Jay Hoag

In today's world, I don't think of it as quite as much as public or private.

I think of it very much as a company selection criterion where we have a very private market, very bifurcated public market.

Tech's always been a world where there are haves and have nots.

The true category of leaders in a segment get very robust multiples and long-term value.

And a lot of other companies don't get robust multiples and don't necessarily generate a lot of long-term value, be it a private or a public.

So the original pitch, which remains true today, I think, and everything was a lot smaller, as I mentioned, venture.

Venture was a lot smaller.

Private equity is a lot smaller in 95.

Think about KKR, others were still tiny enterprises.

And growth didn't really exist.

It wasn't viewed as a separate category.

The way I think about it is early stage venture will invest in, to some extent, science projects, meaning undeveloped technology that...

They have to develop a product or service and prove that it works and it's cost effective and then start to ramp the monetization of the business.

And inherent in that model is the successful ones can generate 50 or 100X return and return an entire fund.

But I think inherent in the early stage model is very high loss rates.

So it could be 30%, 50% for a seed or early stage fund.

Successful ones, it's all baked in the model.

You can end up with great funds.

At the other end, large private equity, I tend to think of, and of course, they invest across all swaths of the economy, not just tech.

They tend to be much bigger businesses, more slow growing.