โMost references will not give a negative reference about someone, but you will have to understand and listen between the lines. What is a good or a bad reference? They might say, โI really like him as a person. Heโs really nice.โ But this is a person thatโs worked together with you in a team, and youโre not saying heโs great with founders or finding the best deals. Maybe heโs not that good.โ โ Raviv Sapir
Raviv Sapir is an early-stage investor at Vinthera, a fund of funds and venture firm with a hybrid strategy that combines VC fund investments with direct startup investments. With a background in tech and finance, an MBA from HEC Paris, and years of experience mentoring startups and supporting LPs, Raviv brings a sharp eye for high-conviction opportunities and a practical approach to venture. He previously held product roles at leading Israeli startups and served in a technological unit within the Israeli Defense Forces. His work across geographies, sectors, and investment stages gives him a uniquely holistic and global perspective on the venture ecosystem.
[00:00] Intro [03:31] Swimming since he was 7 [09:49] Breaking down each GP’s track record and dynamics in a partnership [11:25] Telltale signs that a partnership will last [12:50] An example of questionable GP dynamics [21:45] Virtual partnerships [25:43] GPs working out of coworking spaces [28:30] Commonly held LP assumptions [32:16] A big red flag GPs often say [34:27] What does Raviv look for during reference calls? [39:41] How does the diligence change for a Fund I/II vs Fund III/IV? [42:26] Qualitative traits Raviv likes to see in a Fund I GP vs Fund II+ GP [44:04] Ideal cadence of reporting and LP/GP touchpoints [46:03] Role of the LPAC across different funds [48:47] Diligence as a function of check size [54:37] What’s Raviv’s favorite episode of Venture Unlocked? [56:23] The podcasts that Raviv listens to
โSome of the small funds perform better but a lot of themโ… they perform much worse because the variance in their performance is so big. You might have good odds of succeeding with a small fund but very high odds of performing way worse than the bigger funds.โ โ Raviv Sapir
โGPs are great at selling. โEvery time is the best time to invest.โโ โ Raviv Sapir
โMost [references] will not give a negative reference about someone, but you will have to understand and listen between the lines. What is a good or a bad reference? They might say, โI really like him as a person. Heโs really nice.โ But this is a person thatโs worked together with you in a team, and youโre not saying heโs great with founders or finding the best deals. Maybe heโs not that good.โ โ Raviv Sapir
โโInterestingโ, especially in the US, is used in a negative way.โ โ Raviv Sapir
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.
“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.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. Itโs not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino youโve ever had (although hereโs 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.
โA lot of family office principals, unless theyโve worked in finance โ they should not be solely making the decision on which RIA to hire.โ โ 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, heโs also found independent success at both Microsoft and Seibel Systems.
[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
โA lot of family office principals, unless theyโve worked in finance โ they should not be solely making the decision on which RIA to hire.โ โ Scott Saslow
โThe three main functions that family offices tend to have are investment management, accounting and taxes, and estate planning and legal.โ โ Scott Saslow
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 โ 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 โ 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 โ the community builders, the content creators, the event organizers
The magicians โ 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 โ 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. ๐
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.
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.
One of my favorite equations that I’ve come across over the last few years is:
(track record) X (differentiation) / (complexity) = fund size
I’ve heard from friends in two organizations independently (Cendana Capital and General Catalyst), but I don’t know who the attribution traces back to. Just something about the simplicity of it. That said, ironically, for the purpose of this blogpost, I want to expand on the complexity portion of the equation. Arguably, for many LPs, the hardest part of venture capital as an asset class, much less emerging managers, to underwrite. Much of which is inspired by Brandon Sanderson’s latest series of creative writing lectures.
Separately, if you’re curious about the process I use to underwrite risks, here‘s the closest thing I have to a playbook.
A flaw is something a GP needs to overcome within the next 3-5 years to become more established, or “obvious” to an LP. These are often skillsets and/or traits that are desirable in a fund manager. For instance, they’re not a team player, bad at marketing, struggle to maintain relationships with others, inexperienced on exit strategies, have a limited network, or struggle to win >5% allocation on the cap table at the early stage.
Restrictions, on the other hand, are self-imposed. Something a GP needs to overcome but chooses not to. These are often elements of a fund manager LPs have to get to conviction on to independent of the quality of the GP. For example, the GP plans to forever stay a solo GP even with $300M+ AUM. Or the thesis is too niche. Or they only bet on certain demographics. Hell, they may not work on weekends. Or invest in a heavily diversified portfolio.
Limitations are imposed by others or by the macro environment, often against their own will. GPs don’t have to fix this, but must overcome the stigma. Often via returns. Limitations are not limited to, but include the GPs are too young or too old. They went to the “wrong” schools. There are no fancy logos on their resume. They’re co-GPs with their life partner or sibling or parent. As a founder, they never exited their company for at least 9-figures. Or they were never a founder in the first place.
To break down differentiation:
f(differentiation) = motivation + value + platform
Easy to remember too, f(differentiation) = MVP. In many ways, as you scale your firm and become more established, differentiation, while still important, matters less. More important when you’re the pirate than the navy.
Motivation is what many LPs call, GP-thesis fit. To expand on that…
Why are you starting this fund?
Why continue? Are you in it to win it? Are you in it for the long run?
What about your past makes this thesis painfully obvious for you? What past key decisions influence you today?
What makes your thesis special?
How much of the fund is you? And how much of it is an extension of you or originates with you but expands?
What do you want to have written on your epitaph?
What do you not want me or other people to know about you? How does that inform the decisions you make?
What failure will you never repeat?
In references, does this current chapter obvious to your previous employers?
And simply, does your vision for the world get me really excited? Do I come out of our conversations with more energy than what I went in with?
As you can probably guess, I spend a lot of time here. Sometimes you can find the answers in conversations with the GPs. Other times, via references or market research.
Value is the value-add and the support you bring to your portfolio companies. Why do people seek your help? Is your value proactive or reactive? Why do co-investors, LPs, and founders keep you in their orbit?
Platform is how your value scales over time and across multiple funds, companies, LPs, and people in the network. This piece matters more if you plan to build an institutional firm. Less so if you plan to stay boutique. What does your investment process look like? How do people keep you top of mind?
Of course, track record, to many of you reading this, is probably most obvious. Easiest to assess. While past performance isn’t an indicator of future results, one thing worth noting is something my friend Asheronce told me, “TVPI hides good portfolio construction. When I do portfolio diligence, I donโt just look at the multiples, but I look at how well the portfolio companies are doing.ย I take the top performer and bottom performer out and look at how performance stacks up in the middle.ย How have they constructed their portfolio? Do the GPs know how to invest in good businesses?” Is the manager a one-hit wonder, or is there more substance behind the veil?
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.
References and getting beneath the surface have always been fascinating to me. Because of my job, my interests, and my content, I meet a lot of GPs and founders. And when they’re in pitch mode, they will almost always tell you about how amazing they are and how amazing their product is. Truth is, they probably are amazing. But in our world where everyone is, no one is. So what’s more interesting to me is their level of self-awareness. For the purpose of this piece, this is mainly about GPs. And hopefully, in service of GPs and LPs investing in GPs.
When someone is pitching you, especially if it’s the first time you’re meeting with them, they will tell you about all the sunshine and rainbows. That they knew there was going to be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. With a leprechaun there exclaiming, “I told you so.” I get the psychology behind it. Who wants to buy a new/used car with a dent behind the seat of the shotgun, just hidden from plain sight? Who wants to buy a home where the last owner passed away in it? Or an apartment where the family living above has rowdy kids?
For better or worse, usually for the worse, all of the above salespeople are looking for buyers, not customers. Customers are repeat purchasers; buyers are not. On the flip side, your LPs are more likely to be repeat purchasers. Customers. Specifically, the institutional LPs are looking for 20-year relationships. That’s 3-4 funds. Both Chris Douvos and Raida Daouk have independently shared with me that the average venture fund lasts twice as long as the average American marriage. So you need to know as much as you can get your hands on before you “marry” your LPs. And as such, LPs want to know both what worked and what didn’t. Or at least I do.
Usually, investors usually tell me all the predictions they had that worked out. “We were investing in AI back in 2019 before it became big.” To be fair, so were most other investors. “I knew cryptocurrency was going to be huge back in 2015.” And so on. As an LP, it’s hard to tell what is revisionist’s history and what isn’t. But what is helpful is to know if you had any predictions in the past that didn’t work out.
Why did you hold those beliefs so strongly? What were the factors that led you to that prediction? What did you learn after your prediction proved otherwise?
Venture is still very much a cottage industry. Why? No matter how big funds get. No matter how large deals become. And no matter how many rounds new names for the very first round of funding there are. Series A. Seed. Pre-seed. Angel round. You name it. The definition of venture is betting on the non-obvious before it becomes obvious. You will be wrong more often than you’re right. At the very end of the day, it is an art form. Not because it needs to be, but because very few have actually tried to break down the art form into a science.
Why? Science and strategy require games where the feedback loops are often AND where there are predictable, deterministic outcomes. If you input A in, you get B out. Venture is not that. You can do everything “by the book” and still fail. Although the book itself has yet to really be written.
Yet the most repeatedly successful firms (that have been able to transition leadership successfully to at least one other generation) are sommeliers of succession planning. How they transition this generation’s knowledge to the next. It requires not just being brilliant, but being brilliant enough to be able to break down instinct and intuition as if it were a math formula. If not classical physics, at least quantum.
All that to say, if I ask a GP to break down a prediction โ whether it worked or didn’t โ and they can’t answer it other than “I just knew,” I’m personally not sure if they’re ready to build a generational firm.
The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. Itโs an inside scoop of what goes on in my nogginโ. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. Iโll let you decide which it falls under.
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.
My family and friends have always enjoyed local restaurants and never found that higher end culinary flair ever satisfied the beast within. Also, having been a swimmer in a prior lifetime, I also ate like a vacuum cleaner. Food was inhaled rather than chewed.
In 2015, my mentor brought me to my first fine dining experience. One with a Michelin star at that. It was a multi-course meal, filled with words I knew the definitions of, but the permutation of which left me perplexed. Palate cleanser. Salad forks and dinner forks. Kitchen tours. And more.
I remember one distinct course where they had served us clams with the shells attached in a bowl. And another ornate bowl after we de-shell. The messiest part of the dinner, to be fair. After we were all done, they cleaned the table and brought us a glass bowl of water. With slices of lemon and grapefruit, adorned with flower petals.
Thinking it was a complementary drink, I took a swig. It was akin to spa water. Cool, and rather refreshing. Contrary to the calming effect of the drink, I saw, out of the corner of my eye, our waiter run across the room faster than any Olympian. After zigs and zags between tables, he stopped abruptly at our table. Now the whole restaurant stared curiously at what would happen next. Between lengthy exhales, he said, “Sir, this bowl is for washing your hands.” Embarrassed, I apologized profusely. To which, he consoled me profusely back. He took the bowl to get us a new one.
As I looked over at my dining mate, he said, “Man, I’m glad you took that bullet for us. I would have done the same.”
Nowadays, especially if I’m in a fine dining establishment, I almost always ask, “How would you recommend us to eat this?”
Most fund managers start the meeting off, almost immediately with the pitch. Most founders do the same too. I was at a virtual conference last week, where I was matched with 8 GPs on a 15-minute speed date, 6 out of 8 jumped straight into, “Let me tell you about my fund.” I get the urgency, but the first meeting should always be an opportunity to get to know the person you are talking to. As Simon Sinek says, start with the why. Then the how. Then the what. Most flip the order when they’re in pitch mode. Hell, some may not ever get into the ‘why.’
Most LPs do not invest in venture full-time. In fact, it’s the asset class they know least well. And within their smallest bucket of allocation, aka venture, emerging managers are the smallest of the smallest bucket in their larger portfolio. So if amount of capital equated to depth of understanding, most LPs know bar none about venture. At least, compared to you, the GP, who is pitching. Some may think they know a lot. They may even want to invest directly in early-stage companies themselves. And while they may not admit it to you, a number of LPs think your job, as a venture capital GP, is easy.
You, I, and every investor who has spent meaningful time in venture and is not deluding themselves, know that this is the exact opposite of any easy job that anyone can do well. Do note, raising capital easily and deploying capital easily and supporting entrepreneurs easily are all different things.
Nevertheless, depending on the LP’s proficiency level, you need to remind them:
On venture and its risks (why the asset class) โ Compare the asset class to others. Buyout. Real estate. Credit. And so on. Set expectations explicitly. If you yourself are not capable of comparing and contrasting between the asset classes, you should learn about the others yourself.
Why emerging managers (Big multi stage fund vs you the Fund I) โ You are not Andreessen, GC, Redpoint, Emergence, IVP, Industry, you name it. Neither should you at a Fund I or II. The risks of betting on emerging managers is present. If an LP indexes the emerging manager venture asset class, they’ll be disappointed. The mean is great, but the median is horrible. At least, compared to other asset classes they could be investing in. Do not pitch them, “emerging managers are more likely to outperform.” Inform them of the real risks at play.
Why vertical/industry โ Many emerging funds are specialists. For good reason. Based on your past experience, you’re likely to have more scar tissue but also real learnings than in other industries you did not have exposure to. Just like the first two, set the stage. How does your industry compare to others?
Why you โ Why the strategy? Why do you have GP-thesis fit? Why have all your previous experiences culminated to this one point in time to start this fund? And is your interest in running a firm enduring? If not, it’s also okay, but be explicit about it.
Why they loved you โ This is for the venture-literate LP AND if they’ve previously invested in you. Now they’re deciding if they should re-up. Were you true to your word? Have you stayed focused enough that your bets are still largely uncorrelated to the other bets in the LP’s portfolio? Why are you as awesome, but ideally more awesome compared to the last time you’ve chatted?
In that order. Starting from (1) to (5). Do not skip (1), (2), and (3).
If you jump straight to (4), that LP will consume that information within their own biases. Something you may not be able to control. And that will either make a fool out of them. Or a fool out of you. Just like I was at my first fine dining meal.
No one wants to be a fool. Don’t give anyone a chance to be one.
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.
The title says it all. I’m four seasons in and I’m fortunate to have learned from some of the best and most thoughtful individuals in the LP industry. I often joke with friends that Superclusters allows me to ask dumb questions to smart people. But there’s quite a bit of truth there as well. I look back in Season 1, and I’m proud to see the evolution of my questions as well.
There was a piece back in 2022 where Johns Hopkins’ Jeff Hooke said that “75% of funds insist they are in the top quartile.” To my anecdotal knowledge, that seems to hold. I might say 75% of angel investors starting their first funds say they’re top quartile. And 90% of Fund IIs say their Fund Is are top quartile. So the big looming question as an LP is how do you know which are and which aren’t.
And if we were all being honest with each other, the first five years of returns and IRRs really aren’t indicative of the fund’s actual performance. In fact, Stepstone had a recent piece that illustrated fewer than 50% of top-quartile funds at Year 5 stay there by Year 10. 30% fall to second quartile. 13% slip to third. 9% fall from grace to the bottom quartile. But only 3.7% of bottom-quartile funds make it to the top quartile after its 10-year run (on a net TVPI basis).
I’ve enjoyed every single podcast episode I’ve recorded to date. And all the offline conversations that I’ve had because of the podcast itself. Nevertheless, it’s always fascinating when I learn something for the first time on the podcast while we’re recording. Excluding the longer lessons some of our guests have shared (I’m looking at you Evan, Charlotte, and much much more), below are the many Twitter-worthy (not calling it X) soundbites that have come up in the podcast so far.
โEntrepreneurship is like a gas. Itโs hottest when itโs compressed.โ โ Chris Douvos
โIโm looking for well-rounded holes that are made up of jagged pieces that fit together nicely.โ โ Chris Douvos
โIf you provide me exposure to the exact same pool of startups [as] another GP of mine, then unfortunately, you donโt have proprietary deal flow for me. You donโt enhance my network diversification.โ โ Jamie Rhode
โSell when you can, not when you have to.โ โ Howard Lindzon
โWhen you think about investing in any fund, youโre really looking at three main components. Itโs sourcing ability. Are you seeing the deals that fit within whatever business model youโre executing on? Do you have some acumen for picking? And then, the third is: what is your ability to win? Have you proven your ability to win, get into really interesting deals that mightโve been either oversubscribed or hard to get into? Were you able to do your pro rata into the next round because you added value? And we also look through the lens of: Does this person have some asymmetric edge on at least two of those three things?โ โ Samir Kaji
โ85% of returns flow to 5% of the funds, and that those 5% of the funds are very sticky. So we call that the โChampions League Effect.โโ โ Jaap Vriesendorp
โThe truth of the matter, when we look at the data, is that entry points matter much less than the exit points. Because venture is about outliers and outliers are created through IPOs, the exit window matters a lot. And to create a big enough exit window to let every vintage that we create in the fund of funds world to be a good vintage, we invest [in] pre-seed and seed funds โ that invest in companies that need to go to the stock market maybe in 7-8 years. Then Series A and Series B equal โearly stage.โ And everything later than that, we call โgrowth.โโ โ Jaap Vriesendorp
โ[When] youโre generally looking at four to five hundred distinct companies, 10% of those companies generally drive most of the returns. You want to make sure that the company that drives the returns you are invested in with the manager where you size it appropriately relative to your overall fund of funds. So when we double click on our funds, the top 10 portfolio companies โ not the funds, but portfolio companies, return sometimes multiples of our fund of funds.โ โ Aram Verdiyan
โIf youโre overly concentrated, you better be damn good at your job โcause you just raised the bar too high.โ โ Beezer Clarkson
โ[David Marquardt] said, โYou know what? Youโre a well-trained institutional investor. And your decision was precisely right and exactly wrong.โ And sometimes that happens. In this business, sometimes good decisions have bad outcomes and bad decisions have good outcomes.โ โ Chris Douvos
โMiller Motorcars doesnโt accept relative performance for least payments on your Lamborghini.โ โ Chris Douvos
โThe biggest leverage on time you can get is identifying which questions are the need-to-haves versus nice-to-haves and knowing when enough work is enough.โ โ John Felix
โIn venture, we donโt look at IRR at all because manipulating IRR is far too easy with the timing of capital calls, credit lines, and various other levers that can be pulled by the GP.โ โ Evan Finkel
โThe average length of a VC fund is double that of a typical American marriage. So VC splits โ divorce โ is much more likely than getting hit by a bus.โ โ Raida Daouk
โHistorically, if you look at the last 10 years of data, it would suggest that multiple [of the premium of a late stage valuation to seed stage valuation] should cover around 20-25 times. [โฆ] In 2021, that number hit 42 times. [โฆ] Last year, that number was around eight.โ โ Rick Zullo (circa 2024)
โThe job and the role that goes most unseen by LPs and everybody outside of the firm is the role of the culture keeper.โ โ Ben Choi
โYou can map out what your ideal process is, but itโs actually the depth of discussion that the internal team has with one another. [โฆ] You have to define what your vision for the firm is years out, in order to make sure that youโre setting those people up for success and that they have a runway and a growth path and that they feel empowered and they feel like theyโre learning and theyโre contributing as part of the brand. And so much of what happens there, it does tie back to culture [โฆ] Thereโs this amazing, amazing commercial that Michael Phelps did, [โฆ] and the tagline behind it was โItโs what you do in the dark that puts you in the light.โโ โ Lisa Cawley
โIn venture, LPs are looking for GPs with loaded dice.โ โ Ben Choi
โIf I hire someone, I donโt really want to hire right out of school. I want to hire someone with a little bit of professional experience. And I want someone whoโs been yelled at. [โฆ] I donโt want to have to triple check work. I want to be able to build trust. Going and getting that professional experience somewhere, even if itโs at a startup or venture firm. Having someone have oversight on you and [push] you to do excellent work and [help] you understand why it mattersโฆ High quality output can help you gain so much trust.โ โ Jaclyn Freeman Hester
โLPs watch the movie, but donโt read the book.โ โ Ben Choi
โIf itโs not documented, itโs not done.โ โ Lisa Cawley
โIf somebody is so good that they can raise their own fund, thatโs exactly who you want in your partnership. You want your partnership of equals that decide to get together, not just are so grateful to have a chance to be here, but theyโre not that great.โ โ Ben Choi
โWhen you bring people in as partners, being generous around compensating them from funds they did not build can help create alignment because theyโre not sitting there getting rich off of something that started five years ago and exits in ten years. So theyโre kind of on an island because everybody else is in a different economic position and that can be very isolating.โ โ Jaclyn Freeman Hester
โNeutral references are worse than negative references.โ โ Kelli Fontaine
โEverybody uses year benchmarking, but thatโs not the appropriate way to measure. We have one fund manager that takes five years to commit the capital to do initial investments versus a manager that does it all in a year. Youโre gonna look very, very different. Ten years from now, 15 years from now, then you can start benchmarking against each other from that vintage.โ โ Kelli Fontaine
โWe are not in the Monte Carlo simulation game at all; weโre basically an excel spreadsheet.โ โ Jeff Rinvelt
โA lot of those skills [to be a fund manager] are already baked in. The one that wasnโt baked in for a lot of these firms was the exit manager โ the ones that help you sell. [โฆ] If you donโt have it, there should be somebody that itโs their job to look at exits. โ โ Jeff Rinvelt
โGetting an LP is like pulling a weight with a string of thread. If you pull too hard, the string snaps. If you donโt pull hard enough, you donโt pull the weight at all. Itโs this very careful balancing act of moving people along in a process.โ โ Dan Stolar
โGoing to see accounts before budgets are set helps get your brand and your story in the mind of the budget setter. In the case of the US, budgets are set in January and July, depending on the fiscal year. In the case of Japan, budgets are set at the end of March, early April. To get into the budget for Tokyo, you gotta be working with the client in the fall to get them ready to do it for the next fiscal year. [For] Korea, the budgets are set in January, but they donโt really get executed on till the first of April. So thereโs time in there where you can work on those things. The same thing is true with Europe. A lot of budgets are mid-year. So you develop some understanding of patterns. You need to give yourself, for better or worse if youโre raising money, two to three years of relationship-building with clients.โ โ David York
โMany pension plans, especially in America, put blinders on. โDonโt tell me what Iโm paying my external managers. I really want to focus and make sure weโre not overpaying our internal people.โ And so then it becomes, you canโt ignore the external fees because the internal costs and external fees are related.ย If you pay great people internally, you can push back on the external fees. If you donโt pay great people internally, then youโre a price taker.โ โ Ashby Monk
โYou need to realize that when the managers tell you that itโs only the net returns that matter. Theyโre really hoping youโll just accept that as a logic thatโs sound. What theyโre hoping you donโt question them on is the difference between your gross return and your net return is an investment in their organization. And that is a capability that will compound in its value over time. And then they will wield that back against you and extract more fees from you, which is why the alternative investment industry in the world today isย where most of the profits in the investment industry are capturedย and captured by GPs.โ โ Ashby Monk
โI often tell pensions you should pay people at the 49th percentile. So, just a bit less than average. So that the people going and working there also share the mission. They love the mission โcause that actually is, in my experience, the magic of the culture in these organizations that you donโt want to lose.โ โ Ashby Monk
โThe thing about working with self-motivated people and driven people, on their worst day, they are pushing themselves very hard and your job is to reduce the stress in that conversation.โ โ Nakul Mandan
โI only put the regenerative part of a wealth pool into venture. [โฆ] That number โ how much money you are putting into venture capital per year largely dictates which game youโre playing.โ โ Jay Rongjie Wang
โWhen investing in funds, you are investing in a blind pool of human potential.โ โ Adam Marchick
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.
What are the essential elements of a โgoodโ VC fund strategy vs. โluckyโ?
What elements can you control and what can you not?
How long does it take to develop โskillโ and can you speed it up w/ (intentional) practice?
Anyone can shoot a three-pointer every once in a while.
Steph Curry is undeniably one of the best shooters of our time. If not, of all time. Even if you don’t watch ball, one can’t help but appreciate what a marksman Steph is. In case you haven’t, just look at the clip below of his shots during the 2024 Olympics.
From the 2024 Olympics
As the Under Armour commercial with Michael Phelps once put it, “it’s what you do in the dark that puts you in the light.” For Steph, it’s the metaphoric 10,000 hours taking, making, and missing shots. For the uninitiated, what might be most fascinating is that not all shots are created equal, specifically… not all misses are created equal.
There was a piece back in 2021 by Mark Medina where he wrote, “If the ball failed to drop through the middle of the rim, Curry and Payne simply counted that attempt as a missed shot.” Even if he missed, the difference between missing by a wide margin versus hitting the rim mattered. The difference between hitting the front of the rim versus the backboard or the back rim mattered. The former meant you were more likely to make the shot after the a bounce than the other. Not all misses are created equal.
Anyone can shoot a 3-pointer. With enough tries. But not everyone can shoot them as consistently as Steph can.
The same holds for investing. Many people, by sheer luck, can find themselves invested in a unicorn. But not everyone can do it repeatedly across vintages. It’s the difference between a single outperforming fund and an enduring firm.
The former isn’t bad. Quite good actually. But it also takes awareness and discipline to know that it may be a once-in-a-lifetime thing. The latter takes work. Lots of it. And the ability to compound excellence.
When one is off, how much are you off? What are the variables that led you to miss? What variables are within your control? And what aren’t? Of those that are, how consistent can you maintain control over those variables?
As such, let me break down a few things that you can control as a GP.
Deal Flow
Are you seeing enough deals? Are you seeing enough GREAT deals? Do you find yourself struggling in certain quarters to find great deals or do you find yourself struggling to choose among the surplus of amazing deals that are already in your inbox? Simply, are you struggling against starvation or indigestion? Itโs important to be intellectually honest here, at least to yourself. I know thereโs the game of smokes and mirrors that GPs play with LPs when fundraising, but as the Richard Feynman line goes, โThe first principle is that you must not fool yourselfโand you are the easiest person to fool.โ
Value Add
Whereas deal flow is about what companies you see, value add is more about how you win deals. Why and how do you attract the worldโs best entrepreneurs to work with you? In a world where the job of a VC is to sell money โ in other words, is my dollar greener or is another VCโs dollar greener โ you need to answer a simple question: Why does another VC fund need to exist?
What can you provide a founder that no other, or at least, very few other, investors can
While there are many investors out there who say โfounders just like meโ or โfounders share their most vulnerable moments with meโ, itโs extremely hard for an LP to underwrite. And what an LP cannot grasp their head around means youโll disappear into obscurity. The file that sits in the back of the cabinet. Youโll exist, and an LP may even like you, but never enough for them to get to conviction. And to a founder, especially when theyโve previously โmade itโ, already, you will fall into obsolescence because your value-add will be a commodity at scale. Note the term โat scale.โ Yes, youโll still be able to win deals on personality with your immediate network, and opportunistically with founders that you occasionally click with. But can you do it for the three best deals that come to your desk every quarter for at least the next four years? If youโre building an institutional firm, for the next 20+ years. Even harder to do, when youโre considering thousands of firms are coming out of the woodwork every year. Also, an institutional LP sees at least a few hundred per year.
For starters, I recommend checking out Daveโs piece on what it means to help a company and how it impacts your brand and perception.
Portfolio Size
Deal flow is all about is your aperture wide enough. Are you capturing enough light? Portfolio size is all about how grainy the footage is. With the resolution you opt for, are you capturing enough of the details that could produce a high definition portfolio? In venture, a portfolio of five is on the smaller side. And unless youโre a proven picker, and are able to help your companies meaningfully or youโre in private equity, as a Fund I, you might want to consider a larger portfolio. Itโs not uncommon to see portfolios at 30-40 in Fund I that scale down in subsequent funds once the GPs are able to recognize good from great from amazing.
I will also note, with too big of a portfolio, you end up under optimizing returns. As Jay Rongjie Wang once said, โโThe reason why we diversify is to improve return per unit of risk taken.โ At the same time, โbear in mind, every fund that you add to your portfolio, youโre reducing your upside as well. And that is something a lot of people donโt keep in mind.โ
Moonfire Ventures did a study in 2023 and found that โthe probability of returning less than 1x the fund decreases as the size of your portfolio grows, and gets close to zero when your portfolio exceeds 200 companies.โ That said, โitโs almost impossible to 10x a fund with more than 110 companies in your portfolio.โ
First off, how are you measuring your marks? Marc Andreessen explains the concept of marks far better than I can. So not to do the point injustice, Iโm just going to link his piece here.
Separately, the earliest proxies of portfolio success happens to revolve around valuations and markups, but to make it more granular, โvaluationโ really comes down to two things:
Graduation rates
Pro rata / follow-on investments
Graduation rates
When your graduation rates between stages fall below 30%, do you know why? What kinds of founders in your portfolio fail to raise their following round? What kinds of founders graduate to the next stage but not the one after that? Are you deeply familiar with the top reasons founders in your portfolio close up shop or are unable to raise their next round? What are the greatest hesitations downstream investors have when they say no? Is it the same between the seed to Series A and the A to B?
Pro rata / follow-on investments
Of your greatest winners, are you owning enough that an exit here will be deeply meaningful for your portfolio returns. As downstream investors come in, naturally dilution occurs. But owning 5% of a unicorn on exit is 5X better than owning 1% of a unicorn. For a $10M fund, itโs the difference for a single investment 1X-ing your fund and 5X-ing it.
When you lose out on your follow-on investment opportunities, what are the most common reasons you didnโt capitalize? Capital constraints? Conviction or said uglier, buyerโs remorse? Overemphasis on metrics? Lack of information rights?
Then when your winners become more obvious in the late stages and pre-IPO stages, itโs helpful to revisit some of these earlier decisions to help you course-correct in the future.
I will note with the current market, not only are the deal sizes larger (i.e. single round unicorns, in other words, a unicorn is minted after just one round of financing), there are also more opportunities to exit the portfolio than ever before. While M&A is restricted by antitrust laws, and IPOs are limited by overall investor sentiment, there have been a lot of secondary options for early stage investors as well. But thatโs likely a blogpost for another day.
In closing
To sum it all up… when you miss, how far do you miss?
Obviously, itโs impossible to control all the variables. You cannot control market dynamics. As Lord Toranaga says in the show Shogun when asked โHow does it feel to shape the wind to your will?โ, he says โI donโt control the wind. I only study it.โ You canโt control the wind, but you can choose which sails to raise, when you raise them, and which direction they point to. Similarly, you also canโt completely control which portfolio companies hit their milestones and raise follow-on capital. For that matter, you also canโt control cofounder splits, founders losing motivation, companies running out of runway, lawsuits from competitors, and so on.
But there are a select few things that you can control and that will change the destiny of your fund. To extend the basketball analogy from the beginning a bit further, you canโt change how tall you are. But you can improve your shooting. You can choose to be a shooter or a passer. You can choose the types of shots you take โ 3-pointers, mid-range, and/or dunks. In the venture world, itโs the same.
The choice. Or, things you can change easily:
Industry vertical
Stage
Valuation
Portfolio size
Check size
Follow-on investments
The drills. Or, things you can improve with practice:
Deal flow โ both quantity and quality
The kinds of deals you pick
Value add โ Does your value-add improve over time? As you grow your network? As you have more shots on goal?
The deals you win โ Can you convey your value-add efficiently?
And then, the game itself. The things that are much harder to influence:
Graduation rates
Downstream dilution
Exit outcomes
The market and black swan events themselves
Venture is a game where the feedback cycles are long. To get better at a game, you need reps. And you need fast feedback loops. Itโs foolhardy to wait till fund term and DPI to then evaluate your skill. Itโs for that reason many investors fail. They fail slowly. While not as fast of a feedback loop as basketball and sports, where success is measured in minutes, if not seconds โ where the small details matter โ you donโt have to wait a decade to realize if youโre good at the game or not in venture. You have years. Two to three What kinds of companies resonate with the market? What kinds of founders and companies hit $10M ARR? In addition, what are the most common areas that founders need help with? And what kinds of companies are interesting to follow-on capital?
Do note there will always be outliers. StepStone recently came out with a report. Less than 50% of top quartile funds at Year 5 stay there by Year 10. And only 3.7% of bottom-quartile funds make it to the top over a decade. Early success is not always indicative of long-term success. But as a VC, even though we make bets on outliers, as a fund manager, do not bet that you will be the outlier. Stay consistent, especially if youโre looking to build an institutional firm.
One of my favorite Steph Curry clips is when he finds a dead spot on the court. He has such ball control mastery that he knows exactly when his technique fails and when there are forces beyond his control that fail him.
Huge thanks to Dave McClure for inspiring the topic of this post and also for the revisions.
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.
