability that none of the D deals were hits, which I define as investments with >= 10x payoff. Since big hits are what angel investors are after, this no-hit probability measures the odds of striking out across the board. It is calculated as (probability of < 10x payoff)^D = 0.85^D.

Simulation results

Observations

- The expected, a.k.a. mean, payoff is roughly constant for all deal sizes.

- The typical, a.k.a. median, payoff is low for deal sizes less than 5, but stabilizes quickly after 5 deals. After 20 deals, the median payoff is nearly identical to the mean.

- An angel investor would have to do about 13 deals before the risk of total loss is reduced to a > 2 std dev event.

- After 10 deals there’s still a 20% chance of never getting a “hit” investment. To push that chance to below 5%, an angel investor would have to do about 20 deals.

My takeaway from this revised experiment:

Angel investors can expect favorable payoffs with only 10 deals, but it takes at least 20 investments to truly be safe.

Some ideas for future enhancements to the model:

- Add true Google-like payoffs to the distribution. Very low probability with extremely high payoff.

- Measure percentiles other than median. 25% and 75% percentiles, for example.

- Don’t assume deals are all made at the same time.

- Don’t assume payoffs are uncorrelated.

If you have any suggestions, please leave them in the comments below.

For more on startups and investing topics, follow me on Twitter -or- subscribe to my blog feed.

This entry was posted in Angel, Investing, Startups. Bookmark the permalink.
  • The math is interesting but I'd like to see the “no-hits” results broken down into a handful of distinct categories of why they didn’t hit (e.g. poor team execution, competition, etc.). It's likely that you can up your probability (at least from a loss to break even / 2X or better) by covering certain bases (e.g staying operationally involved)
  • kevinsdick
    Hi Jeff. I was glad to see you trying to answer this question. I've actually been working on this problem for a while and have found that you need to use a continuous Pareto distribution to capture the fat-tailed nature of angel returns. Inspired by your example, I just put up a post describing part of my model:

    http://emergentfool.com/2010/05/11/simulating-angel-investment-kevins-remix/
  • Hi Jeff, great data and charts, thanks for sharing!

    My only comment is that I think you and Gabe seem to focus a lot on the 20x payoff.

    My quick hack on Gabe's spreadsheet indicates that you really don't need the 20x payoff to do well, and you barely need the 10x payoff.

    I posted the numbers on Gabe's blow, won't repeat it all here but see: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/03/angel-investing-portfolio-scenario-planner-spreadsheet.html#IDComment72150087
  • Roy, thanks.

    You're right that the expected payoff numbers can still look okay if you drop the high-returning scenarios. Measurably different, but still okay.

    Some other readers sent me private messages (unfortunately they didn't post their comments to the blog) saying that they thought I should have included more extreme scenarios, like 100x payoffs.

    I used Gabriel's distribution because it seemed like a reasonable middle ground, but ultimately the realism of the numbers is in the eye of the beholder.
  • Interesting analysis. I didn't look through the details, but your takeaway was similar to what I came up with with a less rigorous analysis. My number was that you need to have between 16-18 companies in the portfolio for it to start making sense.
  • Paul Oswald
    > Don’t assume payoffs are uncorrelated.

    This one is interesting. I believe that economic boom/bust cycles probably play into the outcomes of angel investors more than they would like to admit. How were you thinking to simulate correlated outcomes?
  • This explains why my 3 angel deals have gone nowhere. Your model is interesting and very well done. Thanks ... I decided angel investing was exceptionally risky for the rookie because the experienced investor uses various tactics you haven't modeled to increase their chances of a payoff such as getting a board or board observer seat, reserving money for follow-on rounds, running and angel group to get better quality opinions about the investment, making sure they know the team (the trust & obligation factor weighs somewhat into a successful company) etc. Then there are plenty of unwritten rules such as early investors getting summarily crammed down in later rounds by usually more sophisticated VC investors.
  • You're right that there is probably lots of variation in the skills of angel investors. I would hope the skill level should go up as a rookie does more deals.

    Re: follow-on investments: I believe some recent research found that follow-ons by angels were anti-correlated with the ultimate success of the startup. Pretty interesting.
  • Very nice update to the model, thanks
blog comments powered by Disqus