Dear Emerging Manager

letter, dear

You are not all top quartile. Only 25% of you are.

You are not all top decile. Only 10% of you are.

I refuse to believe that I’m somehow seeing only the best in market. I’m not famous or lucky enough to have that fortune. Even the best known LPs I know are not so.

If your marks include companies held at last round valuation (LRV) for longer than two years, please consider proactive re-marks. This includes your angel portfolio.

SAFE rounds are not mark-ups. Do not conflate real marks with hypothetical marks.

If the founder doesn’t know who you are AND if you don’t know the company’s updates in the last two quarters, you don’t know the founder. Do not pretend you do. Your investment is not accretive to your future network. I dare say if I went to those founders right now, and asked them who their top five favorite investors are, you won’t come up. You’re forgettable. And that’s a cardinal sin of firm-building.

Let me caveat that firm-building means you plan to grow the firm. That where you are today is not where you want to stay forever as a GP. This matters far less if this is a one-and-done fund. That is okay. You don’t have to love venture forever. You don’t have to pretend you do.

Do not believe you are that special if you have a multi-stage GP as an LP. Many of the notable multi-stage GPs have invested in many. Some have invested in multiple dozens. Others hundreds. A handful we see in almost every deck. It is their job to see everything Or at least attempt to. The cardinal sin for a multi-stage GP is to not see the deal, worse than not picking or winning it.

Assume all your LPs will be passive LPs. I don’t care about their profile, how referenceable they are, how much they love you, how much they want to help. Give it a few months, a year at best, they will become passive. Human interest is fleeting. Especially since venture is the smallest bucket in our allocation (excluding funds-of-funds). And yes, they have day jobs. There are exceptions. For instance, someone who wants to start their own VC fund or someone who wants to be a VC themselves. That is not everyone.

When modeling, it is bold of you to assume that more than 10% of your portfolio will be outliers. It is bold of you to assume that more than 5% of your portfolio will be outliers. We are in a power law industry.

You will get diluted. More than you think. With how much longer companies are staying private, and how much capital is available in the later growth stages, you will get diluted. 80% is safe to assume if you have no reserves. Down to 65% depending on how much you have. There are very, very few cases you only have 50% dilution. Yet I see many GPs model their portfolio that way.

Pro rata is a legal right no successful capital will grant without a fight. If you get it without a fight down the road on a great company, ask yourself why you’re so lucky. And never forget to ask yourself that question.

In a market of exceptions, you are all more normal than you think. It sucks. In any other industry, most of you will have fairly little competition for greatness, but you chose one of the few industries where your competition is all exceptions.

How you react to a ‘no’ from an LP is a sobering fact and a great telltale sign of the strength of your relationships. I love chatting with other LPs who’ve passed on you. Not because I need to hear their why—most of our interests and mandates are different, but because I almost always ask how you react to their ‘no.’ And I am not alone here. Usually, LPs volunteer that information up quite readily. Of note, different LPs say ‘no’ differently. Most don’t. A fact I am aware of.

Many of us who do this as our primary job love you. We love venture. We love the romanticism that comes with this space. Do not play the hopeless romantic back. We need the truth.

There’s a great line that Elizabeth Gilbert credits her wife Rayya Elias. “The truth has legs. It always stands. When everything else in the room has blown up or dissolved away, the only thing left standing will always be the truth. Since that’s where you’re gonna end up anyway, you might as well just start there.”

The best time to share the truth is in person. And immediately. The second best is a 1:1 call. If it’s not urgent, save it for the AGM. If it is, call us.

We should not learn about you or your portfolio for the first time via the news. If we are, you’ve lost our trust. Shit happens. We get it. How you respond and communicate shit is what makes or breaks a relationship.

Many of my colleagues try to be helpful even if they can’t invest. Understand because they’re human they can’t be so for everyone. So when they are, don’t take it for granted.

If you conflate any of the above, you’re either lying to yourself or you’re lying to us. The former means you’re never going to make it in this industry. The latter means we’re just not going to be good partners for you.

This is not a Bible. Do not swear by it. Do not pray to it by the bedside every night.

This is just a morning wake-up call. Some of you have already woken up. Many of you may not have.

Photo by Álvaro Serrano on Unsplash


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


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.

DGQ 25: Were you successful because or in spite of your last firm?

There’s a story that Simon Sinek shared that I’ve always really liked.

I would highly recommend watching the full video. Only two and a half minutes. But in case you choose not to, the story goes… there was a former Under Secretary of Defense giving a speech at a large conference who interrupts his own remarks while drinking out of Styrofoam cup. He smiles as he looks down and he shares an anecdote.

Last year, when he was still the Under Secretary, they flew him there business class, picked him up in a car from the airport, checked him into his hotel for him, escorted him to his room. And the next morning, there was another car waiting to pick him up from the hotel that drove him to the venue, showed him through the back entrance, then green room. In the green room, there was someone waiting for him with a hot cup of coffee in a ceramic mug.

The following year he went (the year he was giving the above speech), he was no longer the Under Secretary. He flew to the city on coach, took a taxi from the airport to the hotel, checked himself in, took another taxi to the venue the next morning, found his own way backstage after arriving at the front door. When he asked where he could get coffee, someone pointed him towards the coffee machine in the back corner and told him to serve himself in a Styrofoam cup.

The intended lesson here is that the ceramic cup was never meant for him, but the position in which he holds. He deserved the Styrofoam cups, everyone does. And that no matter how far you go in life with all the perks that come with promotions and status and power, never forget that that will last only for as long as you hold that position.

There are obviously rare exceptions. But that is also the question that us as LPs ask. Hell, I’m sure it’s what a lot of VCs ask themselves about the founders they could back. Were you successful because or in spite of your last firm/company?

For founders and founding GPs, the attribution and causation is clearer than if you were an operator or other team member at a VC firm. We begin to peel the onion with questions like: What did you do in your last job title that no one else with that job title has ever done? For operators, did you create something and meaningfully lead something that created mass societal value and/or independently change the course of the company? For non-founding GPs at VC firms, did you individually drive disproportionate returns for the overall fund at your last firm? Attribution is often harder than one would think at prior institutions since many institutions succeed as teams, as opposed to individuals. So if success came as being a core member of the team, how much of your last team are you bringing with you? If not, how can you ramp up quickly to be a top performer?


The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. 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. I’ll 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.

Energy, Intelligence, and Integrity

lion, integrity

Recently, I met an LP who told me an interesting framework, derived from something Warren Buffett once said. “Every pitch needs to have energy, intelligence, and integrity. And without the last, the first two can lead bad outcomes for the LP.”

  1. Energy — Why now for the world? Why now for your LPs? Why is now the time for you? Why do you have to do this and nothing else? Can your pitch get people really excited about the opportunity? About you? When they wake up the next morning, are they still thinking about your conversation, or have they moved on with their morning to focus on sending the kids to school or what their schedule looks like for the day?
  2. Intelligence — Do you know what you’re talking about? Have you done so much research and have so much lived experience here that you are the one of the world’s foremost experts here? Are you a thoughtful and intentional person around all aspects of your life?
  3. Integrity — Can I trust you? Why should I trust you? Do you have a track record of maintaining long friendships? What’s the longest friendship you’ve maintained? Do you have an strong moral compass? How is it exhibited in even the smallest actions you take? If your and my interests ever clash, what is your course of action? Where do you sit in the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? What set of needs are you primarily motivated by?

Interestingly enough, just a few hours later, I was catching up with a good old friend who’s putting together a pitch for his new venture. And he was telling me one of the pieces of feedback that he got was that there wasn’t enough dopamine induced from his pitch. Which was an interesting piece of commentary. The person giving him that piece of feedback believed that all pitches should induce three types of hormones:

  • Dopamine — known for joy, excitement, and motivation. To draw a parallel, “energy” under Warren Buffett’s framework.
  • Oxytocin — known for building trust and empathy. Or “integrity.”
  • Serotonin — known for calmness, well-being, but in the context here: optimism. I’m not sure if this draws a strict line of correlation to Warren Buffett’s framework, but nevertheless, something useful to think about. Why will the world tomorrow be better than the one today? What can I look forward to?

In my buddy’s pitch, he included a lot of facts and research, promoting oxytocin in the reader. But the pitch lacked excitement and an urgency to take action. In other words, dopamine.

Most decks charting new territory and betting in the non-obvious carry too much oxytocin, responsible for creating trust (i.e. data, information, synthesis of market trends, why the GP is legible, testimonials, track record, etc.). So much to prove factually why this should exist. A very left brain approach.

Most decks betting on a hot topic, industry or idea index heavily on dopamine. Why this is exciting? Why we have to do this now?

The best decks have both.

Photo by Zdeněk Macháček on Unsplash


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


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.

NO Diligence is Ever Enough | Anurag Chandra | Superclusters | S6E2

anurag chandra

“There are a thousand ways to put lipstick on the pig and there are a thousand skeletons [in the closet]. I’ve only seen five or six because I’ve only seen three startup experiences. And so you need to deputize as many people as you possibly can to essentially triangulate.” — Anurag Chandra

Anurag Chandra has spent over two decades in Silicon Valley as an investor, operator, and allocator. He has helped lead four venture capital funds, managing over $2.0B in aggregate AUM. Anurag has also been a senior executive in three enterprise technology startups, two of which were sold successfully to public companies. He is currently the CIO of a single-family office with an attached venture studio and a Trustee for the $4.5B San Jose Federated City Employees Retirement Fund, serving as Vice Chair of the Board, and Chair of its Investment and Joint Personnel Committees.

You can find Anurag on his socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anchandra/
X / Twitter: https://x.com/achandra41

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

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[02:10] Why is what Anurag is wearing a walking contradiction?
[06:08] The man without a home, but comfortable in everyone’s home
[10:17] The Stanford Review
[12:55] The four assh*les of America
[20:13] How did Anurag schedule regular coffee with Mark Stevens?
[25:31] Mark Stevens’ advice to Anurag about staying top of mind
[26:42] How often should you email someone to stay in touch?
[30:33] Why should you be an asymmetric information junkie?
[34:21] Where should you find asymmetric information in VC?
[36:02] The ‘Oh Shit’ board meeting
[40:09] How San Jose Pension Plan views GPs
[43:55] Defining the ‘venture business’
[49:09] Process drives repeatability
[54:06] How San Jose Pension Plan built their investment process from scratch
[58:43] What is a risk budget?
[1:01:52] What did San Jose Pension Plan do about their risk budget?
[1:05:05] The people who changed Anurag
[1:11:10] Post-credit scene

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“You seem like a good guy. I’d love to find ways to work with you, but I’m going to forget you in two or three weeks. And you got to make sure that you stay in the front of my mind when I’m in a board meeting and there’s a company that could use your money. The best for you to do that is to shoot me an email from time to time and let me know what you’re working on. But do not make them long. I don’t need dissertations.” — Mark Stevens’ advice to Anurag

“There are a thousand ways to put lipstick on the pig and there are a thousand skeletons [in the closet]. I’ve only seen five or six because I’ve only seen three startup experiences. And so you need to deputize as many people as you possibly can to essentially triangulate.” — Anurag Chandra

“You can do two weeks or two years of due diligence on a company, in particular if you’re a mid-stage or later-stage investor. And it’s after the first board meeting—I have a friend who affectionately refers to it as the ‘Oh Shit!’ board meeting where you show up, and now you’re on the inside and you learn all the bad stuff about the company that was hidden from you. Now is that to suggest you should just invest after two weeks because even after two years you’re still going to end up with skeletons you were unable to uncover? No. I still think process matters.” — Anurag Chandra

“Look for GPs who are magnets, as opposed to looking for a needle in a haystack.” — Noah Lichtenstein

“Process drives repeatability.” — Andy Weissman


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


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


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.

How to Not Get Fired When Changing Your VC Strategy | El Pack w/ Beezer Clarkson | Superclusters

beezer clarkson

Beezer Clarkson from Sapphire Partners joins David on El Pack to answer your questions on how to build a venture capital fund. We bring on four GPs at VC funds to ask four different questions.

Precursor Ventures’ Charles Hudson asks what is the one strongly held belief about emerging managers that she no longer believes is true.

NextView Ventures’ Stephanie Palmeri asks how much should an established firm evolve versus stick to their guns.

Humanrace Capital’s Suraj Mehta asks what the best way to build brand presence is.

Rackhouse Venture Capital’s Kevin Novak asks if you’ve deployed your capital faster than you expected, what’s the best path forward with the remaining capital you have left?

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.

You can find Beezer on her socials here.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/beezer232
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabethclarkson/

Check out Sapphire’s latest breakdown on if venture is broken: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/venture-broken-what-2000-priced-early-stage-rounds-tell-clarkson-sjvjc/

And huge thanks to Charles, Suraj, Steph, and Kevin for joining us on the show!

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

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[01:22] Where does Beezer’s advice come from?
[04:03] Charles and Precursor Ventures
[04:47] What’s something Beezer used to believe about seed stage venture that she no longer believes in
[08:04] Why did Charles choose to bet on pre-seed companies?
[10:21] What did LPs push back on when Charles was starting Precursor?
[12:18] Definition of early stage investing today
[14:38] Steph and NextView Ventures
[18:13] When do you stick your knitting or move on from the past as an established firm?
[30:48] Is venture investing in AI fundamentally different than investing in other types of companies?
[32:52] Does competition for a deal mean you’ve already lost it?
[36:09] Suraj and Humanrace Capital
[36:54] How should emerging managers build their brand?
[38:38] The audience most emerging managers don’t focus on but should
[40:39] How much does visible brand presence matter?
[43:47] Useful or not: Media exposure in the data room
[45:40] Backstreet boys
[46:37] Kevin and Rackhouse Venture Capital
[47:28] What Kevin is best known for
[48:03] Updated fund modelling when you’re ahead on your proposed deployment period
[58:00] The typical questions Beezer gets on LPACs
[1:03:22] Is venture broken?
[1:06:41] David’s favorite Beezer moment from Season 1

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“Whatever the evolution of venture is if you’re just following someone else, the odds of you doing as well as them is just harder and that is probably a truism about life.” — Beezer Clarkson

“If you’re going to get a 2X in venture over 20 years, frankly, as an LP, there are alternatives from a pure dollars in the ground perspective. But if you’re looking at trying to capture innovation, which AI is now one of the great innovations, where are you going to capture that if not playing in venture? So is venture broken is a question of who are you.” — Beezer Clarkson

“If you’re competing for the deal, you’ve already lost it.” — Beezer Clarkson

“I think the competition is more: Did I see it with enough time to build the conviction and build the relationship relative to the other people that might be coming in?” — Stephanie Palmeri

“Recycling is incredibly important, but incredibly hard to plan for, especially as early as you’re coming in, unless you’re seeing evidence of acqui-hires today and you know you’re going to have those dollars coming in. Obviously, really hard. So I would not bank your farm on that.” — Beezer Clarkson


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


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


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.

How to Read Investors Like a Book | Thorsten Claus | Superclusters | S6E1

thorsten claus

“You need to make space for weird types of conversations to happen on the fringes that really inform you what’s going on at the frontier.” — Thorsten Claus

Thorsten Claus is a venture investor and builder with more than 15 years of private equity and venture capital experience. He has raised nine funds, managed over $4.8B across global platforms, and led or overseen more than 120 direct investments, generating returns of 3x–7x net to investors.

His current work focuses on dual-use technologies at the intersection of defense, security, and national resilience. Guided by the discipline of Howard Marks, the systems-level thinking of the Consilience Project, and a commitment to internalizing externalities, he invests in teams and technologies that strengthen sovereign capability and long-term societal stability.

Beyond capital, Thorsten is a hands-on builder. He machines defense-critical and space components, restores historic race engines, and writes on production systems and resilience at blog.thinkstorm.com. This grounding in physical production complements his investment practice, keeping judgment tied to real-world constraints.

You can find Thor on his socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thorstenclaus/
X / Twitter: https://x.com/thinkstorm

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

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[02:31] Downhill skateboarding
[05:58] How do you see behind a corner when downhill skateboarding?
[07:42] Hill hunting
[10:15] How long does it take to go down the Sierras?
[11:41] The most important part of the body for downhill skateboarding
[16:02] David’s dumb question of the day
[17:25] The accident that pivoted Thor’s life
[19:34] The first race car Thor bought
[20:51] Why Thor is a terrible race car driver?
[23:52] How did Thor come to use the race oil that Porsche Racing uses?
[24:59] The 3 things you need to welcome fringe conversations
[27:07] Just another David misattribution
[27:34] Truth is difficult these days
[29:20] How do you prioritize which advice to take?
[30:33] Thor’s weird definition of risk
[31:59] How do you know if someone is giving you authentic advice?
[34:40] How does Thor understand someone’s past without asking about it?
[39:42] Lessons from fictional storytelling in diligencing GPs
[43:22] Questions and responses that reveal a GP’s past
[46:10] Books that Thor read to ask better questions
[49:18] What is the USMC Christmas Tree?
[53:40] The Christmas Tree in an investor’s portfolio
[57:49] Can beggars be choosers?
[1:00:41] The difference between capital formation and fundraising
[1:03:00] Production vs product for a GP
[1:06:54] Thor and cardistry
[1:10:21] What are moments that reminds Thor we’re still in the good old days?
[1:13:50] The post-credit scene

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6InM0JXlg7LjWy0QViJsmk

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“You need to make space for weird types of conversations to happen on the fringes that really inform you what’s going on at the frontier.” — Thorsten Claus

“Risk is the probability of a fatal outcome within given resources.” — Thorsten Claus

“Is it really out of conviction that they’re acting on [the advice] or is it just a belief? You know, I believe in many things, but do I act accordingly? That’s the difference between belief and conviction.” — Thorsten Claus

“The self audit of our actions, behaviors, processes, and decisions is so important.” — Thorsten Claus

“What I find more interesting than the question about ‘what’s the one thing you don’t want me to know about you’ is what it reveals about what you think about me. So, a social interaction is always with me with others, or you with me as well, and a group with others. If I’m worried that you know something about me, that reveals something more about what you fear my attitude is or how this is seen or how you would think I would act. And that is super insightful.” — Thorsten Claus

“If you want to find out something about the why and the what, you ask open-ended questions. If you confirm bad news, you voice it for them.” — Thorsten Claus

“There are no bad teams, only bad leaders.” — Jocko Willink

“There was a whole time when I grew up here in America where everything was great. […] Everyone gets a participation prize. I hated that because it really devalues people who are truly great. And the fact is that there are only very few truly great people.” — Thorsten Claus

“Capital formation is a design principle. Fundraising is a sales process. Without true design around a customer base and a product, you will fail eventually.” — Thorsten Claus


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


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


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 Work I Do with GPs

work, hands

I’m fortunate enough I get to work with some of the most interesting and stellar GPs out there. It’s never been a business I’m actively trying to grow. Outside of me backing managers myself, every so often I’ll get a friend who refers their friend to me and asks me to help them out with thinking through fundraising. It’s always been opportunistic. And even when I work with folks, it’s not primarily about intros. In fact, in all my working relationships, I never offer intros as part of the agreement. But more so working with them to understand how the GPs can better tell their story and run a more institutional fundraising process. Occasionally, I would get asked to advise when a firm should bring in an investor relations professional. But that last part, a piece for the future. So, all that to say:

  1. I’m not an expert in everything, but I do try to actively learn best practices in the market. If I don’t know something, I will find it out for you and/or put you in touch with the best practitioner on it.
  2. I’m now overcapacity. I don’t have the bandwidth to work with every manager that comes my way. I have other things I want to do and am working on.
  3. My primary job is still to support the GPs I back myself.

So, I’m just going to share below exactly what I do when I work with a GP, so that you don’t have to come find me for help. Because we do effectively the below. This approach has also evolved over time. And this is my current approach, circa September 2025. My job is also to help GPs better understand LPs and where they come from. So, while the saying goes as “If you know one LP, you only know one LP,” my job (and personal fascination) is to define and delineate the nuance. The only things I cannot help with if you’re only reading the below are:

  1. Be your accountability partner. Part of my role with GPs is also making sure GPs stick to their promises. Discipline. It’s easy to plan. Hard to execute.
  2. Debrief on LP conversations and pipeline management.
  3. And figure out your LP-GP fit, or your ideal LP archetype as a function of your fund size, your strategy, your experience level and your story.

This might also be one of the few pieces I write that some pre-reading may help contextualize what I will write below.

Most of the time I work with folks who are mid-raise. Not always, but most of the times. So I’m stepping in where there’s already some infrastructure, but not a lot, usually bootstrapped and duct taped together. Not a bad thing. As long as it works, I don’t touch much during the raise itself. Then we work on things and cleaning up systems post-raise or in-between raises. The best time to strategize and plan for a raise is at least six months in advance. But that’s neither here nor there. So what do I do?

  1. I ask the GP(s) to pitch me the fund. We simulate email exchanges, first meeting, second meeting, and due diligence as if I were the target LP persona. I offer no commentary. I am purely the observer. You can do this with most people who do not know your strategy well. Friendly LPs. Other GPs. But I find it most helpful if you can to do this with people who have a great attention to detail, specifically in the literary sense: lawyers, authors, therapists, podcasters, professors, editors, scriptwriters, showrunners, and so on.
  2. Then, I share all the risks of investing in said manager that I can think of. What are the elephants in the room? What parts of the GP, the GP’s story, the strategy, the track record, and the complexity of the story would make it really hard to pass the investment committee (IC)? What might be moments of hesitation? No matter how big or small. There’s a saying that a friend once told me, “When your spouse complains about you not washing the dishes, it’s not about the dishes.”
  3. Label and categorize each risk as a flaw, limitation, or restriction.
    • Flaws: Traits you need to overcome within 1-2 fundraising cycles (~2-5 years). The faster, the more measurable, the better. You can’t just say you’re going to overcome these flaws. You need to have KPIs against each of these.
    • Limitations: Risks that the world or that particular LP believes is true. Like being a Fund I. Or being a solo GP.
    • Restrictions: What you prevent yourself from doing. Think Batman’s no killing code. In GP land, it’s only investing in a particular demographic or vertical. It’s only investing in the Bay Area. And so on.
  4. Stack rank all of them. Depending on the LP you’re pitching, figure out the minimum viable risk list that LP may be willing to accept. It’s not always obvious.
  5. You should always address limitations as early on in the conversation. My preference is in the email exchange or at the very minimum, in the first two slides of the deck. In other words, “here are the primary reasons you shouldn’t invest in me if you don’t like…” Think of it like the elephant in the room. Make it explicit. Don’t wait for LPs to have private investment committee (IC) conversations without you in the room. Or worse, they implicitly, whether consciously or subconsciously, think of the limitations in their head. Having been in multiple LP conversations and a fly on the wall in IC meetings, sometimes an LP can’t fully describe why they’re passing, just that they are.
  6. Next, figure out for each LP in your existing and future pipeline when are flaws also limitations. When are restrictions also limitations?
    • When a restriction is a limitation, there isn’t an LP-GP fit. So, you need to go find LPs, who don’t see your restrictions as limitations. Another reason you should address elephants in the room as early as possible.
    • When a flaw is a limitation, you need to fire yourself before the LP fires you. You need to say “No” before an LP does. Be respectful of their time, but maintain that relationship for the future. Reaching back out every 1-2 quarters to catch up is something I highly recommend. Any longer, LPs will forget about you. And no, that does not mean, “Can I add you to my monthly/quarterly LP update?” No LP will say no, but almost always will your updates die in their inbox. If you don’t care about your relationship with them, why should they?
    • Are you ready for an institutional fundraise? How much of the institutional data room (use this as a reference if you don’t know what that means) do you have ready? And for each flaw and restriction, do you have something in the data room (even if it’s in the FAQ/DDQ) that helps hedge against it?
  7. All that said, you also need to figure out what your superpower is. And you usually only need just one, but you have to be god-tier in that one superpower. There cannot be a close second. Oftentimes, it’s less obvious than you think it is. With all the hedging of risks above, you also need to give an LP to be your champion. You must spike in something that impresses the LP and despite all your flaws and restrictions, that you’ll still go far. And the more closely your superpower is aligned with at least 2-3 of the five (sourcing, picking, winning, supporting, exiting), the better. And you must make sure that it is made explicit to the LP as early in your conversations as possible.

Photo by Ümit Bulut on Unsplash


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


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.

Goldilocks and the 3 Secondaries

3, three, hot air balloon

“We need to rewrite our early DPI blogpost.”

Two years ago, Dave and I sat down less than five blocks away from where we were sitting when those words escaped the clutches of Dave’s mindscape. That piece has since been cited a number of times from fund managers I’ve come across. And sometimes, even LPs. While each part of that piece was written to be evergreen knowledge, what we want to do is to add nuance to that framework, along with examples of how we might see the internal conflict of early distributions and long-term thinking manifest.

In effect, and the premise for this blogpost, you’re in Year 7 of the fund. You’re now raising Fund III. What do you need to do?

The urgency to sell at Year 7 is relatively low. Although booking some amount of DPI may motivate LPs to re-up or invest in Fund III. The urgency to sell at Year 12 is much higher. So, what happens between Years 7 and 12? If you do sell, do you sell to the market or to yourself via a continuation vehicle?

For starters:

  1. Knowing when to sell WHEN you have the chance to sell is crucial. The window of opportunity only lasts so long.
  2. Consider selling some percentage of your winners on the way up to diversify, but be careful not to sacrifice too much potential future DPI. Yes, this is something we’ll elaborate more on with examples of what exactly we mean.

At the moment the next round is being put together, you have no discount to the current round price. The longer you wait to transact, the more doubt settles in from outsiders, the deeper the discount as time goes on. And so, if you have the chance to sell, sell into the (oversubscribed) primary rounds in order to optimize for price efficiency. Unless maybe, you’re selling SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, Anduril, Ramp, just to name a few. There is a BIG tradeoff in TVPI (versus future DPI) when selling a fast-growing asset early (assuming it keeps its pace of growth). There is also a BIG risk to holding on to a large unrealized gain if the company stumbles or the market crashes.

We live in a world now that multi-stage venture funds have become asset management shops. Their primary goal will be to own as much of an outlier company as possible to maximize their potential for returns. As such, they will choose, at times, to buy out earlier shareholders’ equity.

To sell your secondaries, you have a very small window of opportunity to sell. Realistically, you have one to two quarters to sell where you can probably get a fair market value of 90 cents to the dollar of the last round valuation. Ideally, you sell into the next round at the price the next round values the company. As Hunter Walk once wrote, “optimally the secondary sales will always occur with the support/blessing of the founders; to favored investors already on the cap table (or whom the founders want on the cap table); without setting a price (higher or lower than last mark) which would be inconsistent with the company’s own fundraising strategy; and a partially exited investor should still provide support to the company ongoing.” If you wait a year, some people start questioning the data. If you wait 2 years, you’re looking at a much steeper discount. And if it’s not a “Mag 10” of the private markets—for instance, Stripe, SpaceX, Anduril, just to name a few, where there is no discount—you’re likely looking at 30-60% discounts. As Hunter Walk, in the same piece, quotes a friend, “‘I think friendly secondaries are easy, everything else feels new.’” As such, Dave and I are here to talk through what feels “new.”

First of all, lemons ripen early. In Years 1-5, you’re going to see slow IRR growth. Most of that will be impacted by businesses that fall by the wayside in the early years. In Years 5-10, IRR accelerates, assuming you have winners in your portfolio. And in the latter years, Years 10 onward, IRR once again slows.

Before we get too deep, let’s address some elephants in the room.

Why are we starting the dialogue around secondaries at Year 5? Five things. Year 5, 5 things. Get it? Hah. I’m going to see myself out later.

One, most investment recycling periods are in the first four years of the fund. So, any non-meaningful DPI is recycled back into the fund to make new investments. While this may not always happen, it usually is a term that sits in the limited partner agreement (LPA).

Two, most investments have not had time to mature. Imagine if you invested in a company in Year 1 of the fund. Five years in, this company is likely to have gone through two rounds of additional funding. If you come in at the pre-seed, the company is now at either a Series A or about to raise a Series B, assuming most companies raise every 18-24 months. If you were to sell now, before the company has had a chance to really grow, you’re losing out on the vast majority of your venture returns. And especially so, if you’ve invested in a company in Year 3 of the fund, you really didn’t give the company time to mature.

Three, by Year 5, but really Year 7, venture’s older sibling, private equity, should have had distribution opportunities. And even if we’re different asset classes by a long margin, allocators will, even subconsciously, begin to look towards their venture portfolio expecting some element of realized returns.

Four, QSBS grants you full tax benefits at Year 5. And yes, you do get some benefits with new regulation sooner by Year 3. But if you’re investing in venture and hoping to get to liquidity by Year 3, you’re in the wrong asset class.

Five, you will likely need to show (some) DPI in Fund I, in order to raise Fund III or IV. It’ll show that you’re not only a great investor, but also a great fund manager.

Outside of our general rule of thumb in our writeup two years ago, let’s break down a few scenarios. The obvious. The non-obvious. And the painful.

  1. The obvious. Your fund is doing well. You’re north of 5X between Years 7 and 10. You have a clear outlier. Maybe a few.
  2. The non-obvious. Your fund is doing okay. This is the middle of the road case. You’re at 3-5X in Years 7-10.
  3. Then, the painful. You’re not doing well. Even in Year 7, you haven’t crested 3X. And really, you might have a 1.5-2X fund, if you’re lucky. 1X or less if you aren’t. But your job as a fund manager isn’t over. You are still a professional money manager.

In each of the three scenarios, what do you do?

It’s helpful to frame the above scenarios through four questions:

  1. How much do you sell?
  2. When do you sell it?
  3. What is the pricing efficiency of those assets?
  4. And what is the ultimate upside tradeoff?

The obvious (5X+ TVPI)

Here, it’s almost always worth booking in some distributions to make your LPs whole again. Potentially, and then some. At the end of the day, our job as investors is to—to borrow a line from Jerry Colonna’s Reboot—“buy low, sell high.” Not “buy lowest, sell highest.” As such, you should sell some percentage of your big winners to lock in some meaningful DPI. Selling at least 0.5X DPI at Year 7 is meaningful. Selling 1-2X DPI at Year 10 is meaningful. As you might notice, the function of time impacts what “meaningful” means. The biggest question you may have when you have solid fund performance is: How much should you sell knowing that in doing so, it might meaningfully cap your upside? Or if you should even sell at all?

Screendoor’s Jamie Rhode once said, “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 the public market which is 11% gets you a 3.5X. […] If the asset is compounding at a venture-like CAGR, don’t sell out early because you’re missing out on a huge part of that ultimate multiple. For us, we’re taxable investors. I have to go pay taxes on that asset you sold out of early and go find another asset compounding at 25%.” Taking it a step further, assuming 12-year fund cycles, and 25% IRR, “the last 20% of time produces 46% of that return.” She’s right. That’s the math. And that’s your trade off.

But for a second, we want you to consider selling some. Not all, just some. A couple other assumptions to consider before we get math-y:

  • 20% of your portfolio are home runs. And by Year 5 of your fund, they’re growing 30% year-over-year (YoY). And because they are great companies, growth doesn’t dip below 20%, even by Year 15.
    • For home runs, we’re also assuming you sell into the upcoming fundraising round. In other words, perfect selling price efficiency. Obviously, your mileage, in practice, may vary.
  • 30% of your portfolio are doubles, growing at 15% YoY. And growth doesn’t fall below 10%, even by Year 15.
    • For doubles, just because they’re less well-known companies, we’re assuming you’re selling on a 50% discount to the last round valuation (LRV).
  • 20% of your portfolio are singles, growing at 7% YoY. Growth flatlines.
    • For singles, even less desirable, we’re assuming you’re selling on an 80% discount to LRV.
  • The rest (30%) are donuts. Tax writeoffs.
  • For every home run and double, their growth decays by 5% every year.
  • We’re assuming 15-year fund terms.

Example 1:
Say you have a $25M fund, and at Year 10, you choose to sell 50% of the initial fund size ($12.5M). If you didn’t sell at Year 10, by Year 15, you’d have a 5.7X fund. But if you did sell at Year 10, you’d have a 3.8X fund. To most LPs, still not a bad fund.

vc secondary

The next few examples are testing the limits of outperformance and early distributions. Purely for the curious soul. For those, looking for what to do in the non-obvious case, you can jump to this section.

Example 2:
Now, let’s say, in an optimistic case, your home runs—still 20% of your portfolio—are growing at 50% YoY in Year 5. All else equal. If you didn’t sell at Year 10, by Year 15, you’d have a 11.6X fund. If you did sell at Year 10, by Year 15, you’d have a 9.3X. In both cases, and even when you do sell $12.5M of your portfolio at Year 10, you still have an incredible fund. And not a single LP will fault you for selling early.

secondary sale on 50% growth

Example 3:
Now, let’s assume your home runs are still growing at 50% YoY at Year 5, but only 10% of your portfolio are home runs and 40% are strikeouts. All else equal. If you sell $12.5M at Year 10, at the end of your fund’s lifetime, you’re at 4.8X. Versus, if you didn’t, 6.6X.

secondary sale 10% outlier

Hell, let’s say you’re not sure at Year 10, so you only sell a quarter of your initial fund size ($6.25M). All else equal to the third example. If you did sell, 5.6X. If you didn’t, 7.4X.

vc secondary sale 25% at year 10

Example 4:
Now let’s stretch the model a little. And play make believe. Let’s take all the assumptions in Example 1, but the only difference is your home runs are growing at 100% YoY by Year 5.

If you sell at Year 10, by fund term, you’re at 108.8X. If you don’t sell at Year 10, you have 110.7X.

vc secondary 100% growth

And as we play with the model some more, we start to see that assuming the above circumstances and decisions, selling anything at most 1X your initial fund size at Year 10, at Year 15, you lose somewhere between 2X and 3X DPI.

If you sell three times your fund size, assuming you can by Year 10, you lose at most around 5X of your ultimate DPI at Year 15. If you sell five times your initial fund size (again, assuming the odds are in your favor), you lose at most 7X of your final DPI by Year 15.

Now, we’d like to point out that Examples 2, 3, and 4 are merely intellectual exercises. As we mentioned in our first blogpost on this topic, if your best assets are compounding at a rate higher than your target IRR (say for venture, that’s 25%), you should be holding. Even a company growing 50% YoY at Year 5, assuming 5% decay in growth per year, will still be growing at 39% in Year 10, which is greater than 25%. That said, if a single asset accounts for 50-80% of your portfolio’s value, do consider concentration risk. And selling 20-30% of that individual asset may make sense to book in distributions, even if the terms may not look the best (i.e. on a discount greater than feels right).

Remember what we said earlier? To re-underscore that point, it’s worth saying it again. There is a BIG tradeoff in TVPI (versus future DPI) when selling a fast-growing asset early (assuming it keeps its pace of growth). There is also a BIG risk to holding on to a large unrealized gain if the company stumbles or the market crashes.

If you’d like to simulate your own secondary sales, we’ll include the model at the very bottom of this post.

The non-obvious (3-5X TVPI)

This is tricky territory. Because by Year 7-10, and if you’re here, you don’t have any clear outliers (where it might make more sense to hold as the assets are compounding faster than your projected IRR), but you don’t have a bad fund. In fact, many LPs might even call yours a win, depending on the vintage and public market equivalents. So the question becomes how much DPI is worth selling before fund term to make your LPs whole, and how much should you be capping your upside. How much of your TVPI should you be selling for your DPI knowing that you can only sell on a discount?

We’re back in Example 1 that we brought up earlier, especially if you have a single asset that accounts for 50-80% of the overall portfolio value. Here if the companies are collectively growing faster than your target IRR—say 25% on a revenue growth perspective, hold your positions. If your companies are growing slower than your target IRR and are valued greater than 1.5X public market comparables, you should consider selling 20-30% of your positions to book meaningful distributions.

The painful (1-3X TVPI)

You’ve got a dud. No two ways about it. You’re really looking at a 1.5X net fund. Maybe a 1X. And mind we remind you, it’s Years 7-10. It’s either you sell or you ride out the lie you have to tell LPs. LPs will almost always prefer the former. And for the latter, let’s be real — hope is not a (liquidity) strategy. And if put less charitably, check this Tina Fey and Amy Poehler video out. I don’t have the heart to put what’s alluded to in writing, but the video encapsulates, while humorously framed, the situation you’re in. You’re going to have to try to sell your positions on heavy discounts.

If you made it thus far, first off, you’re a nerd. We respect that. We are too. And second off, you’re probably looking for the model we used. If so, here you go.

We also do cover how this blogpost came to be in the first ever episode of the [trading places] podcast. And if you’re interested in the topic of secondaries, the [trading places] podcast might be your new guilty pleasure.

Photo by Tucker Monticelli on Unsplash


Shoutout to Dave for the many iterations of this blogpost and building the model in which this blogpost is based around!


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.

If 198 Pieces of Unsolicited, (Possibly) Ungoogleable Advice for Investors Were Not Enough

yoda, advice, wisdom

Having been to a number of talks and panels, my biggest frustration with these occasions is when a moderator asks a VC: “So what do you invest in?”

And the VC would respond, “Good people, good markets.” Or “Ambitious founders tackling ambitious problems.” Or some cousin of it. Well, of course. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but no venture capitalist ever says, “I want to invest in bad people building in bad markets.” It’s the kind of advice and “insight” that’s equivalent to a large company saying their company culture is a “family.” Not wrong, but tells me nothing about what you actually want. The same is true for most advice for investors. And well, advice in the investing world is given quite liberally, without liability and responsibility most of the time.

So I made it a mission to collect pieces of advice that were actually tactical or differentiated. Advice that would make you turn your heads and actually pay attention. And under the right circumstances, actually useful. It’s why I wrote this blogpost’s predecessors:

This is the third one in this 99 series for investors. And, if by chance, you’re a founder reading this, to understand the mentality of a differentiated investor, you might also like the 99 series for founders. But I digress.

In no particular order other than the chronological order I found them, below is the third set of 99 pieces of advice for investors:

  1. Investing – Deal flow, theses, diligence
  2. Fundraising from LPs
  3. Fund strategy/portfolio construction/exiting
  4. Fund structure
  5. Portfolio support
  6. Governance/managing LPs
  7. Building a team
  8. Compensation
  9. Miscellaneous

Investing – Deal flow, theses, diligence

1/ “Any company that is pure execution risk without any market risk is not a suitable venture investment.” — Chris Paik

2/ “[In the private markets,] I don’t think we’ve seen a 70% write down yet or 70% of these [private companies] worth less than the cash [they’ve spent to date].” Take public market comparables. To see how much public companies are worth as a function of the money they’ve spent to date, look at the “Cumulative Retained Earnings” (which tells you how much money they’ve burnt over their lifetime) compared to the “Enterprise Value” (or market cap minus the cash they have today). If their enterprise value is less than their cumulative retained earnings, that means they’re worth less than the money they’ve spent to date. — David Friedberg (timestamped 4/21/2023, when he said there are 70% of public companies that are worth less than the cash they’ve spent to date, but we haven’t seen a 70% haircut to private market valuations)

3/ The first best use of any consumer product is crime. — Pre-seed VC

4/ When looking for outliers, “Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.” — Chris Paik

5/ “Venture investing process as a two-stage process – the first where you ensure you avoid false negatives – that is, you ensure that there are no errors of omission, where you unwittingly pass on meeting a potential winner. The second stage is where you avoid a false positive or errors of commission, that is, picking the wrong company.” — Sajith Pai quoting Karthik Reddy

6/ How a lawyer diligences AI companies:

  • “How are you using AI? Is it a third-party? Let’s see those terms, contracts, etc.
  • How are you using customer data? Prior agreements? Prior policies in place? Subsequent policies in place? You could lose the data, the models, and the algorithms. If found in violation by the FTC. States privacy laws like Texas, California, and Virginia also should be looked at.”

7/ “When it’s cooler to be in a startup than in a band, we’re at the top of the market.” — A fund of funds General Partner

8/ “Buy when there is blood in the streets, and sell when there are trumpets in the air.” — A Warren Buffett attribution

9/ Does this founder have 20 years of experience of 20 one-year experiences? Depth vs breadth. Which does the industry/problem they’re building for require?

10/ While there is no one “right” way to run a partnership meeting, beware of conviction-led deals (as opposed to consensus-driven), since partners are incentivized to go into sales mode to convince the rest of the partnership and may make it harder for them to see the flaws in the deal.

11/ In early stage venture, debates on price is a lagging indicator of conviction, or more so, lack thereof.

  • Price also matters a lot more for big funds than small funds.
  • Price also matters more for Series B+ funds.
  • Will caveat that there’s an ocean of difference between $10M and $25M valuation. But it’s semantics between $10M and $12M valuation. How big your slice of the pie is doesn’t matter if the pie doesn’t grow.
  • Not saying that it’s correlated, but it does remind me of a Kissinger quote: “The reason that university politics is so vicious is because stakes are so small.”

12/ “Judge me on how good my good ideas are, not how bad my bad ideas are.” — Ben Affleck when writing Good Will Hunting. A lot of being a VC is like that.

13/ We like to cite the power law a lot. Where 20% of our investments account for 80% of our returns. But if we were to apply that line of thinking two more times. Aka 4% (20 x 20%) of our investments account for 64% of our returns. Then 0.8% account for 51.2% of our returns. If you really think about it, if you invest in 100 companies, we see in a lot of great portfolios where a single investment return more than 50% of the historical returns.

14/ “Early-stage investing is NOT about mitigating the possibility of failure It’s about discounting the probability of an outsized outcome – what is the size and likelihood of a HUGE win Investing in “safe” companies due to fear of failure is the surest way to a mediocre returns.” — Rick Zullo

15/ “[David Marquardt] said, ‘You know what? You’re a well-trained institutional investor. And your decision was precisely right and exactly wrong.’ And sometimes that happens. In this business, sometimes good decisions have bad outcomes and bad decisions have good outcomes.” — Chris Douvos

16/ When calling a reference and asking about someone’s weakness, “If you were to hire someone under that person, what would be the top traits you’d look for?”

17/ Give founders a blank P&L statement. Tell them that is not their P&L statement; it is their customer’s. And ask them where do they/their product sit on their customer’s P&L statement. Those who are aware of who they are and who they need to sell to do better than those who don’t.

18/ No one has a crystal ball. Well, the pessimists do. They’re right 90% of the time.

19/ “I want the guy who understands his limitations instead of the guy who doesn’t. On the other hand, I’ve learned something terribly important in life. I learned that from Howard Owens. And you know what he used to say? Never underestimate the man who overestimates himself.” — Charlie Munger

20/ “Instead of saying, ‘This risk exists,’ we reframe the risk and ask, ‘What do I have to believe for this to work?’ Doing this transforms risk from a source of fear and unknown into a set of clear assumptions to be systematically tested and de-risked.” For example, “We have to believe we can scale the hardware to XYZ performance metric by ABC date. What are the key engineering constraints bottlenecking that?” — Mike Annunziata

21/ Questions to ask investee (on-list and off-list) references by Graham Duncan:

  • How would you describe Jane to someone who doesn’t know her?
  • What’s your sample size of people in the role in which you knew Jane?
  • Who was the best person at this role that you’ve ever seen?
  • If we call that person a “100”, the gold standard, where’s Jane right now on a 1-100?
  • Does she remind you of anyone else you know?
  • If Jane’s number comes up on your caller ID, what does your brain anticipate she’s going to be calling about? What’s the feeling?
  • Three attributes I like to keep in mind are someone’s hunger, their humility, and how smart they are about people.  If you were to force rank those for Jane from what she exhibits the most to least, how would you rank them?
  • What motivates Jane at this stage of her life?
  • If you were coaching Jane, how would you help her take her game up?
  • If you were going to hire someone to complement Jane doing the same activity (NOT a different role), what would they be good at to offset Jane’s strengths and weaknesses?
  • How strong is your endorsement of Jane on a 1-10? (If they answer 7, say actually sorry 7s are not allowed, 6 or 8?  If the answer is an 8, “What is in that two points?”)

22/ “Neutral references are worse than negative references.” — Kelli Fontaine

23/ “If someone brags about their success or happiness, assume it’s half what they claim. If someone downplays their success or happiness, assume it’s double what they claim.” — George Mack

24/ “Historians now recognize the Roman Empire fell in 476 – but it wasn’t acknowledged by Roman society until many generations later. If you wait for the media to inform you, you’ll either be wrong or too late.” — George Mack

25/ “Joe Rogan and Warren Buffett are both entrepreneurs. But if you switched them, both businesses would fail. Rule of thumb: If a word is so broad that you can’t switch 2 things it describes, it needs unbundling.” — George Mack

26/ Are the founders at the same stage on the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? If not, how have they come to terms with different motivations outside of the scope of the venture itself?

27/ $100K contracts take about 70 days to close. So a founder becomes interesting if they figure out how to close faster. — Gong State of Revenue Growth 2025 report

28/ Beware of “annual curiosity revenue.” “AI companies with quick early ARR growth can lead to false positives as many are seeing massive churn rates.” — Samir Kaji

29/ Data suggests that “never following on” beats “always following on” 63% of the time. “Outperformance for the typical portfolio is 12% better when you don’t follow on (3.52X vs 3.14X).” — Abe Othman

30/ “A successful reserve strategy depends both the chance of picking winners and the step up value at the next round. The stock price multiple * the probably of receiving funding = 1.” If the product of your variables is more than one, you should focus primarily on increasing your check size and ownership at entry. And as such, fewer to no reserves. If you’re below one, you’re better off with more reserves. — Clint Korver

31/ Be aware of “seed-strapping” among AI startups. Your SAFEs may never convert. “Watch for any revisions to *YC’s* SAFE or *YC’s* side letter (note: YC has a secret SAFE and side letter documentation not available on on their website, so careful with conclusions).” — Chris Harvey

32/ In underwriting AI companies in 2025, ARR and run rate are no longer signal. Instead, look at sales efficiency (how long it takes you to implement your product; if you charge more or double the price, will customers still buy your product?), the cost to acquire that revenue, and net dollar retention (gross churn, land and expand). — Nina Achadjian

33/ “The ‘raise very little’ strategy only works if you’re in a market that most people believe (incorrectly) is tiny or unimportant. If other people are paying attention, you have to beat the next guy.” — Parker Conrad

34/ Instead of asking founders/references what are their weaknesses, ask for 2-3 positive words that describe them and 2-3 positive words that DO NOT describe them.

35/ “You want to be pre-narrative. You want to position your capital in an area where the supply of capital increases over time and where those assets will be traded at a premium.” — Albert Azout

36/ “For Hard Tech companies, the only metric that matters before Series B is the ‘Speed of Hiring Impressive People’, aka the ‘SHIP’ rate.” — Mike Annunziata

37/ Beware of co-CEOs and founders who used to be VCs where their past firm isn’t investing. — Sriram Krishnan

38/ “If you don’t pay great people internally, then you’re a price taker.” — Ashby Monk

39/ “Buying junk at a discount is still junk.” — Abe Finkelstein

40/ “What do you do when you don’t know anything, you haven’t met anybody, you have no context, the human brain starts inventing rationale.” — Narayan Chowdhury

41/ “The bigger you get, the more established you get, the more underwriting emphasis goes into how this team operates as a structure rather than is there a star?” — Matt Curtolo

42/ “Price reflects the inefficiencies of the market.” — Albert Azout

43/ “You want to be pre-narrative. You want to position your capital in an area where the supply of capital increases over time and where those assets will be traded at a premium.” — Albert Azout

44/ “We don’t want a slow no. A slow no is bad for everybody.” — Sean Warrington

45/ “Today’s world is unpredictable, and this is as stable as it will ever be again.” — Seth Godin

46/ “Alfred is the worst e-commerce investor at Sequoia as he knows too much & I am the best biotech investor at Sequoia as I know nothing about biology.” — Roelof Botha, quoted by Finn Murphy

47/ “Since the job is not about simple pattern-matching but about finding true outliers, seniority and experience don’t guarantee success.” — Ian Park

48/ As your fund size grows, do be wary of investing in competing portfolio companies. While it’s always been a tradition in venture to not to, times may be changing. Be sure to be transparent and know how to separate church and state. “This is an issue where the business model for funds is at odds with what most founders want.” Ways you can do so. By Charles Hudson.

  • “Use a seed fund or scout strategy to meet as many promising, early-stage companies as you can.
  • “Focus on investing in Series A and Series B (instead of seed) rounds and pay up to get into the winners when it’s clear which companies are working.
  • “Buy secondary positions in the companies that matter but that you missed.
  • “Invest in competitors but have different investors take board seats and create firewalls to limit information spillover.”

49/ “I deeply subscribe to, ‘There’s always another train leaving the station.’” — Wendy Li

50/ “Alpha’s three things: information asymmetry, access, and, actually, taxes.” — Vijen Patel

51/ The worst mistake you can make as an early-stage investor is to believe you’re the smartest person in the room.

Fundraising from LPs

52/ “If you’re at 75-80% committed and then you say there’s a single close, that will drive urgency. If you’re at 10 to 30 to 40% committed, and you say there’s a single close, you have no catalyzing power. There’s just so much dirt to hoe. When I went out, when people would ask, ‘When are you closing?’ I would say, ‘We will close on this particular date and ideally it will be a single close. And here is where I am. I’ve closed X% of the pipeline and the total value of the pipe of interested investors was this amount of money.’ The goal was to show with a relatively small conversion rate, I could get to a single close.” — Tomasz Tunguz

53/ What to prepare for the due diligence questionnaire (DDQ) with institutional LPs. — Chris Harvey

  • Governance & Oversight
    • GP Removal Process
    • GP Conflicts of Interest Disclosures
    • GP Devotion of Time
    • Fiduciary Duties Owed by GP
    • Decision-Making Processes
    • LPAC Roles & Responsibilities
    • LP Reporting Guidelines
    • Deadlock Resolution (2 or 4 person GPs)
  • Economic & Tax Terms
    • Affiliated LPs (0 fees to GP team)
    • Capital Calls (Schedule/L. fees/Interest)
    • Distribution Waterfall
    • Fund Expenses/Cap vs. Mgmt Fees
    • Special Tax (ERISA, ECI, FATCA, etc)
    • Subscription Lines
    • Mandatory Tax Dist.
    • Warehoused Assets (QSBS)
  • Regulatory Compliance
    • IA §§203, 206—Code of Ethics, P2P, etc
    • CFIUS Compliance
    • VC & Private Fund Limits—§203(l)/(m)
    • NQI/Qualifying Investments (<20%)
    • Warehoused Investments (VC)
    • State ERA rules <$25M AUM
    • Look-through Rules & Beneficial Ownership—§3(c)(1)
  • Operations & Admin
    • Trademark Rights/IP
    • Vesting Schedules
    • Principal Office Location
    • List of Fund Assets + SPVs
    • Comp Policy for GP and Team
    • Verification of GP Track Record
    • Cybersecurity & Risk Management
    • Service Providers (Fund Admin, Ops, Tax, Legal)

54/ What Minal Hasan includes in the fund diligence room (specifically for Fund IIs)

  • Primary materials
    • Due Diligence Questionnaire
    • Pitch Deck
    • Appendix to Pitch Deck
    • Detailed Investment Thesis & Strategy
    • Term Sheet
    • LPA
    • Subscription Agreement
  • Legal
    • Incorporation Documents for LP, GP, and MC
    • Entity Org Chart
  • Team
    • Team Bios
    • Prior Partner Investment Performance
    • Hiring Plan
    • List of Advisors
    • List of References
    • List of Co-investors
    • List of Service Providers
  • Portfolio
    • One-pager on each company
    • Deal Pipeline
  • Governance
    • Board/Board Observer Seats
    • Policies
    • Sample Investment Memos
    • Sample Quarterly Report
    • Sample Capital Account Statement
    • Sample Capital Call Notice
    • Sample Distribution Notice
  • Financial Docs
    • Budget
    • IRR Spreadsheet
    • IRR Benchmarking
    • IRR Letter certified by accountant
  • Marketing
    • Press mentions
    • Authored thought leadership

55/ When fundraising, don’t share which other LPs you’re talking to. Even if LPs ask who you’re talking to. Unless money is in the bank, nothing counts. Tell the other LPs that you have non-disclosures with all your other LPs, but that you have a lot of interest. If you share the marquee names, the other LPs’ will base their decision on the closing of those LPs. If they commit, great. If not, it will materially impact how the new LPs view your fund.

56/ When working with overseas LPs, you should ask for their citizenship, where their capital is domiciled at, and who is the ultimate beneficial owner if not the person you are pitching? This would help you navigate CFIUS rules and knowing who you’re actually bringing on board.

57/ You should ask prospective overseas LPs what their citizenship is and who the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) is, if not the person you are talking to, as you are doing diligence on your prospective LPs.

58/ “Going 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 don’t really get executed on till the first of April. So there’s 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 you’re raising money, two to three years of relationship-building with clients.” — David York

59/ “Getting an LP is like pulling a weight with a string of thread. If you pull too hard, the string snaps. If you don’t pull hard enough, you don’t pull the weight at all. It’s this very careful balancing act of moving people along in a process.” — Dan Stolar

60/ “Things that break the rules have a bigger threshold to overcome to grab the reader’s attention, but once they do, they tend to have a stronger, and more dedicated following. Blandness tends to get fewer dedicated followers.” — Brandon Sanderson on creative writing, but applies just as well to pitches

61/ In all great stories, the protagonist (in the case of a pitch, you) is proactive, capable, and relatable. Your pitch needs to show all three, but at the minimum two out of the three. — Brandon Sanderson

62/ “Data rooms are where fund-raising processes go to die.” Prioritize in-person and live conversations. When your investor asks you for documents, ask for 15 minutes on their calendar so you can “best prepare” the information they want. If they aren’t willing to give you that 15 minutes, you’ve lost the deal already. — Mark Suster

63/ “Funds can start with a private offering, then move to 506(c) after the prior offering is completed without a waiting period—new Rule 152(b) allows for a quick switch, you just can’t do them at the same time or start with Rule 506(c) then move to 506(b).” — Chris Harvey

64/ “Set your own agenda or someone else will.” — Melinda Gates

65/ To address key person risk if the GP, or one of the GPs, has a debilitating health condition within the fund term, include the below in the LPA, by Shahrukh Khan:
Each Key Person shall, as a condition to their designation, represent and covenant to the Partners [inclusive of the GP and LPs] that, to the best of their knowledge, they are not currently experiencing any medical condition reasonably expected to materially impair their ability to perform their duties over the Term [usually 10-12 years] of the Fund.
If, during the Investment Period [when the fund is actively making investments], a Key Person is diagnosed with or undergoes treatment for a condition that materially impacts their ability to fulfill their responsibilities, the General Partner shall promptly disclose to the Limited Partners that a Health-Related Key Person Event [we could define this broadly] has occurred. The specifics of the health condition need not be disclosed [maybe except to the LPAC if there is one?].
Upon such notification, the Investment Period will be suspended and cannot continue without the express approval of the Limited Partners. [I feel like this could mean that no new investments can be made until LPs review and vote on whether to proceed with the fund’s activities in light of the health-related situation.]

66/ When asking LPs what they invest in, sometimes what they don’t invest in is more helpful than what they say they invest in. Most LPs are trained to be generalists — by sector, by stage, by asset class — so asking what they do invest in often nets an answer like “We invest in everything” or “We only invest in the best,” which are often less helpful tells when you’re trying to figure out if you’re a good fit for them or not.

67/ If you have a 3(c)(1) fund, “if an investor owns >10% of your fund, the SEC’s look-through rule requires you to count ALL underlying beneficial owners toward your 100-investor limit.” The workaround is you create a side letter for large LPs that includes this statement: “The Investor’s Capital Commitment shall equal the lesser of [check size] or 10% of total fund commitments.” — Chris Harvey

68/ At your AGM, talk about categories of VCs you admire. For instance, “inception funds” or “superscale funds.” And the logos you admire in each category. Then show the funds that actually follow after your capital. This builds rapport with your LPs and that you’re not just shooting from the hip, where it “just so happens” that some random awesome fund follows your capital. Inspired by Gil Dibner.

69/ “If an LP isn’t following up with an ask for the data room, refs and lays out a path to a potential next meeting, then it’s a pass. Hint — don’t offer the dataroom. I always say yes.” — Endowment Eddie

70/ “[LPs] are underwriting your ability to create signal under uncertainty. If your fund slide can’t do that, your deck is already leaking trust.” — Thorsten Claus

71/ “I’m not here to tell you about Jesus. You already know about Jesus. He either lives in your heart or he doesn’t.” — Don Draper in Mad Men

72/ On GPs answering questions on operational excellence… “The best answer I could ask from a GP is for them to be super honest and say, ‘These are the people I’ve leaned on to help me understand what best practices look like.’” — Nicky Sugarman

73/ When reporting numbers, it’s helpful to have more than one TVPI number. One number should represent last round valuation prices. Another should be the number you believe is authentic to you, which likely includes some companies that have been proactively written down and revenue multiples that reflect where the company is currently at. Nevertheless, always explain your rationale as to why.

74/ When you’re fundraising from institutions, expect “27 months from first meeting to wire, 4.7% of prospects commit,” and “annual costs [of] $2.1M+ in infrastructure.” — Pavel Prata

75/ “Speed to fundraise does not always equate to a strong investor.” — Lisa Cawley

Fund strategy / portfolio construction / exiting

76/ If you have a follow-on strategy or a reserve strategy, track your “follow-on MOIC.” Return hurdles are 10x MOIC for initial capital. And 4-5x MOIC for follow-on capital. The more you invest in follow on, the less TVPI you’ll have. “If you’re going from pre-seed to seed, you’re tracking to a 5x MOIC. If you’re going from a seed to Series A, that goes down to 3x.” — Anubhav Srivastava (timestamped Apr 7, 2023)

77/ The reasons Fund I’s and II’s outperform are likely:

  • Chips on shoulders mean they hustle more to find the best deals. They have to search where big funds aren’t or come in sooner than big funds do.
  • Small fund size is easier to return than a larger fund size.
  • Rarely do they have ownership targets (nor do they need significant ownership to return the fund). Meaning they’re collaborative and friendly on the cap table, aka with most other investors, especially big lead investors.
  • Price matters less. Big funds really have to play the price game a little bit more since (1) likely to be investing in multiple stages with reserves, and price matters more past the Series A than before, and (2) they’re constrained by check size, ownership targets, and therefore price in order to still have a fund returner.

78/ “Strategy is choosing what not to do.” — Peter Rahal

79/ “We expect GPs to have 1% ownership for every $10M in fund size.” — Large multi-billion family office

80/ “Exiting a position in a company to return DPI to LPs is not a reflection of your stance on the company, but your stance on the market.” — Asher Siddiqui

81/ If you have more than $10M and are not a solo GP, consider separating your GP and management company entities. While there are about $5000-10,000 in costs per year, separating fund structures allows for more optimal tax planning, better liability protection, continuity across GP entities with future funds, and flexibility to adopt W2 employment for future employees which is hard to do under a partnership structure. — Chris Harvey

82/ If you’re a GP at a large fund making >$1-2M in annual fees, consider two metrics: (a) AUM times management fee divided by number of GPs, and (b) NPV of potential future carry on that AUM divided by number of GPs. You never want (a) to be greater than (b).

83/ “Just because I have a front row seat at a championships [basketball game] doesn’t mean I can coach an NBA team.” — Brian Chesky

84/ “The 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.” — Nakul Mandan

85/ “The median value-add is about zero. The mean is less than zero. Most things work because they just work (right set of users wanted something at the right time) and the executive team builds the right culture to hire a great team to operate in that market, not because of what a VC does. Value-added service is ‘product as marketing’ for 90% of investors who pitch it.” — Kanyi Maqubela

86/ Get access to as many different offices of your portfolio company’s potential customers as possible. Even better if you know them so well, they give you their office keys. — John Gleeson

87/ “I find most meetings are best scheduled for 15-20 minutes, or 2 hours.  The default of 1 hour is usually wrong, and leads to a lot of wasted time.” — Sam Altman

88/ “Process drives repeatability.” — Andy Weissman

89/ If you don’t know what to ask your LPAC, ask about extensions on fund length (i.e. past 10+2 years), exceeding limits on company concentration and recycling, investing in startups across funds, and early DPI. — Hunter Walk

90/ At the annual summit… “When you speak on market/themes, I don’t want to hear from the managing partners. Bring out your young guns and the members of the team who are your ground game/first line.” — Endowment Eddie

91/ After the third extension to a fund, control and decision usually shifts from GPs and LPAC to general LP base consent. 93% of LPAs allow for at least 2 years of an extension. — Runjhun Kudaisya, Natalia Kubik, Brian O’Neill, Thomas Howard (Goodwin)

  • “First extension: 63% of funds surveyed allow GPs to authorize the first extension at its sole discretion, typically for one year.
  • Second extension: 42% of funds surveyed require approval from the LPAC to authorize the second extension.
  • Third extension: 41% of funds surveyed require consent from the fund investors to authorize the third extension. Note that further extensions can always be approved by an amendment to the fund documents, but this would require consent from at least 50% and usually 75% of investors by commitment or interest.”

92/ “Too many calls I get on, it’s a re-hash of what the strategy is. Assume if I’m taking the call, I actually spent five minutes reminding myself of who you are and what you do.” — Chris Douvos

93/ “One thing I hate is when I meet with someone, they tell me about A, B, and C. And then the next time I meet with them, it’s companies D, E, and F. ‘What happened to A, B, and C?’ So I’ve told people, ‘Hey, we’re having serious conversations. Help me understand the arc.’ As LPs, we get snapshots in time, but what I want is enough snapshots of the whole scene to create a movie of you, like one of those picture books that you can flip. I want to see the evolution. I want to know about the hypotheses that didn’t work.” — Chris Douvos

94/ “Every letter seems to say portfolios have ‘limited exposure to tariffs.’ The reality is we’re seeing potentially the breakdown of the entire post-war Bretton Woods system. And that’s going to have radical impacts on everything across the entire economy. So to say ‘we have limited exposure to tariffs’ is one thing, but what they really are saying is ‘we don’t understand the exposure we have to the broader economy as a whole.’” — Chris Douvos

95/ “Bad performance is explainable, but operational failures erode trust and your LPs aren’t going to re-up.” — Liz Ferry

96/ “You can’t exceed one associate per partner and expect those associates to have real influence.” — Mike Dauber

97/ “Scaling is not synonymous with increasing fund size. To me, scaling means you’re increasing in sophistication. You’re increasing in focus. And that’s really a sign of maturity and fund size is a byproduct of that.” — Lisa Cawley

98/ In a 2024 survey, in regards to junior team members’ compensation, “AUM matters less than you think.” There’s only a 17% pay bump on base pay for associates between $1.5B funds and $156M funds. In addition, levers that can boost a GP’s take-home pay include GP staking and cashless contributions. — Chris Harvey, with reference to Deedy Das and Venture5 Media

99/ “Never sit alone at lunch.” — Alan Patricof

Photo by Emmanuel Denier on Unsplash


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


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.

Gratitude and Deal Flow

thank you, gratitude

A few months ago, my good friend Sam hosted a happy hour for LPs, which he invited me to. There I caught up with a former fund-of-funds (FoF) manager who has booked some of the most impressive returns I’ve ever heard of for a pure FoF play. For context, more than one fund generated over 15X net distributions to their LPs. The numbers were enough to impress me. But I had to ask: “Across all the funds you were a part of, what is something that you look for that you’re reasonably confident others don’t?”

He said two things, but one stood out. “Gratitude. I look for managers who never forget who put them in business.”

In all honesty, I found that odd. Not because I disagreed. I love folks who recognize and are grateful to the people who got them to where they are today. But because it didn’t occur to me that it should be the top two things one should optimize for when picking managers. Naturally, it kept gnawing at me.

In my own experience, gratitude seems to compound. Grateful individuals thank you often and sometimes when you least expect it, and more often than not, assuming you’ve done real work to help them, they compliment behind your back. The people they talk to end up learning about you. Their teammates learn about you. And you’ve earned multiple occasions to meet their teammates and those close to them. When a GP or founder’s teammates leave and start new things, those people often think to call you first.

Grateful GPs often hire talent who are just as humble, and in turn, as second nature, extend their appreciation often. Those same GPs are more likely to invest in people who have similar traits as well. So, it begins this flywheel.

As an LP, I look for emerging GPs whose network and deal flow compounds over time. That the first moment I meet them is the smallest network they will ever have again. So I expect and underwrite a GP’s ability to compound deal flow over time. So Fund n+1 is better than Fund n, and Fund n+2 is exponentially better than Fund n. Gratitude is one way GPs can increase the surface area for serendipity to stick. For there to be more quality inbound opportunities in the future.

Photo by Jonny Gios on Unsplash


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


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.