April, 2025 - Cup of Zhou

April 24, 2025April 24, 2025

#unfiltered #94 Is Conviction Black and White?

I’ve heard a collection of sayings around conviction.

“Do or do not; there is no try.” Yoda.

“Get to 70% conviction. 90% means you’re too late. 50% means you haven’t done your homework.” Keith Rabois.

“Do half-ass two things; whole ass one thing.” Ron Swanson.

But the one that stands out the most is: “You either believe or you don’t.” Which I’ve heard many an LP tell me on the podcast. But also across VCs I’ve met over the years. And in full transparency, I struggle with that. Theoretically it makes sense. Building 99% of a car still means you don’t have a working car. There are a thesaurus of synonyms alongside, “I just don’t believe in you.” We’ve all heard it.

“You were an amazing candidate, but unfortunately, the talent pool was really competitive and we decided to move on with someone else. But please do apply again for a job that may be a better fit for you.”

“It’s not you; it’s me.”

“We’re just in different chapters of our lives. And we deserve to meet someone who is where we are.”

“You’re too early for us.”

“You’re out of scope.”

“I just have too much on my plate now, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to focus on this now.”

“Let me run this by my hiring/investment committee/leadership.”

All that just mean “I don’t believe in you.” (But it makes me feel like an asshole if I said it directly to your face. And I don’t want to be perceived as an asshole.) Ashamedly so, I’ve used a few of these myself.

In the investing world, I wonder if there are varying levels of conviction. Phenotypically expressed in varying check sizes. In fact, we have terminology for it now. Core checks. And access checks, or discovery checks, or simply, non-core checks. A core check is a substantial position. A meaningful percentage of the overall fund size. At least 1%. But depending on the portfolio construction, it varies from 1-5% of the fund. A discovery check, on the other hand, is smaller. Oftentimes, less than 0.5% of the fund size. Dipping one’s toes into the water so to speak, as opposed to a headfirst dive or a cannonball to extend the metaphor.

But if conviction really is black and white, should there be varying levels of conviction? Is there such a thing as believing in someone, but only half as much? Or a third as much as someone else?

Moreover one of the greatest lessons we learn over time as investors is that we’re quite terrible, over large sample sizes, with predicting winners out of our portfolio. The three to five biggest winners that put you on the roadmap are often not our three to five “favorite” investments ex ante.

A really good friend of mine once told me (mind you, that both my male friend and I are heterosexual), “The conviction you have in someone to be your girlfriend is different from the conviction you have in someone who is to be your wife. You build that trust over time. And what you look for is different over time.”

So back to the original question: Is conviction black and white? Is there really only belief and disbelief? Is there such a thing as I kind of believe? Or I believe but…?

While I don’t have a black and white answer to this black and white question, I’m inclined to believe yes. It is black and white. It just depends where you put the bar. The bar for you to date someone is different from the bar for you to marry someone. The bar to approve an investment to return a $10M fund is different from the bar to return a $1B fund. And, the bar to invest in an asset in a power law-driven industry, like venture, is different from the bar to invest in an asset in a normally-distributed industry, like real estate or public markets. What’s black for one is white for another.

Photo by Jan Kopřiva on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

April 21, 2025April 21, 2025

How to Start a Single Family Office | Scott Saslow | Superclusters | S5E1

“A lot of family office principals, unless they’ve worked in finance – they should not be solely making the decision on which RIA to hire.” – Scott Saslow

Scott Saslow is the founder, CEO, and family office principal for ONE WORLD. He’s also the founder and CEO of The Institute of Executive Development, as well as the author of Building a Sustainable Family Office: An Insider’s Guide to What Works and What Doesn’t, which at the time of the podcast launch is the only book written for family office principals by a family office principal. Scott is also the host of the podcast Family Office Principals where he interviews principals on how families can be made to be more resilient. Prior, he’s also found independent success at both Microsoft and Seibel Systems.

You can find Scott on his socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-d-saslow-46620/
Website: https://www.oneworld.investments/
Family Office Principals’ Podcast: https://oneworldinvestments.substack.com/podcast

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[02:09] The significance of ‘ojos abiertos’
[05:49] Scott’s relationship with his dad
[07:46] The irony of Scott’s first job
[11:19] Family business vs family office
[13:50] The corporate structure of a family office
[17:39] From multi family office to single family office
[18:54] The steps to pick a MFO to work with
[22:37] The 3 main functions a family office has
[31:00] Why Scott passed on SpaceX
[36:07] Why Scott invested in Ulu Ventures
[44:23] What makes Dan Morse special

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“A lot of family office principals, unless they’ve worked in finance – they should not be solely making the decision on which RIA to hire.” – Scott Saslow

“The three main functions that family offices tend to have are investment management, accounting and taxes, and estate planning and legal.” – Scott Saslow

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

April 18, 2025April 18, 2025

Insider is Spelled with Two I’s

In a previous era, in a more disconnected world, prior to social media and instant cellular connection, not everyone knew everyone. Information was traded in hushed rooms. And so, who you knew became the modicum of influence. The definition of being an insider.

Today who you know no longer matters. Networks overlap. There are tons of third places that bring people together for off-the-record discussions. And just knowing someone isn’t enough to exert influence. The network of who I know is just as large or small as the next person over. While people still use who you know as the proxy for being an insider, that definition has lost its luster. Because even if you didn’t know someone, almost everyone is one click, one message, or one email away.

It’s no longer about who you know, but about who trusts what you know. If two people were to send the same email forwardable to me, I’m more likely to take the email intro from the person I trust more.

It’s even more important when it comes to references and diligence. Most allocators who invest in the venture world aren’t as connected. For the most part, if this isn’t the only asset class they’re involved in, they don’t have to be. They’re paid to be generalists. And by function of that, when they do their on-list references, it’s hard to get the raw truth from the strangers they talk to. It’s different if you live and breathe this space. Then you need to know enough people well where either they can serve as the reference or vouch for you to a reference. That requires not only knowing the right people, but also maintaining a strong bond with them.

I can’t speak for other industries as much, though I imagine it may be quite synonymous with venture. But in venture, most people trade favors. It’s a relationship-driven business for a reason. The problem is most people only make withdrawals from their karmic bank account. Many of whom are in karmic debt. Rather than karmic surplus. VCs especially.

There’s this tweet Brian Halligan of Hubspot fame wrote that I stumbled upon yet I quite like.

VC's are good at making withdrawals from favor banks.

VC's could be better at making deposits into favor banks.
— Brian Halligan (@bhalligan) March 17, 2025

The humble truth is that some people say I’m an insider. Yet, I don’t think I am. I know a certain few people really, really well. I know many people kind of well. And I know jack shit about the vast majority of people in our industry. I’ve always thought that my number one priority is to do right by the people I do know. I’ve also been blessed they’ve been kind enough to let me and have vouched for me.

There was a line that RXBAR’s Peter Rahal said recently that really stuck with me. “Strategy is choosing what not to do.” To analogize that to an insider, in my experience, a true insider is an insider because they choose who not to spend a disproportionate amount of time with. An insider is often not cavalier with how they spend their time and who they spend their time with. They’ve either learned from scar tissue or model the ability of others who are insiders.

So, at the end of the day, ask yourself honestly:

Who do I know?
Who trusts what I know?

Photo by Marissa Daeger on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

April 11, 2025April 13, 2025

Single Close vs Multiple Closes

The ideal situation for a GP is that you have a single close. All LPs who are interested all confirm their participation by the same deadline. And all wires for the first capital call come in at the same time. It’s the utopia. Unfortunately, reality isn’t as picturesque. The truth is the vast majority of LPs wait till the final close, and as long as you have multiple closes, there is no urgency to commit by a certain date.

In fact, it’s almost always better to commit as late as you can if there are multiple closes. Investing in funds is investing in a blind pool of human potential. The blindness scares and humbles many allocators. It is in our interest to invest in the least blind pool of potential possible. And usually, when there are multiple closes, the GP(s) start deploying before the fund closes. So if you come in at the end, you at least get to see 10-20% of the portfolio. Sometimes more, as most LPA clauses stipulate that the final close must happen within 12-18 months from initial close. Of course, you can always move that date via LP votes or just not having that clause in the LPA in the first place.

	Single Close	Multiple Closes
LP Network	Robust	Weak
LP Check Size	Large	Small
# of Checks	Few (most of the time)	Many (first close is usually existing LPs/friends and/or anchor)
Deployment	Deploys after the close	Can deploy after the first close (while still fundraising for the rest of the fund)

With single closes, while it helps to get it all one and done, you can’t deploy until you’ve closed. If your network with LPs and your trust with those respective LPs isn’t great, it’s more risky to go for a single close. Many LPs also have different timelines. So, instituting a single close means you need to be firm and align LPs on your timeline. It helps if you have a few large chunks that cover more than 50% of the fund before you set a close date.

With multiple closes, the good news is that you leave the door open for LPs who run processes on their own timelines. And that you can deploy as you’re still fundraising, as long as you get past the first close. The downside is that there’s no urgency for anyone to come in before the final close. It’s better if you don’t have a network of strong LPs, which pertains to the vast majority of first-time fund managers.

So, what to do?

Let’s get the single close strategy out of the way first. First of all, to do this, you need to come from a place of privilege. You must have a large amount of market pull. LPs who are dying to give you money. And for better or worse, not that you have to take them, people who would give you a blank check. Although, as a footnote, beware of the blank checks. More often than not, they’re easily disappointed.

You must have a strict process. And LPs need to self-select themselves in or out of the process very early in the process. Most important part of this, which is often a really hard thing to do for a lot of first-time GPs, you need to be intellectually honest with yourself if an LP is a fit for you or not. Your job is to figure that out before the LPs figure it out. And as soon as you do, you need to “fire” that prospective LP before they tell you no.

For that, even though you may lose the potential of a transaction, in my experience, you often win their respect.

Assuming what the LP invests in is what you are offering, manage your drip campaign well. Do your best to throttle opportunistic asks that deviate from your process. But do so with grace. And I can’t underscore grace enough.

Some things I’ve seen in the past for funds who can close a fund in a single close (none of the below are the Bible, but hopefully tools for the toolkit):

The deck is never sent out before the first meeting.
If the deck is sent out before the first meeting, it is either only a teaser deck (less than five slides) or the GP/IR team says something along the lines of: “If we don’t hear back from you within three days, we will assume our fund is out of scope, and will prioritize our time with other investors.”
The data room opens up on a very specific date. None get access to it before (except for existing LPAC members, and sometimes existing LPs who’ve indicated early interest).
The data room closes on a very specific date. No one will get access to it after. The sub docs need to all be signed within a week or two after.
No additional calls with LPs unless they can commit a meaningful check to the fund. Usually double digit percentage of the fund size.
LPs get little to no additional asks. No side letters.
Communication from the GP/IR team throughout every step of the way is paramount.

Again, a single close is a privilege. And a power. And with great power comes great responsibility, as a wise old uncle once told a budding superhero.

Ok, multiple closes. I often treat Fund I’s different from the other funds. One of the few major differences is that you don’t have existing LPs. Instead, you have friends and family and people who’ve believed in you before. Nevertheless, early momentum is always a good thing to have before you officially open up the fundraise.

The first close is ideally the minimum viable fund size for you to deploy your strategy and/or the fund size you need to prove out the minimum viable assumption before you raise your next fund. It’s helpful to assume you won’t be able to raise anymore after the first close. While usually not true, but nevertheless, a useful mentality. Most GPs close too small of a first close that still constrains them from truly deploying their strategy. For instance, for Costanoa Ventures Fund I in 2012, the first close was at $40-50M on June 7th, 2012, but ended up at $100M at the final close.

For each of the closes, I generally wouldn’t recommend different economic terms, like reduced fees for earlier LPs. I get the incentives. But two reasons:

LPs talk. It’s usually not a good look among LPs if they know that other people at your AGM got better terms than they did.
You’re discounting your value. If you’re investing in an asset class that’s truly transformative and you truly have better access than others, don’t short sell yourself.

That said, I do believe you should reward early believers. Either for those that come in via Fund I or first or second closes. Or both.

Many LPs especially high net-worth individuals (HNWIs), family offices and corporates love co-investment opportunities. Realistically, these will be 90-100% of your Fund I LPs. Leverage that. For instance, first-close LPs get unfiltered access to SPVs/co-investment opportunities. Maybe, opportunistic intros to portfolio companies as well. Second-close LPs get access to all SPVs, but are capped on allocation, assuming the opportunity is oversubscribed. Final-close LPs get last pick.

If you’re raising a Fund II+, first-close LPs can be given SPV access to deals coming out of earlier funds as well. Although, use this strategically so that your Fund I LPs won’t feel slighted.

As you might surmise already, there is no one right answer. Oftentimes, it’s a function of who you know, how quickly they commit, and how obvious you are to them. “Obviousness” is a product of track record, your brand, the quality of your reference checks, and obviously, how complex your story is.

And there will always be exceptions. 🙂

Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash

4/13/2025 Edit: Example of Costanoa Ventures’ first close

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

April 3, 2025April 4, 2025

Scientists, Celebrities and Magicians

I was chatting with my new friend, an English-teacher-turned-Broadway-playwright-turned coach, Michael, not too long ago. (Mucho gracias to Brandon who hosts one of my favorite podcasts, for putting us in touch.) In theatre, there’s the idea of the triple threat. Singer. Actor. Dancer. A talented individual is usually all three. But more importantly, not all of their archetypes are created equal.

In a broader sense, but quite synonymously, a triple threat is a permutation of the scientist, celebrity, and magician, which I had to have Michael expand on.

The scientist is the analytical thinker — the subject-matter expert. The scientist loves research, the details, repetitive tasks, logistics and as the name suggests, the science of how things work. Think Tim Ferriss.

The celebrity thrives on relationships and promotion. A true celebrity has the superpower and the willing personality to make others feel like a celebrity. Think Gary V.

The magician is none of the above. They are wired for novelty. What are new ways to do this? What’s a new perspective to approach that? Think Seth Godin.

Every person has some degree of each. But knowing where one excels helps focus your brilliance. Or in Michael’s words, your zone of excellence. Your zone of genius.

Each archetype has their own signature move. The scientist, an intriguing hypothesis. The celebrity, a small crowd who really believe in that individual. The magician, a magic box. Something mysterious and intriguing, and well, something that feels like magic. Which led me to ask, “The celebrity’s signature move seems self-explanatory, but what’s the difference between a scientist’s signature move and a magician’s?”

“The scientist’s doesn’t creative or profound from the outside looking in, but the magician’s almost always feels creative from the layperson’s perspective. The scientist’s signature move is most appreciated by other scientists, astounded by the level of rigor and detail to arrive at such a hypothesis. The magician can wow even the untrained eye and ear.”

Michael goes in a lot more definitional depth in his recent appearance on Brandon’s show, so I won’t belabor the Meriam Webster version of the three archetypes.

That said, to take it a step further in the venture world (’cause that’s how my brain works), we have:

The scientists — the functional operators (i.e. sales, marketing, product, engineering, legal, customer success, finance, etc.), the founders (particularly the founders who had one major exit)
The celebrities — the community builders, the content creators, the event organizers
The magicians — I honestly don’t think the vast majority of venture folks fall in this bucket. Many think they do, but most fall short. The fastest litmus test is to have a pitch meeting with GP, and see how they start the pitch. If they pull up the pitch deck first and walks you through the presentation, they’re almost always not magicians. Most LPs are outsiders. And if a pitch or a fund just feels to similarly to all the other stuff you see, it’s because the GPs pitching are purists. Scientists. True students of the craft, but don’t thrive in low context environments.

Celebrities, at least to me, feel the easiest to tease out. Obvious unique sourcing abilities. Many will argue they can win deals easily, but the truth is, most celebrities in venture write small checks. And when you’re a small checkwriter (sub-$250K), you’re everyone’s friend. Even if you aren’t a celebrity. Availability bias, if I might say so myself.

It’s the equivalent of booking multiple quick coffee meetings on your calendar — hell, even Zoom calls. Short, and can easily fit in busy schedules. So when multiple people want to book Zoom meetings on the same day, it’s doable. You’ll find a way to make it work. But how many dinners will you have? Likely one. So if multiple people want to book you for dinner that same Thursday, you have to pick one. Not two. Not three. Just one.

That one is the equivalent of writing a large check into an oversubscribed round. You’re going to have to squeeze someone else out. And you force the founder to make a decision of if they want you or Sally. Anyways, I digress.

The scientists and magicians are harder to distinguish. May be obvious to most of you smart readers, but this is me in semantics-mode with Michael. The scientist looks like a magician to insiders. A true magician looks like a magician to everyone (especially outsiders). The scientist requires people with high context to fully appreciate their brilliance. The magician requires the bare minimum context.

As such, magicians often have breadth in experience. FYI, being a generalist does not count. Magicians are likely polymaths or polymath candidates. They have some of the most diverse information diets, and are able to string together seemingly disparate thoughts through associative property. Probably did well in grade school algebra. 🙂

And this is my long, elaborate, word-count-filling-high-school-essay way to say… VCs should be magicians or try to be, so that they can help founders to be, because:

VC is a 50-60 year old industry that has seen almost no innovation.
The best lessons around investing and building are often from folks outside of tech.
VCs should stop consuming only tech/startup/VC news.

(Thank you for coming to my TED talk.)

And thank you Michael for the lesson.

4/4/2025 Footnote: When it comes to co-founders, they should ideally excel in archetypes where you don’t but are still complementary AND all co-founders must value and want to grow in the area that you excel in. Otherwise, you’ll have disgruntled co-founders who never feel like you’re pulling your weight. And unspoken expectations lead to quiet resentments.

Photo by Almos Bechtold on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: