“Neutral references are worse than negative references.” – Kelli Fontaine
From investing in great fund managers to data to investor relations, Kelli Fontaine is a partner at Cendana Capital, a fund of funds who’s solely focused on the best pre-seed and seed funds with over 2 billion under management and includes the likes of Forerunner, Founder Collective, Lerer Hippeau, Uncork, Susa Ventures and more. Kelli comes from the world of data, and has been a founder, marketing expert, and an advisor to founders since 2010.
[00:00] Intro [02:11] How Kelli became a figure skater [06:59] Kelli’s football fandom [08:47] Picking schools for critical thinking for children [10:55] The difference between likeability and founder-friendliness [13:35] Correcting biases as LPs [15:07] Examples of what makes GPs unique [19:53] What kinds of data was Cendana NOT measuring when Kelli joined? [21:58] What are datapoints that LPs should measure but aren’t? [23:45] Startup metrics that LPs should track [26:16] Can you trust the data out there? [32:05] How does one start building a GP dataset from scratch? [37:38] Why does Cendana do 40 reference checks per fund? [39:47] Neutral references are worse than negative references [42:28] The questions Kelli asks founders when diligencing GPs [43:44] How Cendana does monthly calls with all their GPs and large LPs [47:57] How often does Cendana send investor updates? [49:13] The difference between monthly calls and taking an LPAC seat [51:19] Kelli’s indelible sports moments to witness [52:37] What makes Kelli laugh? [56:14] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring [57:15] If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean a lot to me if you shared it with one other friend!
“Neutral references are worse than negative references.” – Kelli Fontaine
“What is unique about their background that gives them a right to win today?” – Kelli Fontaine
“Everybody uses year benchmarking, but that’s 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. You’re gonna look very, very different. Ten years from now, 15 years from now, then you can start benchmarking against each other from that vintage.” – Kelli Fontaine
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.
Yes, that’s the title of this blogpost. And no, that’s not in Wingdings font.
And yes, that’s also an equation.
Surprises do better than suspense, which do better than pauses, which do better than full stops.
The first is indelible. The last is forgettable.
Let me elaborate.
Notation
Meaning
Explanation
!
Surprise
(For all you coders, the exclamation point does not stand for “not.”)
You’ve shared something interesting, shocking, unexpected… something non-consensus or nonobvious. This is the easiest justification for someone to take a meeting. You not only have their attention, but their curiosity.
It’s a point of contention. It allows for debate. At face glance, it may not sound right. It may outright be shocking.
?
Suspense
Why? How? You’ve posed an interesting question that begs an answer. People will follow up. They may or may not take the meeting, which is highly dependent on their bandwidth and your luck in their schedule.
Oftentimes, the follow up will seek some level of external validation. You need to appeal to a higher authority. References. Facts/data, and starting from universal truths. Or sometimes, a higher form of logic and reasoning.
In the words of Siqi Chen, questions are “tell tale signs of objections politely withheld.” For the purpose of gauging interest, quiet objections out loud may work in your favor.
,
Pause
You’ve introduced a subclause before the clause. The subclause itself must be interesting enough for them to want to finish the sentence. It’s the difference between a feature and a product. If it is interesting enough, there may be a follow up, but things will usually stay asynchronous.
Oftentimes, this manifests in the form of taking a large leap of faith in logic. Either one starts a premise, but has no conclusion/solution. Or the other way around. You deliver the punchline, but has no build-up.
.
Stop
A quick conclusion can be drawn. No further questions or curiosities. There’s nothing special. Nothing worth noting. This neither grabs attention or begs curiosity. The same as saying the sky is blue.
While that may seem obvious, the equivalent in the startup world is “We are a B2B SaaS product leveraging AI to deliver insights.” You’ve said nothing. And unfortunately, all of which is forgettable.
All that to say, if the goal is to get a conversation going, the above is a formula I often advise the founders and GPs I work with.
Then once you have the meeting, of all the meeting requests I get, the two most common reasons are:
I need money
I need feedback
Oftentimes, not mutually exclusive.
For the purpose of this blogpost, and as I’ve written about the former in the past, I’ll focus on the latter.
Feedback
The vast majority of people also suck at asking for feedback. Take pitch decks, for example.
Most founders and GPs ask: “Can you give me some feedback on my deck?” Unfortunately, the ask is nebulous. What kind of feedback are you looking for? How honest can I be? What are my parameters?
Should I be worried about hurting your feelings? Are you looking for validation or constructive criticism?
Am I the best person to give you feedback on this? Am I supposed to give feedback from the perspective of me as [insert your name] or a different persona?
So, unless you’re best friends with the person you want feedback from AND they are the ideal archetype you’re trying to target, you need to be more direct and focused on what you’re looking for.
Love-Hate-Forget
One of my favorite set of questions of all time happens to be something that was designed to be asked in groups of strangers. Something that came from the social experiments I hosted pre-COVID. Not original, but I forget the attribution.
Who did you notice? Who, for whatever reason, rational or not, did you like?
Who, for whatever reason, did you not like or feel it may be hard to be friends with them?
And after all that, who did you, for whatever reason, not notice at all?
Similarly, in the case of deck feedback…
Love
Could you go through the whole deck, spending an average of half a second on each slide? While you do so, could you note, which slides you spend longer than one second on, for whatever reason?
FYI, leave it up to them if they want to elaborate. Sometimes you don’t need to ask. Oxygen usually rises to the top.
If you were to keep just one slide and throw everything else out, which slide would you keep?
Hate
Could you spend up to five seconds per slide? Which slides do you dislike, for whatever reason?
Why?
FYI, typical feedback is usually too messy, no punchline (I don’t get what you’re trying to say), or I don’t agree. The last of which is actually not always bad, depending if it’s a point of view of the world or you’re misrepresenting a fact.
Forget
These are not questions you ask the feedback giver. Rather, these are questions for introspection.
Which slides did the person giving feedback totally ignore?
Why might they have?
More often than not, these are table stakes slides. Delete these slides if you can.
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.
Back when I was still swimming competitively, one of the drills our swim coach always had us do was a set of hypoxic drills. The two that left the most indelible marks were:
10 sets of 100 yards, broken down by 25 yards. Lap 1, breathe every 5 strokes. Lap 2, every 3 strokes. Lap 3, every 7 strokes. And Lap 4, every 9 strokes.
20 sets of 55 yards. You start with a flip turn into the wall. First 25 yards (Lap 1), no breaths allowed. Second 25 (Lap 2), you’re allowed to only take one breath.
Naturally, those drills usually left me the most exhausted. Not only did I find myself catching my breath, we also had to swim those on specific intervals, which left less than five seconds of rest at best, while swimming at 80% our max speed.
All that to say, it was a set of exercises that trained us to hold our breath. We had less oxygenated blood. Naturally, it was harder to exert our max strength and endurance. But it tested our ability to weather exhaustion.
Just like today.
Our venture ecosystem needs oxygen. The whole industry is holding their breath. For IPOs. like Stripe’s. Which may be unlikely to happen in the near future given Sequoia’s recent share acquisition. Software acquisitions have also hit an all-time low, leaving LPs starved for liquidity from the major private market exit paths.
And of the few “acquisitions” that are happening, they’re done to circumnavigate anti-trust laws. As Tomasz points out, “they hire the core team [in other words the founding team], license the technology, but the majority company continues to operate as a separate entity.” In addition, a number of companies also need to get re-priced in the market, having raised in 2020 and 2021 on over three-year runways. Which to their credit, was the common advice given by VCs during that era.
Election season does not make this Mexican standoff any less strenuous. How will it impact the global economy? And who’s the last to hold the bag with all these hot AI deals? We all know AI has low margins and requires and immense amount of compute to deliver the results that we expect, but how much longer will this need to go on?
Who knows?
At least until we get to breathe again. The consensus seems to be Q1 2025. But until we have oxygen again, this is the hypoxic training that our world will have to endure for the foreseeable future.
In the words of my coach, “focus on distance per stroke.” In other words, executional discipline. Do more with less.
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 went shoe shopping with my partner the past two weekends, and I’ll be the first to plead ignorance to the difference between the B and D suffix for shoe sizes. And even after two weekends, I’m still learning.
I’ve never looked much into shoes. Having spent much of my early life bathed in chlorine (so much that at one point, my hair was brown with blond tips. FYI, for those I’ve never met in person before, I sport naturally black hair.), I’ve spent more time choosing the right $300-400 swimsuit than what I’d wear on my two lower appendages the other eight hours of the day. All that to say, I’m ill-equipped to speak the language of sneakerheads and running shoe geeks.
But just as I’m still learning how shoe geeks around the world understand the finer nuances of heel to toe drop impacting ankle versus knee strain, most founders who haven’t spent the time understanding the nuances of VCs think all money is green. In fact, just last month, I spoke with a founder I randomly met at an event who said, “Money is money.”
And he’s not completely wrong. There is some truth to it. At the end of the day, as investors, we sell money. Moreover, most investors who promise to be helpful are not. As well-intentioned as they are at the time of investment, most fall short of being truly helpful. There are multiple studies that show that founders believe a huge majority of their investors are not helpful.
That said, one of my investor buddies said something quite interesting to me earlier this week. Many founders see investors as saviors not partners. A source of capital to save them when they’re near the gates of hell, but not while they’re building their stairway to heaven. All that to say, as someone who’s been an operator, now a “VC”, but also someone who invests in other VCs, here are some of the nuances I’ve really come to appreciate over the years that I overlooked when I first stepped into the world of entrepreneurship.
Consensus and conviction-driven decision making
Some firms are consensus-driven. Others are conviction-driven. The former requires majority or unanimous buy-in. The latter doesn’t. Neither is universally better than the other, but knowing how decisions are made is extremely helpful. Not only to know who else you need to convince on the team, but also to know how the firm will help you post-investment.
The former is usually a firm where carry is split equally among all partners, so all partners are theoretically incented to see every portfolio company succeed. So as a founder, if you want to rely on the expertise and network of the collective partnership, these are the firms you should pursue. The latter, the conviction-driven ones, are most helpful if you really want one specific partner’s experience. They’ll be the person who takes the board seat. Opportunistically, they may ask for 1-2 junior team members to also have board observer seats. The downside is when and if this partner leaves the firm, there may be a gaping hole in governance as well as interest in the continued success of your company. But otherwise, this will be the partner you will have on speed dial.
I shared a presentation I made recently on LinkedIn. Of which, I share that three kinds of friends in the world. When shit hits the fan at 3AM in the morning…
There’s the friend you call. They see the call. And they go back to sleep.
There’s the friend you call. They see the call. And begrudgingly pick up.
And there’s the friend you call. And as they’re picking up the phone, they’ve got their pants on already and are running out the door with their keys.
Conviction-driven firms, where the partner that pounds the table for you will likely be on you board, or even if not, they’re going to be the third friend. At consensus-driven firms, and I’m clearly being reductive here, you’re more likely — not always — to have the reluctant one or sleepers.
Then it comes down to how the team is compensated. Not something most founders can find out or ask out, but how carry is distributed for each fund matters.
Disagreeableness
I’ve realized a lot of the best investors are quite disagreeable. They have their opinions and are quite vocal about them.
A lot of them quite often score incredibly low on investor review sites. Of course, some just score low on NPS purely because their assholes. But I want to caveat. Assholes are often disagreeable, but not all disagreeable people are assholes.
But it takes a lot of courage to have a contrarian viewpoint that one can back up. You don’t have to agree with it. But it matters. More often than not, these folks will also have negative references. For an LP evaluating VCs, that’s ok. Negative is always better than neutral references. The latter means you’re easily forgettable.
Regardless of whether you agree with these investors or not (equally, if not more true, in great founders), they make you stop and think. And that pause to think makes you a more well-rounded professional, and makes your own opinions more robust when you choose to adopt or not adopt said piece of advice.
There’s a great Steve Jobs line, which I think is quite applicable here. “Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
Great investors are troublemakers. In a good way.
P.S. To the three verified troublemakers I know who are reading this blogpost, can’t wait for your debut.
Small talk
Small talk was definitely one of those things I was rather dismissive of earlier in my career. Who da hell cares about the weather? Or what you did over the weekend?
But over the years, I realize some of the best investors are remarkably good at this. Not in the sense that they know how to ask great weather questions, but they learn how to build rapport early and quickly. And even better, they get a founder comfortable, honest, and candid about where they are at.
No one’s perfect. Every investor gets that. Most founders often pretend that they are. But a great investor is great at helping a founder realize they don’t have to be, and also get to understand a founder from a personal level. Not jumping straight into the pitch. Or give me your metrics. Or how much are you raising at how high of a valuation?
Radical candor
Borrowing this phrase from the amazing Kim Scott, the best investors are upfront with expectations. They don’t waste your time. Some even go as far as to share what their incentives are. And the harsh reality that they may be wrong many times before they’re right. They don’t beat around the bush. They don’t delay the inevitable. They’re great at ripping bandages off quickly, so they can prioritize their focus on other matters that require more attention. They have tough conversations early and synchronously. The last thing one can ever say about them is that they aren’t thoughtful. It seems remarkably simple, but most cannot do just that.
To be fair, it’s sometimes easier said than done. Even for myself, and I would not even dare to put myself in the category of great, I’ve been berated, gaslit, and shamed (haha!) for giving and attempting to give honest feedback to founders and investors. In fact, I was introed to a fund manager recently for the purpose of giving feedback. When I realized a couple red flags about her fund (namely her raising a $100M fund with no track record), I asked if she wanted feedback. To which, she replied with something to the effect that she only takes feedback from people who invest and that I didn’t deserve to give her feedback.
So I can see why some managers are averse to giving any.
Raising junior talent
I was reminded of this in my recent episode with Rick Zullo. And I noticed Rick is really good at giving credit and lifting up his team. In a soon-to-be-released episode, Eric Bahn from Hustle Fund does the same. I’ve asked him to speak at events before and he’s often referred one of his junior team members to the event. Not as a “I don’t want to do this, so someone else should”, but as a “I believe XX person will be a great future leader of this firm, and I believe others need to hear her insights.” And he’s been right every time.
Building an institutional firm takes more than one person. It takes a village. To build a legacy also requires more than one generation. I often see great investors taking less credit and giving a lot more to their team. Those often hidden from the limelight.
Discipline
Every great investor I know does something consistently every day. They set ground rules and while it’s less so for others, they hold themselves accountable to do so. Whether it’s a cup of coffee brewed from home every morning, or going to the gym on a daily basis or quality time with family or calling their significant other at a set time every day, I have yet to meet an investor who can’t keep to a promise they made to themselves consistently.
Venture capital is a long game, and it’s very possible for these multi-decade games, to be lucky at least once. Good investors, at some point, hit a unicorn. Great investors can discover many before others do. But any more than twice requires extreme discipline and the ability to say no to things that are good to make room for the great. And it’s so much harder than one might think.
And the simplest proxy to an investor’s ability to do so is their ability to fulfill promises to themselves when no one else is looking.
In closing
At the end of the day, not all shoes are the same. Just like not all VCs are. But if all you need is to get from Point A to Point B, and you don’t care for what kind of support you get along the way, VCs, like shoes, may all be the same.
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.
Rick Zullo is the Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Equal Ventures. which invests into the future of four verticals: climate, insurance, retail, and supply chain, and boasts a portfolio including the likes of Threeflow, Leap, Smarthop, Ghost, Starday, David Energy, Leap, Odyssey, Vquip or Texture, just to name a few — many of which Rick serves on the board of.
Prior to co-founding Equal Ventures, Rick was an investor at Lightbank, an early-stage venture fund based in Chicago, where he led investments in companies like Riskmatch (acquired by Vertafore), Vettery (acquired by Adecco), Neumob (acquired by CloudFlare), Expel and Catalytic amongst others. Prior to Lightbank, Rick worked with investment firms Foundation Capital, Bowery Capital, and Lightview Capital, investing in technology companies across the capital spectrum from seed-stage to buy-out and began his career as a strategy consultant at Deloitte Consulting.
Rick received an MBA with Honors from Columbia Business School and graduated from the University of Richmond where he studied Economics and Leadership Studies.
[00:00] Intro [00:42] Rick’s book and how Rick thinks about his habit of writing [05:45] How Rick became a VC [11:36] The speed Rick listens to audiobooks [12:38] How Sendbird closed their first customer [14:20] Is networking a feature or a bug in VC? [17:59] Rick’s three hat framework [26:07] Growing up with a stutter and weak knees [35:58] Going from getting a job in VC to starting a firm [46:42] What motivated Rick despite how hard it was to raise Fund I [57:16] What makes EMC different from other emerging manager communities? [1:04:03] How does Rick help people become vulnerable at EMC? [1:15:25] What’s broken with venture [1:18:50] Rick’s hot take on funds of funds [1:22:04] “Seed stage is the worst stage to be investing into” [1:27:54] Asymmetric insight and asymmetric value add [1:33:00] How to pick board members as a founder when VC currently has high turnover [1:39:54] What should people know about Rick that he isn’t already known for? [1:42:55] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:43:55] If you enjoyed this GP episode, do let me know in the comments or in DMs!
“Everyone in venture is networking and not working.” – Rick Zullo
“When I played football once upon a time, our coach [was] screaming at us, ‘Three hats on the ball! Three hats on the ball!’ The runner wasn’t down until we had three helmets tackling them.” – Rick Zullo, on staffing at a VC firm
“Historically, 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. […] In 2021, that number hit 42 times. […] Last year, that number was around eight.” – Rick Zullo (circa 2024)
Felipe Valencia is one of the co-founders of Veronorte, a venture capital investment firm based out of Colombia. In the first decade, Veronorte focused on managing Corporate Venture Programs for some of the largest Corporations in Latam.
These days, they’re diving into a Fund of Funds investment strategy in the Venture Capital space. For the last 12 years, Veronorte has invested in over 25 startups across the U.S., India, Europe, Mexico, and Colombia, and in more than 12 Venture Capital funds, primarily in the U.S.
With over 20 years of experience under his belt, Felipe has dabbled in various fields like robotics, the internet, international trade, and infrastructure project management.
Felipe graduated summa cum laude with a Mechanical Engineering degree from EAFIT University. He also holds a Master’s in Web Communication from the European Institute of Design in Rome and an MBA from the University of Chicago, where he focused on entrepreneurship and finance.
Felipe’s journey has taken him all over the world: He worked for AVG – Robotics in Los Angeles, did research and development in Mechatronics at Siemens in Germany, and was the Commercial and Strategic Director of Indexcol in Colombia. He also served as the Commercial Attaché at the Colombian Embassy in China and led the Proexport office there. Most recently, he was involved in business development at Pierson Capital in Beijing and managed infrastructure projects in Mexico.
[00:00] Intro [02:54] Felipe’s teenage years under a life of terror [10:01] How Medellin has changed over the years [13:12] Tales from Felipe’s travels across 10 cities in 4 continents [17:53] How did Felipe made his foray into VC? [22:46] How did Felipe meet his co-founding partner Camilo? [26:31] How Felipe pitched a VC fund without a track record [39:16] How did Felipe and Camilo think about compensation in Fund I? [47:40] How did Veronorte transition from a VC fund to a fund of funds? [55:14] The Monte Carlo simulation of fund of funds strategies [1:03:04] How much better does a venture fund need to do than public markets? [1:05:46] How did Veronorte get into top tier established funds? [1:12:00] What coffee brand did Felipe bring on his visits to the US? [1:13:38] How did Veronorte close Latam family offices in their fund of funds? [1:17:04] How does Veronorte communicate with their LPs? [1:23:58] The difference between an emerging firm and a frontier firm [1:28:55] Portfolio construction at Veronorte [1:34:50] What podcasts does Felipe listen to? [1:38:19] Felipe’s advice for the wanderlust [1:43:39] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:44:39] If you enjoyed this episode, albeit longer, please do leave a like and share it with one friend who’d enjoy this episode!
“Diversification is a good way to control dispersion of returns.” – Felipe Valencia
“Every time they go to a meeting, they go with a present.” – Felipe Valencia, on building relationships
“This is an access class, not an asset class. And to show access, you need to bring these established firms. It’s not that we will invest in any shiny name, and we have passed on amazing firms that have an amazing brand because they don’t fit in our strategy.” – Felipe Valencia
In 1968, NASA tasked the late George Land to create a test that would help NASA hire more creative geniuses. Does genius and creativity come from nature or nurture? As such his job was to create a test so simple that even children could take it. And he found that for children ages 4-5, out of 1,600 children, 98% of them qualified to be a genius. Divergent thinkers. Then, he waited five years to assess these same children. To which he found, only 30% qualified. Then another five years later, only 12% of the same children were what he counted to be geniuses.
It begged the question: What percent of adults are geniuses?
Of course, the lesson from all of this is the fallacy of modern-day education. And the same is true for the adult world between convergent thinkers and divergent thinkers. I believe in the world of venture at least, we have terminology that’s little less palatable (at least for me, although on occasion I’m guilty of using them myself): insiders and outsiders.
My friend Anne sent me this piece by Auren Hoffman recently on insiders and outsiders. An incredibly well-written piece, and quite thought-provoking. I’ve largely thought about how outsiders can become insiders, but silly me, less about the value of staying an outsider or an insider aiming to become an outsider. Moreover, that to be successful as an insider, there’s actually a rather predictable path to become one. Or at least to help your children become one. Go to Harvard. Play insider sports, like gold, or horse-riding, or sailing. And son. But in Auren’s words, to be successful as an outsider, well, “being [an outsider] is MUCH higher beta. They could end up changing the world for the better. They also could blow it up. Or just never be accepted and live less happy.”
And while I may not agree with everything that Auren proposes, a lot of it makes sense. In fact, 11 words definitely caught my eye. “Outsiders take things from insiders. Insiders inherit things from other insiders.” And as such, insiders play the status quo; outsiders change the status quo.
It’s interesting. Every generation of VC, there’s a changing of the guard. Many of the new regime are outsiders. People who think different. People who exhibit a level of creativity that is uncommon in VCs. Either in the form of business models or how they provide value. How they build brand. Or simply how their brain works. People that in bringing a fresh perspective were able to find the next great companies unlike any other.
Interestingly enough, in my buddy and Superclusters guestJaap’s recent study of 2,092 North American and European VC funds, he found that these are the folks who are more likely to hit fundraise targets than any other GP persona. Aka 45% success rate. And perform highest at 2.4X net TVPI, but only average on DPI and IRR.
My guess here is that these outsiders, in being artisanal about their craft and — well, at least with respect to the VC industry at large, divergent thinkers — find their tribe rather quickly because LPs quick self-select themselves in or out of a relationship with them. They’re the round pegs in the square holes, to borrow a Steve Jobs moniker. So when most others look square, the few round holes instantly identify with these round pegs. And more often than not, they’re new to the asset management game, so have lower fund targets and a more precise strategy. Downside to that is they’re still learning the ropes of exit strategies and fund management. Which also explains the high volatility in returns.
And while there’s much higher beta in being an outsider, there’s plenty of research to suggest that there is also greater alpha. But it’s going to be unfair. The deck is rigged against you. There’s a great Marcus Aurelius line. “Mental toughness is knowing life isn’t fair and still playing to win.”
The outsiders who win exhibit exactly that mental fortitude against stacked odds. Besides, there’s joy in doing things differently.
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 friend invited me to a demo day earlier this week. Albeit, it was a bunch of summer interns presenting their project they’d been working on for the last two months. The few investors and I who sat on the judging panel were all admittedly quite surprised by the quality of pitches and products from students and hell, even within two months. In fact, these 10-11 interns have gotten much further in product development and customer discovery than most founders I’ve seen across the span of a year. Whether sampling bias or not, the latter is probably about 50%+ of what I see these days. And you’d think that AI would have sped up the product development cycle.
But I digress.
Simply put, I was impressed. So, in efforts to simulate actual pitches at demo days, I asked a team who had presented five features they’d been working on and gotten each to a working prototype. “If you had to kill three of the five features, which three would you kill?”
To which, the “CEO” replied: “To be honest, all five are quite important. But if we had to kill a feature, it’d be the AI chatbot, but the rest of the four go hand-in-hand.”
I pushed for a more discerning answer, but was met with a paraphrased version of the last answer. And of course, it left a little more to be desired. What I was looking for was something of more prescriptive specificity. For instance, “we’d focus on usage metrics, particularly with respect to retention cohorts and actions per session across all the features. And depending on what features seem to perform better than others, our plan is to focus 70% of engineering resources on the top feature, 20% on the second most popular feature, and 10% focused on either a permutation of the other three or spending time with our customers to see where they’re the most frustrated.” It may not need to be the “right” answer, but having a thought-out answer is helpful.
After all, the original question boils down to the fact that most founders fail from indigestion not from starvation. Charles Hudson wrote this great piece last month, aptly named “The Last $250K.” In short, one of the most common behavioral changes he’s observed is when founders are down to their last $250K. And, three things stand out in particular:
“The most important things to work on become incredibly clear.”
“The data needed to validate the company’s hypothesis becomes much clearer.”
“There are things that the company was doing that they stop doing because those things don’t really matter given the gravity of the situation.”
It’s a quick read. And I highly recommend it. Much of which I personally agree with. Not sure if that’s usually the $250K mark, but my personal sample size is far smaller than Charles’. Constraints are the breeding grounds of creativity.
What’s really interesting is that my first reaction to that blogpost was just like how the last 4-6 months of runway leads to deep focus, how do the last 4-6 months affect fund managers? And it’s not too far off.
Deployment speed slows. The simple reason is that they no longer feel the fire under their belly to deploy. Either because they’re close to their target portfolio size or they need to elongate the time horizon while they’re actively raising their next fund.
The quality bar for what gets funded goes up. Since your deal flow pipeline is likely not contracting, there’s a flight to quality. And quality more often than not, translates to traction, logos/brands, and founder’s prior experiences. While there are always outliers, I see many GPs take less risky bets that they would’ve otherwise.
GPs are actively planning for the next fund’s strategy. And actively synthesizing lessons learned. Or at least, with respect with how they pitch LPs. And if they’re an emerging manager, or a fund without clear wins in their last fund, the most important things also become painfully clear. They often focus on the 20% that drove 80% of fund returns.
GPs are spending a lot more time on portfolio support. Not only because graduation rates become a lot more important (for fund returns and narratives for prospective LPs), but also because references matter in diligence. And well, if you’re fundraising for your next fund, you can be damn well sure that a sophisticated LP is going to do anywhere between 10-50 reference checks. On-list and off-list. 20-30% of which with your portfolio companies.
Thematically, focus. While there are other constraints that help improve a founder or a fund manager’s level of focus, limited runway (or capital to deploy) is a natural forcing function. The best ones I’ve seen often impose artificial constraints early on, before things get rough. Rules and codes of conduct. Things they promise themselves and the team never do. Aligning compensation behind performance. In other words, operational discipline.
Naturally, it should be to no surprise that investors of any kind spend a lot of time on organizational discipline before they choose to invest.
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.
Susan Kimberlin builds and invests in things that are Good & Useful. She is an angel investor, limited partner and product leader with a career that is equal parts building SaaS software products, and investing in companies, funds, teams, and projects that promote social equity with practical solutions for real-world problems. She is committed to bringing more diverse people into investing and the innovation economy. With a background in building search and natural language products for companies like PayPal and Salesforce, she leverages her experience to help her portfolio companies with product and fundraising strategies. Susan believes that bringing diverse perspectives to creative and practical challenges is the best way to create durable and impactful change.
In addition to her tech roles, Susan co-owns and manages Tammberlin Vineyards, growing Rhône wine varietals in Bennett Valley, Sonoma County. She works on documentary and narrative film projects as an executive producer, supporting creative projects that raise awareness, start conversations, and bring joy. She is a lifelong singer, and has been singing with pop a cappella group The Loose Interpretations for nearly 20 years.
[00:00] Intro [02:51] What are madrigals? [10:10] How to balance high expectations for your team and the trust that they will get there [14:53] How does Susan recognize drive and excellence in others? [21:49] What made Susan’s founding LP check in Backstage Capital so unique? [26:01] Difference between LP stakes and GP stakes [38:51] The smokes and mirrors behind the first pitch [43:54] Susan’s investment strategy as an individual LP? [50:21] What topic would Susan give a TED talk in that’s not startups or venture? [59:24] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:00:25] If you enjoyed this episode, could you share this with one other friend?
I’ve been lucky enough to meet a number of founders and fund managers over the years. Many of which I probably have no business of meeting and getting to know. And I count myself fortunate every day to have the opportunities to do so.
Nevertheless, and as an FYI, all of this is completely anecdotal. Maybe at some point I’ll find data to support this. Hell, maybe there’s already data on this. But as is the perk of this blog, I get to write about just things on my mind.
Per some recent conversations with friends, having already shared with them, thought I’d share the below. Some telltale signs I’ve noticed in founders and fund managers that are world-class before the rest of the world knows it:
Highly responsive. It’s insane to think about this given their busy lives. But the folks I’ve been lucky to invest in and (gosh darn it) passed on who’ve gone on to create hundreds if not thousands of jobs respond remarkably fast. Sometimes within minutes of me sending them a message/email. But on average before half the day is over. I will say I’m personally slipping here a bit as of late. But I guess, that just means I’m not world-class by my own definition. Many seem to be night owls, at least when they’re still hustling. I’m not personally sure if they’re working deep into the night, but at least, they’re responding to me at 2AM, and I’m trying to figure out what they’re doing then.
They exercise in the morning, or have a morning routine that they do every day without fail, even when on vacation. It could be writing, journaling, making that morning cup of espresso just right, or making breakfast for their kids EVERY morning. It’s ritualistic, so that they perform just as well on the first meeting of their day as they do their last.
Operationally disciplined. They’re really good at saying no. They set clear boundaries. Often times, boundaries that most people have not heard of. And many, even after hearing them, may find bizarre or strange. But in an odd way, they make a lot of sense if you give them the time of day. I was calling a friend recently on this, and he was sharing that he’s not the kind of friend that most people want. He doesn’t show up at birthday parties or celebrations. He also doesn’t post to socials regularly to congratulate friends on promotions or otherwise. But he aimed to be, and ends up being the first call friends make when shit hits the fan. And because of that practice, he can be laser focused on his priorities every day.
They’re really good at using analogies. In many ways, it’s the classic 7-year old test or the grandma test. They’re extremely high context individuals in a lot of different disciplines. And if I were to define it (not original, but I forget the attribution, might be Tim Urban), high context individuals are those that are well-versed on a given subject. Low context folks are those are out of the loop. For example, a PhD in neuroscience is high context on how different reward systems affect dopamine, but possibly low context on Marvel Cinematic Universe lore. And when someone is high context in not just one area but in a lot of areas — in other words, people might call them polymaths, or at the very least, well-read — it’s easy for them to pull analogies in ways that best help relay what they want to say to the other person’s ears. Like a crypto founder (probably one might be able to guess who) who once described to me one-way hash functions as putting fruits in a blender. Or Josh Wolfe who describes the battle of ethics in a company a battle between intentions and incentives. Or that society is a constant battle between deception and detection.
They ask really good questions. Questions you’ve likely never heard asked before. And many can get to proficiency on any subject quite quickly. Largely, probably because of how they think and how they eventually arrive at an answer.
Words are used intentionally and with specificity, and rarely, if ever, use amorphous terms and superlative adjectives. Like success, community, unique, compelling, unfair advantage, best, better, and so on. And if they do, they are quick to define what they personally mean when they use those words.
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.
