Now that companies go public so much later, this sort of really large, really late stage fund is basically occupying the space some mutual funds did 20 years ago. Which is quite a big change for Sequoia.

If you agree with the hypothesis that every company will be a tech company then, then the largest market opportunity for VC for tech-first version of almost any major incumbent. This is especially true in traditional industries that have lacked major innovation. Tesla was one example but we’re seeing AgTech as well: Indogo threatening to become a new seed company, Farmers Business Network threatening Cargill. If there is talent, boat loads of money and a strong technical edge there is an opportunity to displace most incubamts. Unfortunately we’re not investing enough in the upstage pipeline to make this happen more quickly.

> the hypothesis that every company will be a tech company

It's hard to argue that there is a single company in the S&P 500 which does not use technology as part of doing its core business. The idea that a company is a tech company may not be so useful.

What is your definition of a tech company? Almost every company uses technology in one way or another, but if the breakdown of the S&P is an indication of our true beliefs, then one might say we tend not to categorize them as being in the "tech" sector.

I suppose Netflix is an example of a media company that is also a tech company, but I think over time we will restrict the idea of a tech company to harder tech, like semiconductor fabrication and operating system development.

>“There is so much money now (in the tech sector). You need to have a bigger war chest,” said a Hong Kong-based investment banker familiar with Sequoia’s strategy.

But what if it’s a bubble?

In certain respects, it doesn't matter if it's a bubble. Sequoia's job is to allocate funds across the tech industry. Simply by giving them money to invest, their LPs accept the risk of systemic issues that could result in the entire tech industry crashing.

In part this is allowed by the fact that most LPs diversify their funds, so they're not completely vulnerable to problems in a single sector. It's also because funds are rarely judged against absolute return; they're judged against benchmarks. If the entire market falls by 10%, and a fund only falls by 8%, then they're still doing well relative to their benchmarks.

But what's more important to Sequoia is not missing out on returns. LPs aren't investing so that Sequoia will keep them from losing money. If that were their primary goal they would just invest in CDs or government bonds. They're investing with Sequoia so they don't miss out on the upside. And if that's the priority, and Sequoia's competitors have far more money to allocate (see SoftBank with their $100 billion fund), then Sequoia also needs more money to allocate to stay competitive.

Well, it's not THEIR money. :)

If it’s a bubble, then that will be a long lived fund.

> It has not happened and it ain't going to happen so let's move on

Bubble versus Not Bubble is a measure on expected returns. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Projecting a half-decade sample of opinions across infinity is absurd.

Of course it will happen. Over-inflation of asset value leading to large scale economic adjustment is a built in feature of our economic model.

If you wait long enough there's always another recession.

We are definitely due for a recession, that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen, well, it almost certainly will, just no one has any idea when! Just like we aren't quite sure how much value being created ATM is bubbly vs. real (we will know when the bubbly stuff pops) .

If you are writing 100-150mm checks, 8 billion seems natural. Maybe it funds 50-75 investments. And if you plan to keep mega- companies private you need even more.