NextMikeSays

VC MBA are about 80% from HBS or Stanford GSB.

JPNguyen

Typically, internships are given out to MBA students. Like the above poster said, the undergrad interns usually do the grunt work. **But** an undergrad internship is not entirely bad.

The trendy route for the past decade has been the entrepreneurial setup to a vc. Essentially, building a startup that has been funded and appropiately exited is definitely something you would want if you were to try to enter this field. If biotech is a passion of yours, i would highly suggest this route. Biotech companies are getting funded and have been for a while.

The alternate route is the Ibanker transition to venture capital.

The third route would be networking your way into an analyst position and working upwards.

All three routes take a diligent amount of networking. Jobs aren't usually handed out to those that send in resumes. If the title of your resume doesn't state, "I founded a 40 million dollar company." or something of that nature, it definitely goes into the trash can.

A lot of vcs don't make money. While others do. It just depends on the investor's style. Some players assume that a large amount of investments will have a few that filter out the rest. But I believe that the best VCs wait for the best deals. And hire the appropiate bankers to invest current capital in short term investments.

mattistotle

"VC MBA are about 80% from HBS or Stanford GSB." somebodies been reading ibankingoasis...

TooRichForAid

If you ever work for startup and your company had deal with VCs you know not just from reading ibankingoasis.

jnpn

That sentence made sense.

mattistotle

i highly doubt its anywhere close to 80% when you consider the smaller VC's, and also the fact alot of their recruiting comes for headhunting ibankers (which go to an assortment of business schools).

wisewallstwhiz

Cracking into the VC arena is tough unless you have connections. That entire industry is based upon "word of mouth" and unless you have an impeccable resume and some downright amazing credentials, chances are that they won't accept you.

For the most part I echo the sentiments of earlier posters who claimed that most VCs are lucky to make money. Based upon reading and my own personal experience I can tell you for the risk, time, (it takes about 5-7 years before a VC gets a return on their investment) and return, the lucrative nature of this alternative investment is defintely debateable. That being said, many institutions and wealthy private investors are more than willing to pony up greenbacks under the good ol' premise of "asset allocation."

run4fun

To answer the OP's question: I have not broken into VC, but I have met a few of them and even pitched to one before, it's also something I am very interested in so I keep up with the industry.

You don't need any special background to get into VC, but you will find that most partners at a VC are former entrepreneurs (most with tech background, i.e. degrees in engineering). Most partners are also over 40. For the college student looking for a job or internship at a VC, a degree in engineering, economics, or finance is your best bet. Getting an MBA isn't a prerequisite, but it boosts your chance quite a bit. However, it's important to note that being an analyst at a VC isn't a career. One usually fills that role for 2-3 years, then moves on to work at a startup or another tech company. Very few analysts become partners, although it is possible.

As a few people already mentioned, the industry is connection-driven. Getting a job (as well as getting funded by a VC) is all about getting the right people to put in a good word for you. After all, since most VCs are early-stage investors, they have little more to stake their money on than a person and/or team's reputation. As such, going to Stanford maximizes the probability of getting a job (as an analyst or partner) since it's basically the heart of Silicon Valley.

To clarify a few things others have said and add a bit more to the discussion:

VCs all make money, some just make a boatload.

The way the industry works is that they create a fund (usually with a boring name, like Fund VII). They get institutions and very wealthy people to invest in these funds (much like you would invest in a mutual fund). Investors typically include pension funds (e.g. CalPERS), university endowments (e.g. Stanford), people like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Marc Andreesen (entrepreneurs, former or current), as well as the partners themselves (most of whom are ex-entrepreneurs).

The VCs take a management fee (around 2% of the total money), which goes towards their salaries and other expenses. In other words, if they raise a $100M fund (bear in mind that is on the low end, some VCs have billions under management), they are guaranteed to take home $2M.

They use the rest of the money to buy equity in various companies. Most funds are legally bound to a 10-year existence, thus a VC must invest the money from each fund within about four years.

Whenever a VCs equity investments appreciate in value (e.g. when a company goes public, such as Google's IPO, and shares go from being worth a couple dollars to $500) they make a ****TON of money. Most of this goes back to the original investors, but the VC takes what's called a "carry." In other words, they get some percentage of profits in addition to the management fee--I'm not exactly sure what the carry percentage is, less than 10% I imagine.

VCs invest--to use the typical analogy--a "baseball" strategy. Most investments will be strikeouts (most startups fail), they'll hit a few ground balls or base hits (mild returns on their investments, e.g. 2x -5x), and a homerun, two if they're lucky. These "homeruns" (e.g. an IPO or a big acquisition, think Google IPO or YouTube acquistion for $1.65B) generate a 10x or more return on the investment. That's where the Ferraris and private jets come from.

However, VCs do work hard for those homeruns because investors demand them. When 8 out of 10 investments fail, the VCs need to make up for those in a big way since their investors demand a large return in exchange for the high amount of risk they're taking by investing in startups (most of which fail).

The "brand-name" VCs are Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield and Byers (oft-referred to as KPCB or just Kleiner-Perkins), Sequoia Capital, Benchmark Capital, New Enterprise Associates (NEA), Draper Fisher Jurvetson (DFJ) and a few others.

During booms (i.e. now) VCs invest about $40B a year and see about $10B in "exits" (i.e. when they make money on their investment thru IPO or an acquisition). That means that most VCs aren't returning any money to their investors (doesn't mean they aren't making money, though, as I mentioned above). Like someone said, it's mostly the brand-name VCs that make the most money because of the virtuous cycle that allows them to attract top talent (as investments and as partners within the firm).

I cannot comment first-hand on the experience of being an analyst or associate at a VC because I haven't been there. From what I've heard, though, it does involve more of the routine, boring work. However, VC associates don't spend all day in Excel (as many I-bankers do) because there isn't much to model for an early-stage startup with little to no revenues. I have pitched to a VC before, and there's always an analyst there to provide feedback. The analyst is always attentive, while the partner(s) may be pounding away on their BlackBerry or leave the meeting to take a call from someone more important.

For those who enjoy working in the high-tech world, being an analyst at a VC is almost certainly more rewarding than working at a bank, but to each her own.

One important point for any college students (or high schoolers) considering "breaking into" venture capital: there is little to no vertical mobility as an analyst. In other words, very few analysts become partners in the firm. They usually work for 2-3 years, then either get their MBA if they don't have it or go on to work for a startup or another tech company (e.g. Google, Sun, Microsoft, Apple, etc.) Some come back years later once they've experienced great success AND failure to lead or help lead one of the VCs sectors (e.g. Fred Anderson at Elevation Partners is the former CFO of Apple).

Also of note: a "VC" can refer to a person (Fred is a VC) or the firm itself (Google took money from a couple VCs).

This leads to the fact that when a VC invests in a company, they assign one of the partners (often termed the lead investor) as an advisor to that company. This usually invovles the VC taking a seat on the company's Board of Directors.

For example, Mike Moritz, a VC at Sequoia, was the lead investor on Google and Yahoo! The lead investor is the one that initially thinks the company is worth investing in--but s/he usually has to convince one or more (sometimes all) partners that it's a worthwhile investment.

If you're really interested in ventural capital, I suggest reading some of the blogs that VCs keep. Some of my favorites are Don Dodge, Andrew Chen, Paul Kedrosky, Brad Feld, and Fred Wilson.

thinker481

thanks...good luck...