Courtney Russell McCrea enjoys over 30 years of venture capital and private equity investment experience including 13 years of fund investing and 18 years of direct principal investing.
Courtney is Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Recast Capital, a 100% women-owned platform investing in and supporting emerging managers in venture, with a focus on diverse partnerships.
Prior to co-founding Recast, Courtney was a Managing Director of Weathergage Capital, a boutique fund of funds that provided its clients with access to premier venture capital, growth equity and micro-VC partnerships. Venture fund commitments included both brand name funds and emerging managers. In addition to fund investment responsibilities, Courtney led the direct co investing program at Weathergage. During her 10 year tenure at Weathergage, Courtney made commitments to 100 funds and seven direct co-investments.
Prior to Weathergage, Courtney was a General Partner with Weston Presidio, a leading diversified private equity firm based in San Francisco. After 7 years at Weston Presidio, she left in 2004 and founded Silver Partners, a private equity advisory firm where she evaluated secondary and co-investment opportunities and advised consumer growth businesses. Courtney was also a Director at Sterling Stamos, where she managed investments in buyout funds, venture capital funds and hedge funds.
Earlier in her career, Courtney made equity co-investments as an Assistant Vice President at PPM America. She also spent 5 years at GE Capital where she worked on private equity, senior and subordinated debt investing.
Courtney has an M.B.A., with honors, from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management and a B.A. in Economics from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. She is a member of the Kauffman Fellows Class 3.
Courtney is a member of the NVCA Forward Board of Directors and the Alzheimer’s Association Northern California and Nevada Board of Directors.
[00:00] Intro [02:37] What of Courtney’s past helped her co-found Recast Capital [04:02] Three reasons to invest in emerging managers [05:17] What does “institutional quality of emerging managers” mean? [06:52] How to diligence emerging managers [10:30] How to do reference checks on GPs [14:40] How has being a Kauffman fellow helped Courtney build Recast’s Enablement and Accelerate programs [19:51] How do alumni GP stay active in Recast Capital’s community [20:59] Zoom vs. in-person education for GPs [23:00] What kind of managers do Recast Capital invest in versus who ends up joining the Enablement Program versus who joins the Accelerate program [28:33] Why are the Enablement Program and Accelerate program free [30:25] Spinouts from larger funds [32:12] What are emerging manager red flags? [34:03] Should emerging managers have answers to questions on succession planning? [36:00] Challenging the 1% GP commit: How much should different archetypes of GPs commit to their own fund? [40:52] Lessons from arguments between GPs [46:30] Getting Courtney to say yes [47:46] Courtney may make some enemies with this statement! [48:54] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [51:30] Legal disclaimer
Guilty as charged, but I was doom-scrolling on Instagram recently and I came across a reel where two Formula 1 drivers were asked to guess the race track given only a racecar’s engine’s audio (vroom vroom). And to my absolute amazement, the two were able to guess track after track. Some answers seemed to have only taken them a few seconds to figure out.
The Instagram reel came from this YouTube video for those who are curious.
So I couldn’t help but notice, how well they knew each track. That they had taken special notice to all the small bumps in the road. The turns. How long each turn was. All of it, without any visuals. It’s for the same reason I am always impressed everytime Bon Appetit’s Chris Morocco can recreate dishes by taste, smell and feel alone (no sight, he’s blindfolded). A lot of which is in line with the post I wrote last week. It’s not just about paying attention, but how to pay proper attention.
So this time around, I thought why don’t I bring this into the world of events. Something I’m deeply passionate about.
Experiences > Events
“Jonathan Yaffe, co-founder of the experience management platform, AnyRoad, defines an experience as something that stimulates at least three senses.”
I first read that line on page 146 in my buddy Lloyed’s book on community-building. And it made total frickin’ sense. Lloyed went on to write that Zoom sessions don’t count as experiences because it only engages one’s sight and sound. But events like Dining in the Dark, which my friend hosts, do count. Despite taking away sight, you’re tapping into taste, smell, and sound. The last of which occurs when there’s a band playing in the background, but with each course, a new instrument is added into the mix. And it’s because of experiences like these, they leave such strong impressions. Emotional impressions. Nostalgia.
Emotions, after all, are multi-sensory. And eliciting those emotions require you to fully commit. The question is how.
How to make people feel special at events
One of my favorite lessons I picked up during my time at On Deck was from Sam Huleatt. A strike is better than a spare. We were hosting sessions and events three to six times a month, depending on the time of the year. And Sam proposed that we go through an exercise. A thought experiment.
What if we only did one event per month? If so, what would that look like?
What if we only did one every quarter?
And what if we only did one every year?
How does that change the way we think about events? What changes at each stage?
Honestly, one of my favorite exercises to go through when I feel compelled to hit a certain quantity and realize I have to find the optimal point between quantity and quality.
But since then, that inspired another set of thought exercises I do.
If I had to host an event for just one person — just one — what would I do to make it an unforgettable experience?
What would need to change if I did so for a four-person dinner?
A six-person dinner?
What about a 10-person event?
What about for 50 people?
For 100?
For 1000?
And so on.
At some point, usually around 50 is when things start hitting scale. But let me break down why each of the above before 50 are inflection points:
1 person. This person is your universe. You can’t make it any more tailored and personalized than this. It’s a date.
4 people. For the most part, still only one conversation happens at a time, but now as the host, you have to make sure no one is left out.
6 people. In my mind, this is the minimum number of people for more than one conversation to be happening at once. For the first time, you have to worry about flow of the event while you’re not capable of being present everywhere all at once.
10 people. You not have more than two conversations going on. Juggling with two is easy; for some, that may not really be juggling. But once you’ve added a third and a fourth ball, then this is real juggling. Here, the host has to think not only about the number of conversations, but to pay attention to folks who become satellites to conversations. Watching for people who are distracted. Uncomfortable. On their phone. And so on. But also, when conversations go too long. As the host, finding ways for people to enter and exit conversations easily is vital. It’s better to have less time than to have too much time.
And 50 people. For the first time, you need to think about having more than one host. You can only scale your time and attention so much. So now you’re training a team to be as attentive, if not more, than you are.
The larger the event, one can say the more polyamorous you have to be. You have to deeply care for each person. And while everyone at your event likely knows you’re “dating” everyone else, if you can still make them feel special — like the most important person in the world, that their time is valued, their attention is valued, and their presence, mind and insights even more so — then you’ll have done something 99.9% of event hosts have not been able to do. Frankly, probably would rather not do. ‘Cause, at least if you start small, it’s not crazy work. It’s quite easy, just requires more effort than most are willing to give.
Other times, event hosts just scale their events too quickly. And hit scale before they find their magic. So, if you can, do unscalable things before you hit scale.
Notice when in a conversation someone’s eyes divert. Notice when they ask to leave to use the restroom. And notice when people lean in to a conversation, as opposed to lean back. Just like a racecar driver notices how many seconds a turn is, when there’s an indent in the road, when the brakes are glazed and the tires need to warm up without having to look at them.
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.
Jamie Rhode is Principal at Verdis Investment Management, focused on venture capital, private equity and hedge fund investment sourcing and due diligence.
She joined Verdis from Bloomberg, where she held roles in both equity research and credit analysis. There, she created, managed and leveraged an extensive library of statutory and financial and market data for buy and sell-side clients that use Bloomberg to make investment decisions.
A licensed Chartered Financial Analyst, she earned her bachelor’s degree in Finance and Marketing from Drexel University’s College of Business Administration.
[00:00] Intro [04:27] What skills did Jamie acquire while working at Bloomberg [08:45] What inspired Jamie to go into equity research [11:55] Verdis’ original allocation model [13:27] How Verdis first built their deal flow in 2016 [15:26] What Jamie likes in a cold email [16:41] What kind of cold email to VCs won Verdis an 80% response rate? [20:27] Verdis’ inbound vs outbound deal flow over the years [22:34] Why Verdis’ mandate is to invest in diversified portfolios as opposed to concentrated portfolios [27:50] The downsides of early distributions [32:12] The benefits of early distributions [36:01] Luck versus skill [40:15] Why does Verdis measure “outliers” as opposed to unicorns [44:37] The relationship between proprietary deal flow and portfolio allocation models [45:55] How does Verdis decide which portfolio funds get re-ups [48:52] Why GPs shouldn’t conform their strategies to LPs’ mandates [51:08] Why LPs should also have consistent strategies [53:28] Why Verdis invests a third of their fund in funds based in Los Angeles [58:50] A case study on what happens when you skip a step in the due diligence process [1:02:57] The two things a GP can do to win Jamie over [1:05:32] When does Verdis like to receive their tax documents from GPs? [1:08:46] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring [1:11:23] Legal disclaimer
“Diversified managers have struggled a lot more to raise capital than more concentrated managers. I think it’s a little bit of a contrarian approach.”
“That venture capital bucket is the compounding machine for the family. We don’t look to that bucket for liquidity.”
“If you’re compounding at 25% for 12 years, that turns into a 14.9X.If you’re compounding at 14%, that’s a 5. And public market which is 11% gets you a 3.5X.”
“90% of your overall return comes from asset allocation, not individual investments.”
“If that asset is compounding at 20%, still the last 20% of time produces 40% of your return.”
“Outliers don’t truly emerge until 8-10 years after the investment.”
“If you provide me exposure to the exact same pool of startups [as] another GP of mine, then unfortunately, you don’t have proprietary deal flow for me. You don’t enhance my network diversification.”
Earlier this week, I was listening to a fascinatingly thoughtful conversation between Tim Ferriss and Kindred’s Steve Jang, where Tim said one line that stood out in particular: “I’ve been paying a lot of attention, but I’ll be honest, I don’t know how to pay proper attention.”
And well, it got me thinking. About the difference between knowing what to look at and knowing how to look at it.
One of my favorite TED talks is by Will Guidara (quite honestly I think it deserves more views on YouTube than it has). Will is probably best known for co-founding one of New York’s hottest fine dining restaurants, Eleven Madison Park, and for writing the book, Unreasonable Hospitality. And in it, he talks about how just listening to the conversations that are happening at the tables and delivering these small, unexpected pockets of joy can create experiences that transcend money and time.
In the afore-mentioned talk, he talks about how there are four diners at Eleven Madison Park. That they went to all the top restaurants in NYC. Le Bernardin. Per se. And so on. And Eleven Madison Park was the last on their to-do list. But the only regret they had was that they never got to try a New York hot dog. Of course, upon hearing that, Will storms out the door to buy a $2 dog, brings it back to the kitchen and convinces the chef to serve it over the aged duck that took years to perfect. And when he finally delivered the next course on the menu as the hot dog he just bought, the four guests went bonkers. That despite on the multiple courses and the brilliant food, that their favorite dish was the NYC hot dog.
That it was because Will paid proper attention to his guests that he was able to deliver a truly unforgettable experience.
The truth is how to pay proper attention to anything that deserves our attention is the million-dollar question.
Paying proper attention
There’s the famous selective attention test, where viewers are asked to count the number of times the ball is being passed between the players, only to fail to realize that there is gorilla that walks across the screen. We’re told to pay attention to the ball passes, but only by paying proper attention to the purpose of why the test is being administered, do we catch what is hiding in plain sight.
Similarly, Raymond Joseph Teller (or better known for being half of the dynamic magic duo Penn & Teller) did a fascinating talk a decade and a half ago about the illusion of expectation. That magic in all of its novel facets feeds off of the expectations of its onlookers. When one tries to pay attention to the coins that are “magically” jumping from one hand to the next, you might fail to catch the sleight of hand in between. But only after he reveals his secrets is the simple magic act all the more impressive. In other words, in the second half, he teaches you how to pay proper attention.
If you have eight minutes in your day, would highly recommend watching the below video.
I can’t speak for every topic, industry, relationship, and so on out there, but at least for the cottage industry of venture capital, why I choose to write an angel or an LP check is similar. I don’t really look for what will change. ‘Cause damn, it’s so hard to predict what will change and how things will change. If I knew, and if one day, I know, please invest in my public markets fund, which will be the best performing fund of all time. But I don’t. We, as pundits sitting around the table, might draw predictions. But even the smartest of us (not sure why I say us, ’cause not sure if I can put myself in that category yet) would be lying if we knew what would happen in foresight.
Instead, I look at what doesn’t change.
What doesn’t change?
The great Charlie Munger passed away last week at the age of 99. And without question, a great loss to the world we live in today. Just half a year prior, he and Warren Buffett were hosting their 2023 annual meeting. And just two weeks prior, he was still doing CNBC interviews. And one of my favorite lines from that May annual meeting was:
“Well, it’s so simple to spend less than you earn, and invest shrewdly, and avoid toxic people and toxic activities, and try and keep learning all your life, et cetera, et cetera, and do a lot of deferred gratification because you prefer life that way. And if you do all those things, you are almost certain to succeed. If you don’t, you’re going to need a lot of luck. And you don’t want to need a lot of luck. You want to go into a game where you’re very likely to win without having any unusual luck.”
In reducing the requirement to need luck, one of the most effective ways to find what is constant in life. That despite changing times and technologies, these stay true. Or as Morgan Housel and Naval Ravikantput it, If you lived your life 1000 times, what would be true in 999 of them? In investing jargon, pattern recognition. Across my investments and more, where have I seen outperformance? What characteristics do they all share? What about human nature won’t change?
In fairness, pattern recognition gets a bad rap. And for a lot of investors, that’s because they choose to only invest in their comfort zone, and what they know best. Their former colleagues. Their Stanford GSB classmates. People who look like them, think like them, act like them. But recognizing thematic threads stretch across all facets of our life. We learn that not brushing our teeth well can lead to cavities. We learn that after stubbing our toe on the kitchen counter numerous times, we take a wider turn before turning into the kitchen. And we learn that eating piping hot foods kills your tastebuds for the next few days.
The venture corollary
In venture, we’re always taught to look at the team, product, and market. And that all are important. But if you tell a new grad or an ex-founder or an emerging angel to do just that. To them, that means nothing. They wouldn’t know how to judge. They have no benchmarks, nor do they know what’s right versus wrong. Now I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but I do believe previous blogposts like this and this are quite comprehensive for how I pay proper attention as an investor.
Emerging LPs are not immune to the lack of perspective as well. My hope and my goal is for how to be just as important if not more than the what. And for the why to be just as or more important than the how. It’s because of that, I write essays like this and this. And of course, it’s why I started Superclusters because I, too, am looking for how to pay proper attention to the next generation of venture investors. (Stay tuned for the coming Monday for episode four where we unpack the bull and bear case of early distributions in a fund!)
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.
Eric Woo is co-founder and CEO of Revere, where he leads product development and investment analysis & due diligence efforts.
Prior to starting Revere, he was Head of Institutional Capital at AngelList, the world’s largest online venture capital investment platform that supports over $10B in assets and has participated in the financing of over 190 “unicorn” companies. At AngelList, Eric worked closely with investors to curate early-stage fund and deal opportunities. He also developed systematic and data-driven strategies for institutional investors.
Over the last 12 years, Eric has helped allocate over $160 million in venture funds and direct co-investments. Notably, he played a key role in establishing the emerging manager investment programs at Top Tier Capital and Northgate Capital, organizations that collectively have more than $15B in AUM. Eric is an acknowledged thought leader in the VC emerging managers ecosystem.
Before his venture career, Eric worked in pricing and risk management for a large insurance company and financial guarantor. He also has experience in online marketing and private market research. A Bay Area native, Eric graduated with a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from UC Berkeley and has been a CFA charter holder since 2004.
[00:00] Intro [03:30] How did Eric pivot from being an engineer to an asset manager? [09:52] Building emerging manager programs at Top Tier and Northgate [15:25] How does Eric define conviction? [17:23] What was the thesis that Eric raised his fund of funds on? [20:00] How much does an established fund’s portfolio is allocated to emerging managers? [23:48] How did Eric pitch institutional LPs to join AngelList? [32:48] How does Eric measure the ROI on hosting events? [36:24] How does Eric pitch Revere to my relatives? [39:29] How does Revere rate emerging managers? [47:49] What are telltale signs of a fund’s outperformance? [51:36] The value of community [58:10] What are subconscious decisions LPs make that deserve a double take? [1:02:09] Why strategy drift is not a bad thing [1:04:57] What VC firm turned identity into culture? [1:07:39] What is Eric’s nighttime routine? [1:09:50] Angel investing is to tipping as LP investing is to ____ [1:13:45] What is one thing Eric recommends GPs do but no one ever listens? [1:15:18] What is an investment opportunity Eric missed because of what he didn’t do rather than what he did? [1:18:21] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:20:58] Legal disclaimer
Soooooooo… (I know, what a great word to start a blogpost) I started this essay, with some familiarity on one subject. Little did I know I was going to learn about an entirely different industry, and be endlessly fascinated about that.
The analogy that kicked off this essay is that re-upping on a portfolio company is very much like re-signing a current player on a sports team. That was it. Simple as it was supposed to sound. The goal of any analogy was to frame a new or nuanced concept, in this case, the science of re-upping, under an umbrella of knowledge we were already familiar with.
But, I soon learned of the complexity behind re-upping players’ contracts, as one might assume. And while I will claim no authority over the knowledge and calculations that go into contracts in the sports arena, I want to thank Brian Anderson and everyone else who’s got more miles on their odometer in the world of professional sports for lending me their brains. Thank you!
As well as Arkady Kulik, Dave McClure, and all the LPs and GPs for their patience and willingness to go through all the revisions of this blogpost!
While this was a team effort here, many of this blogpost’s contributors chose to stay off the record.
The year was 1997.
Nomar Garciaparra was an instantaneous star, after batting an amazing .306/.342/.534. For the uninitiated, those are phenomenal stats. On top of batting 30 home runs and 11 triples – the latter of which was a cut above the rest of the league, it won him Rookie of the Year. And those numbers only trended upwards in the years after, especially in 1999 and 2000. Garciaparra became the hope for so many fans to end the curse of the Bambino – a curse that started when the Red Sox traded the legendary Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1918.
Then 2001 hit. A wrist injury. An injured Achilles tendon. And the fact he needed to miss “significant time” earned him a prime spot to be traded. Garciaparra was still a phenomenal hitter when he was on, but there was one other variable that led to the Garciaparra trade. To Theo Epstein, above all else, that was his “fatal flaw.”
Someone that endlessly draws my fascination is Theo Epstein. Someone that comes from the world of baseball. A sport that venture draws a lot of inspiration, at least in analogy, like one of my fav sayings, Venture is one of the only types of investments where it’s not about the batting average but about the magnitude of the home runs you hit.
If you don’t follow baseball, Theo Epstein is the youngest general manager in the history of major league baseball at 26. But better known for ending the Curse of the Bambino, an 86-year curse that led the Red Sox down a championship drought that started when the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees. Theo as soon as he became general manager traded Nomar Garciaparra, a 5-time All-star shortstop, to the Cubs, and won key contracts with both third baseman Bill Mueller and pitcher Curt Schilling. All key decisions that led the Red Sox to eventually win the World Series 3 years later.
And when Theo left the Red Sox to join the Chicago Cubs, he also ended another curse – The Curse of the Billy Goat, ending with Theo leading them to a win in the 2016 World Series. You see, in baseball, they measure everything. From fly ball rates to hits per nine innings to pitches per plate appearance. Literally everything on the field.
But what made Theo different was that he looked at things off the field. It’s why he chose to bet on younger players than rely on the current all-stars. It’s why he measures how a teammate can help a team win in the dugout. And, it’s why he traded Nomar, a 5-time All Star, as soon as he joined, because Nomar’s “fatal flaw” was despite his prowess, held deep resentment to his own team, the Sox, when they tried to trade him just the year prior for Alex Rodriguez but failed to.
So, when Danny Meyer, best known for his success with Shake Shack, asked Theo what Danny called a “stupid question”, after the Cubs lost to the Dodgers in the playoffs, and right after Houston was hit by a massive hurricane, “Theo, who are you rooting for? The Dodgers so you can say you lost to the winning team, or Houston (Astros), because you want something good to happen to a city that was recently ravaged by a hurricane.”
Theo said, “Neither. But I’m rooting for the Dodgers because if they win, they’ll do whatever every championship team does and not work on the things they need to work on during the off season. And the good news is that we have to play them 8 times in the next season.”
You see, everyone in VC largely has access to the same data. The same Pitchbook and Crunchbase stat sheet. The same cap table. And the same financials. But as Howard Marks once said in response how you gain a knowledge advantage:
“You have to either:
Somehow do a better job of massaging the current data, which is challenging; or you have to
Be better at making qualitative judgments; or you have to
Be better at figuring out what the future holds.”
For the purpose of this blogpost, we’re going to focus on the first one of the three.
What is value?
To begin, we have to first define a term that’ll be booking its frequent flier miles for the rest of this piece – expected value.
Some defined it as the expectation of future worth. Others, a prediction of future utility. Investopedia defines it as the long-term average value of a variable. Merriam-Webster has the most rudimentary definition:
The sum of the values of a random variable with each value multiplied by its probability of occurrence
On the other hand, venture is an industry where the beta is arguably one of the highest. The risk associated with outperformance is massive as well. And the greatest returns, in following the power law, are unpredictable.
We’re often blessed with hindsight bias, but every early-stage investor in foresight struggles with predicting outlier performance. Any investor that says otherwise is either deluding you or themselves or both. At the same time, that’s what makes modeling exercises so difficult in venture, unlike our friends in hedge funds and private equity. Even the best severely underestimate the outcomes of their best performers. For instance, Bessemer thought the best possible outcome for Shopify was $400M with only a 3% chance of occurring.
Similarly, who would have thought that jumping in a stranger’s car or home, or live streaming gameplay would become as big as they are today. As Strauss Zelnick recently said, “The biggest hits are by their nature, unexpected, which means you can’t organize around them with AI.” Take the word AI out, and the sentence is equally as profound replaced with the word “model.” And it is equally echoed by others. Chris Paik at Pace has made it his mission to “invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.”
But I digress.
Value itself is a huge topic – a juggernaut of a topic – and I, in no illusion, find myself explaining it in a short blogpost, but that of which I plan to spend the next couple of months, if not years, digging deeper into, including a couple more blogposts that are in the blast furnace right now. But for the purpose of this one, I’ll triangulate on one subset of it – future value as a function of probability and market benchmarks.
In other words, doubling down. Or re-upping.
For the world of startups, the best way to explain that is through a formula:
E(v) = (probability of outcome) X (outcome)
E(v) = (graduation rate) X (valuation step up from last round) X (dilution)
For the sake of this blogpost and model, let’s call E(v), appreciation value. So, let’s break down each of the variables.
Graduation rates
What percent of your companies graduate to the next round? I shared general benchmarks in this blogpost, but the truth is it’s a bit more nuanced. Each vertical, each sub-vertical, each vintage – they all look different. Additionally, Sapphire’s Beezer recently said that it’s normal to expect a 20-30% loss ratio in the first five years of your fund. Not all your companies will make it, but that’s the game we play.
On a similar note, institutional LPs often plan to build a multi-fund, multi-decade relationship with their GPs. If they invest in a Fund I, they also expect to be there by Fund III.
Valuation step ups
How much greater is the next round’s valuation in comparison to the one in which you invested? Twice as high? Thrice? By definition, if you double down on the same company, rather than allocate to a net new company, you’re decreasing your TVPI. And as valuations grow, the cost of doubling down may be too much for your portfolio construction model to handle, especially if you’re a smaller sub-$100M fund.
It’s for the same reason that in the world of professional sports, there are salary caps. In fact, most leagues have them. And only the teams who:
Have a real chance at the championship title.
Have a lot in their coffers. This comes down to the composition of the ownership group, and their willingness to pay that tax.
And/or have a city who’s willing to pay the premium.
… can pay the luxury tax. Not to be too much of a homer, but the Golden State Warriors have a phenomenal team and are well-positioned to win again (at least at the time of this blogpost going out). So the Warriors can afford to pay the luxury tax, but smaller teams or teams focused on rebuilding can’t.
The Bulls didn’t re-sign the legendary Michael Jordan because they needed to rebuild. Indianapolis didn’t extend Peyton Manning’s contract ‘cause they didn’t have the team that would support Peyton’s talents. So, they needed to rebuild with a new cast of players.
Similarly, Sequoia and a16z might be able to afford to pay the “luxury tax” when betting on the world’s greatest AI talent and for them to acquire the best generative AI talent. Those who have a real chance to grow to $100M ARR, given adoption rates, retention rates, and customer demand. But as a smaller fund or a fund that has a new cast of GPs (where the old guard retired)… can you?
Dilution
If a star player is prone to injury or can only play 60 minutes of a game (rather than 90 minutes), a team needs to re-evaluate the value of said player, no matter how talented they are. How much of a player’s health, motivation, and/or collaborativeness – harkening back to the anecdote of Nomar Garciaparra at the beginning – will affect their ability to perform in the coming season?
Take, for instance, the durability of a player. If there ‘s a 60% chance of a player getting injured if he/she plays longer than 60 minutes in a game and a 50% of tearing their ACL, while they may your highest scorer this season, they’re not very durable. If that player missed 25% of practices and 30% of games, they just don’t have it in them to see the season through. And you can also benchmark that player against the rest of the team. How’s that compared with the team’s average?
Of course, there’s a parallel here to also say, every decision you make should be relative to industry and portfolio benchmarks.
How great of a percentage are you getting diluted with the next round if you don’t maintain your ownership? This is the true value of your stake in the company as the company grows.
How does one use the appreciation value equation?
E(v) = (graduation rate) X (valuation step up from last round) X (dilution)
If the expected value is greater than one, the company is probably not worth re-upping. And that probably means the company is overhyped, or that that market is seeing extremely deflated loss ratios. In other words, more companies than should be, are graduating to the next stage; when in reality, the market is either a winner-take-all or a few-take-all market. If it is less than or equal to one, then it’s ripe to double down on. In other words, the company may be undervalued.
And to understand the above equation or for it to be actually useful (outside of an abstract concept), you need market data. Specifically, around valuation step ups as a function of industry and vertical.
If you happen to have internal data across decades and hundreds of companies, then it’s worth plugging in your own dataset as well. It’s the closest you can get to the efficient market frontier.
But if you lack a large enough sample size, I’d recommend the below model constructed from data pulled from Carta, Pitchbook, and Preqin and came from the minds of Arkady Kulik and Dave McClure.
The model
The purpose of this model is to help your team filter what portfolio companies are worth diving deeper into and which ones you may not have to (because they didn’t pass the litmus test) BEFORE you evaluate additional growth metrics.
It is also important to note that the data we’ve used is bucketed by industry. And in doing so, assumptions were made in broad strokes. For example, deep tech is broad by design but includes niche-er markets that have their own fair share of pricing nuances in battery or longevity biotech or energy or AI/ML. Or B2B which include subsectors in cybersecurity or infrastructure or PLG growth.
Take for instance…
Energy
Energy sector appreciation values and follow-on recommendations
The energy sector sees a large drop in appreciation value at the seed stage, where all three factors contribute to such an output. Valuation step-up is just 1.71X, graduation rates are less than 50% and dilution is 38% on average.
Second phase where re-upping might be a good idea is Series B. Main drivers as to such a decision are that dilution hovers around 35% and about 50% of companies graduate from Series A to Series B. Mark ups are less significant where we generally see only an increase in valuation at about 2.5X, which sits around the middle of the pack.
Biotech
Biotech sector appreciation values and follow-on recommendations
The biotech sector sees a large drop in appreciation value at the Seed stage. This time, whereas dilution seems to match the pace of the rest of the pack (at an average of 25%), the two other factors shine greater in making a follow-on decision. Valuation step up are rather low, sitting at 1.5X. And less than 50% graduate to the next stage.
In the late 2023 market, one might also consider re-upping at the Series C round. Main driver is the unexpectedly low step-up function of 1.5X, which matches the slow pace of deployment for growth and late stage VCs. On the flip side, a dilution of 17% and graduation rate of 60% are quite the norm at this stage.
In closing
All in all, the same exercise is useful in evaluating two scenarios – either as an LP or as a GP:
Is your entry point a good entry point?
Between two stages, where should you deploy more capital?
For the former, too often, emerging GPs take the stance of the earlier, the better. Almost as if it’s a biblical line. It’s not. Or at least not always, as a blanket statement. The point of the above exercise is also to evaluate, what is the average value of a company if you were to jump in at the pre-seed? Do enough graduate and at a high enough price for it to make sense? While earlier may be true for many industries, it isn’t true for all, and the model above can serve as your litmus test for it. You may be better off entering at a stage with a higher scoring entry point.
For the latter, this is where the discussion of follow on strategies and if you should have reserves come into play. If you’re a seed stage firm, say for biotech, using the above example, by the A, your asset might have appreciated too much for you to double down. In that case, as a fund manager, you may not need to deploy reserves into the current market. Or you may not need as large of a reserve pool as you might suspect. It’s for this reason that many fund managers often underallocate because they overestimate how much in reserves they need.
If you’re curious to play around with the model yourself, ping Arkady at ak@rpv.global, and you can mention you found out about it through here. 😉
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.
Beezer Clarkson leads Sapphire Partners‘ investments in venture funds domestically and internationally. Beezer began her career in financial services over 20 years ago at Morgan Stanley in its global infrastructure group. Since, she has held various direct and indirect venture investment roles, as well as operational roles in software business development at Hewlett Packard. Prior to joining Sapphire in 2012, Beezer managed the day-to-day operations of the Draper Fisher Jurvetson Global Network, which then had $7 billion under management across 16 venture funds worldwide.
In 2016, Beezer led the launch of OpenLP, an effort to help foster greater understanding in the entrepreneur-to-LP tech ecosystem. Beezer earned a bachelor’s in government from Wesleyan University, where she served on the board of trustees and currently serves as an advisor to the Wesleyan Endowment Investment Committee. She is currently serving on the board of the NVCA and holds an MBA from Harvard Business School.
[00:00] Intro [02:57] Who was Beezer’s first mentor? [06:57] How did Beezer get to work with the founder of eBay? [10:45] The strength of diverse backgrounds [14:11] How Hustle Fund convinced Foundry Group to invest in their fund [15:27] Why should another venture fund exist in this world? [19:41] What does proprietary “access” to deal flow mean? [23:53] Superpowers on the Sapphire Partners team [25:35] How does Sapphire resolve disagreements? [27:11] Why does entire Sapphire team meet with GPs? [28:18] A sneak peek into Sapphire investment process [33:34] What does Sapphire look for in a pitch deck? [34:58] The art and science behind Sapphire’s own portfolio construction [43:37] How does Sapphire look at fund managers’ portfolio construction? [47:50] Meaningful fund metrics in the first 5-7 years of a VC fund [52:44] How to think about recycling [56:15] What keeps Beezer humble? [58:22] What is an investment opportunity Beezer missed because what she didn’t do? [1:04:03] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:06:39] Legal Disclaimer
“It’s the access and why do the great people pick you that is much harder. And that speaks to what it is that you, the investor, are bringing to the table. There’s an LP-GP corollary to this too. The strongest GPs can pick their LPs, what gives the access from the LP side. So it’s a really different way of saying why are you so special. But it’s repeatable.”
“The good and the bad of being an LP is that you’re the peanut gallery to the show. So yes, a VC doesn’t exist unless LPs back them. The LPs are limited partners. We’re limited, which is there for a reason. You’re not driving the bus. There’s humility in that. I liken it to being a parent. There’s all sorts of things you take pride in in your kids. But at the end of the day, it’s your fund; it’s not me. You’re the one making the choices. The same way, it’s the entrepreneurs that make the companies.”
Chris Douvos founded Ahoy Capital in 2018 to build an intentionally right-sized firm that could pursue investment excellence while prizing a spirit of partnership with all of its constituencies. A pioneering investor in the micro-VC movement, Chris has been a fixture in venture capital for nearly two decades. In addition to successfully identifying and catalyzing nascent funds, he bridges a gap between the providers of capital and the consumers of capital by creating platforms for transparent dialogue. Chris authors the blog SuperLP in which he chronicles his adventures investing in venture capital and private equity; and his brick oven pizza parties, small gatherings of LPs, GPs, and entrepreneurs, are well-known in the Valley. He is sought after not only for investment capital, but also for his advice, and serves on numerous managers’ advisory boards.
Prior to Ahoy Capital, Chris spearheaded investment efforts at Venture Investment Associates, and The Investment Fund for Foundations. He learned the craft of illiquid investing at Princeton University’s endowment. He started his business career as a strategy consultant at Monitor Company. Chris regularly speaks at industry conferences and business schools and is a frequent resource for tech and business media. He earned his B.A. with Distinction in history from Yale College in 1994 and an M.B.A. from Yale School of Management in 2001. He was awarded the CFA Charter in 2004.
[00:00] Intro [03:01] What Chris learned from the founder of Greylock and the Chief Investment Officer at Yale’s Endowment. [06:25] How a timber pitch and losing the nose game earned a Chris a front-row seat to venture capital. [10:35] How 2001 is similar to 2023. [12:44] What legislation makes California special? [13:11] Do firms need to have geographical presence? [16:44] How did Chris first start to build his deal flow? [23:17] What needs to go in a good cold email [24:53] Breaking down how Chris constructed his first opinion on great venture capital firms [30:04] How did Josh Kopelman build ‘ecosystem as a service’ in 2004 [33:28] How did Chris end up backing Data Collective [37:52] What are the 4 leading indicators of fund manager outperformance? [48:46] Which firm of Chris’ recent portfolio is willing to be wrong and alone? [51:32] Chris’ Peter Dolan impression [56:09] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring [58:45] Legal disclaimer
“Entrepreneurship is like a gas. It’s hottest when it’s compressed.”
“Have an opinion. Have a viewpoint. There are so many investors who are just caught up in these tides. They’re heat-seeking missiles, looking for the new, new thing. The reality is that by the time, the new, new thing is new to them, it’s already a little bit longer in the tooth in the ecosystem — all the great deals have been done.”
“I’m looking for well-rounded holes that are made up of jagged pieces that fit together nicely.”
I’ve always been a fan of easter eggs. Cup of Zhou also happens to be one of them. Superclusters is another. But this time, rather than leaving it for surprise, I’d love to spell out why and with that, the purpose of this podcast.
In the startup world, we always say startups are the stars of our universe. They shine the brightest and they light up the night sky. We also have tons of aphorisms in the startup world. For instance, “Aim for the stars, land on the moon”. Startups are often called moonshots. They need to achieve escape velocity. And so on.
So if startups are the stars of the universe, galaxies would be VC firms that have a portfolio of stars.
And if galaxies were VC firms, superclusters would be LPs. Superclusters are collections of multiple galaxies. For example, the supercluster that the Milky Way is in is called Laniakea (Hawaiian for “immense heavens,” for the curious).
So why a podcast on the LP world?
The LP industry in ten years will be much bigger than it is today. We are not even close to the TAM of it.
The LP industry will be a lot more transparent than it is today. FYI, as many of you know already, the industry is very opaque. Many want and still like to keep their knowledge proprietary. But what’s proprietary today will be common place tomorrow. I’m not here to share anyone’s deepest, darkest secrets, or anyone’s social security number. That’s none of my business. But the tactics that make the greatest LPs great are already being shared over intimate happy hours and dinners between a select few. And it’s only a matter of time before the rest of the world catches up. We saw the same happen with the VC industry, and now people are moving even more upstream.
I think of content on a cartesian X-Y graph. On the X-axis, there’s intellectual stimulation. In other words, interesting. On the Y-axis, there’s emotional stimulation, or otherwise known as fun. Most financial services (for instance, hedge fund, private equity, venture capital, options trading) content tends to highly index on intellectual stimulation and not emotional. And for the purpose of this pod, I want to focus on making investing in VC funds fun AND interesting.
You can find my podcast on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts for now. In full transparency, waiting on RSS feed approval for the other platforms, but soon to be shared on other platforms near you.
You can expect episodes to come out weekly with ten episodes per season, and a month break in between each to ensure that I can bring you the best quality content. 🙂
You can find my first episode with the amazing Chris Douvos here:
I am no doubt flawed, clearly evidenced by my verbal “ummmm’s” and “likes” in the podcast. But nevertheless pumped to begin this journey as a podcast host. I expect to grow in this journey tackling the emerging LP space and running a podcast, and I hope you can grow with me. So, any and all feedback is deeply appreciated. Recommendations of who to get on. What questions would you like answered. Formats that you find interesting. I’m all ears.
That said, I’m grateful to everyone who made this possible. My mighty editors, Tyler and JP. Without the two of you, I’d still be struggling telling head from tail on how to do J-cuts and L-cuts. The sole sponsor for the pod, Ravi and Alchemist. And while the pod itself is separate from Alchemist altogether, Ravi pushed me to make it happen. And for that and more, I am where I am now. Every single LP who took a bet on me for Season 1 when all I had for them was an idea and a goal. Chris. Beezer. Eric. Jamie. Courtney. Ben. Howard. Amit. Samir. Jeff and Martin.
And to everyone, who’s offered feedback, advice, introductions and pure energy to fuel all of this. Thank you!
And to you, my readers, I appreciate you taking time out of your busy day when there are so many things that fight for your attention, that you spend time with me every week! If I could just be a bit more self-serving, if you have the chance to tune in, I’d be extremely grateful if you could share it with one LP or one GP who could take something away from it.
Cheers,
David
P.S. Don’t worry. I’ll still continue to write on this blog weekly about everything else in between. That’s a habit I’m not willing to give up any time soon.
P.P.S. I’m already working on and recording for Season 2 of the pod, and I can tell you now that things will only get spicier.
P.P.P.S. Due to a million bugs and a half, I’m still working on launching a dedicated website for the podcast (superclusters.co), but until then, I’ll be sharing the show notes of each episode here.
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.
Recently, I’ve been chatting with a number of GPs and LPs looking to make their first hires. Many of whom hadn’t built a team prior. Now I’m no expert, nor would I ever claim to be one. But I’ve been very lucky to hire and work with some stellar talent.
They asked me how I think about interviewing, selecting, as well as onboarding. I’ll save the last of which for a future blogpost, but for the purpose of this one, if you frequent this blog, you’ll know I love good questions. And well, I get really really nerdy about them. So, as I shared my four favorite, nonobvious interview questions as of late with them (some I’ve used more than others), I will also share them with you.
I won’t cover the table stakes. Why are you excited to be here? What skills are you a B+/A- at? And what are you A+++ in? Why you? Etc.
If you had to hire everyone based only on you knowing how good they are at a certain video game, what video game would you pick?
I recently heard Patrick O’Shaughnessy ask that question to a guest on his podcast, and I found it inextricably profound. While the question was directed at Palmer Luckey, who has a past in video games, the words “video game” can easily be replaced by any other activity or topic of choice and be equally as revealing. Be it sports. Or an art form. Or how they grasp a certain topic. Even, putting them in front of a Nobel Prize winner and see how quickly they realize they’re in front of one.
The last example may be stretching it a bit, but has its origin in one of my favorite fun facts about the CRT — the cognitive reflection test. Effectively, a test designed to ask the minimum number of questions in order to determine someone’s intelligence. But in a parodical interpretation of the test, two of the smartest minds in the world, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, decided to make an even shorter version of the test to measure one’s intelligence. The test would be to see that if one were to put you in front of Amos Tversky, one of the most humble human beings out there despite his intelligence, how long it would take you to realize that the person sitting across from you was smarter than you. The shorter it took you, the smarter you were. But I digress (although there’s your fun fact for the day).
The reality is that any activity that requires a great amount of detail, nuance, resilience, frustration and failure probably qualify to be mad-libbed into that question. Nevertheless, it’s quite interesting to see what someone would suggest, and a great way of:
Assessing how deep a candidate can go deep on a particular subject,
How well they can relay that depth of knowledge to a layperson, and
How they build a framework around that.
I hate surprises. Can you tell me something that might go wrong now so that I’m not surprised when it happens?
Simon Sinek has always been one for great soundbites. And the above question is no exception. It’s a great way of asking what is one of your weaknesses. Without asking what is your weakness? Most, if not all hiring managers are probably accustomed to getting a rose-tinted “weakness” that turns out is a strength when asking the weakness question to candidates. It is, after all, in the candidate’s best interest to appear the most suitable for the job description as possible. And the JD doesn’t include anything about having weaknesses. Only strengths… and responsibilities.
At the same time, while the weakness question makes sense, when there is an honest answer, I’ve seen as many hiring managers use the associated answer to discount a candidate’s ability to succeed in the role, before given the chance. While this is still throwing caution to the wind, for one to be open-minded when asking this question, at the very least, you’re more likely to get an honest one. At least until this question becomes extremely popular.
Another version, thought a lot more subtle, is: What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?
I won’t get into the nuances here, but if you’re curious for a deeper dive, would recommend reading this blogpost. The TL;DR is that when we describe others (especially those we know well), we often use adjectives that juxtapose how we see ourselves in relation to them.
What did you do in your last role that no one else in that role has ever done?
This is one of my favorite professors, Janet Brady’s, favorite questions, and ever since I learned of it, it’s been mine as well. Your mileage may vary. Of particular note, I look for talent with entrepreneurial natures to them. Most of what I work on are usually pre-product-market fit in nature. In other times, and not mutually exclusive to the former, requires us to re-examine the status quo. What got us here — as a team, as a company, as an industry, or as a citizen of the world — may not get us there.
And there is bias here in that I enjoy working with people who push the boundaries rather than let the boundaries push them. And I love people who have asked the question “What if?” in the past and has successfully executed against that, even if it meant they had to try, try again.
What haven’t you achieved that you want to achieve?
Steven Rosenblatt has always been world-class at hiring. By far, one of the best minds when it comes to scaling teams. For a deeper dive, and some of his other go-to questions, I highly recommend checking out this blogpost.
When you’re building a world-class team, you need people to self-select themselves in and out of the culture in which you want to build. Whether it’s Pulley’s culture of move fast and ruthlessly prioritize to build a high-performance “sports team or orchestra” or On Deck’s non-values, it’s about making it clear that you’re in not because you’re peeking through rose-tinted glasses, but that you know full well, that you will be confronted by reality, yet you still remain optimistic. To do that, you need:
A tight knit team who hold the same values
And folks with a chip on their shoulder
The latter is the essence of what Steven gets at with the above question. And does one’s selfish motivation align with where the company wants to go and what the role will entail.
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.
