The most common VC rejection by founders who end up building the world’s most transformative companies seems to be:
The market is too small.
Other variations:
Unfortunately, the size of the market didn’t make sense for our investment model.
The price of the round felt too expensive for our strategy. (An indirect assumption that the exit-to-entry multiple would be south of a 100X. In other words, there’s a cap on market size. Aka small market.)
There are plenty of public examples of founders (i.e. Airbnb, Instacart, Uber, Facebook/Meta, Shopify, eBay, Ford, NVIDIA, etc.) sharing their rejection emails from the first couple hundred VCs they’ve met. But also, I’ve been lucky enough to read a lot of the memos that GPs and partners have written in the decades past on their anti-portfolio.
Yep, that’s the blog post for today.
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.
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.
Recently I’ve been hearing a lot of power law this, power law that. And you guessed right, that’s VC and LP talk. Definitely not founder vocabulary. Simply, that 20% of inputs lead to 80% of outputs. For instance, 20% of investments yield 80% of the returns.
Along a similar vein… what about questions? What 20% of questions lead to 80% of answers you need to make a decision? Or help you get 80% of the way to conviction in a deal?
‘Cause really, every question after those delivers only marginal and diminishing returns. And too much so, then you end up just wasting the founder’s or GP’s time. As the late Don Valentineonce said, “[VC] is all about figuring out which questions are the right questions to ask, and since we don’t have a clue what the right answer is, we’re very interested in the process by which the entrepreneur get to the conclusion that he offers.”
While I can’t speak for everyone, here are the questions that help me get to 80% conviction. For emerging GPs.
I’m going to exclude “What is your fund strategy?” Because you should have either asked this at the beginning or found out before the meeting. This question informs if you should even take the meeting in the first place. Is it a fit for what you’re looking for or not? There, as one would expect, you’d be looking into fund size, vertical, portfolio size, and stage largely. Simple, but necessary. At least to not waste anyone’s time from the get go.
Where are you at as a GP by Fund III? What does Fund I and II look like by Fund III?
Discipline. In the first 4 years of a fund, you’re evaluated on nothing else except for the discipline and the prepared mind that you have going in. All the small and early DPI and TVPI mean close to nothing. And it’s far too early for a GP to fall into their respective quartile. In other words, Fund I is selling that promise. The prepared mind. Fund II is selling Fund I’s strategy and discipline. Fund III, you’re selling the returns on Fund I.
Vision. Is this GP thinking about institutionalizing a firm versus just a fund? How are they thinking about creating processes and repeatability into their model? How do they think about succession and talent? And sometimes I go a few steps further. What does Fund V look like? And what does the steady state of your fund strategy look like?
What value do you bring to your portfolio companies?
This is going to help with reference calls and for you to fact check if an investor actually brings that kind of value to their portfolio companies. So, in effect, the question to portfolio companies would be: How has X investor helped you in your journey?
On the flip side, even during those reference calls, I like asking: Would you take their check if they doubled their ownership? And for me to figure out how high can they take their ownership in a company before the check is no longer worth it. There are some investors who are phenomenal $250K pre-seed/seed checks for 2.5-5% ownership (other times less), but not worth their value for $2-3M checks for the same stages. To me, that’s indicative of where the market thinks GP-market fit is at.
I also love the line of questioning that Eric Bahn once taught me. “How would you rate this GP on a scale of 1 to 10?” Oftentimes, founders will give them a rating of 6, 7, 8, or if you’re lucky 9. And the follow up question then becomes, “What would get this investor to a 10?” And that’s where meaty parts are.
Of course, it’s important to do this exercise a few times, especially with the top performers in their portfolio to truly have a decent benchmark. And the ones that didn’t do so well. After all, our brand is made by our winners. And our reputation is made by those that didn’t.
In the trifecta of sourcing, picking, and winning, this is how GPs win deals.
How do you resolve conflict or disagreement in the partnership?
This is really prescient in a partnership. Same as a co-foundership. If someone says, we never disagree, I’m running fast in the other direction. Everyone disagrees and has conflicts. Even twins and best friends do. If you don’t, you either have been sweeping things under the rug or one (or both or all) of you doesn’t care enough to give a shit. Because if you give a damn, you’re gonna have opinions. And not all humans have the same opinions. If everyone does, realistically, we only need one of you.
Hell, Jaclyn Freeman Hester even goes a step further and asks, How would you fire your partner?
Jaclyn on firing partners and team risk
Personally I think that last question yields interesting results and thought exercises, but lower on my totem pole (or higher if you want to be culturally accurate) of questions I need answers to in the initial meetings.
How are you finding companies? How are you building your pipeline?
This is always a question I get to, but especially valuable, when I ask it to spinouts. Building a repeatable and scalable sourcing pipeline is one of the cruxes of being a great fund manager. But in the age when a lot of LPs are shifting their focus to spinouts from top-tier funds, it’s an important reminder that (a) not all spinouts are created equal, and (b) most often, I find spinouts who rely largely on their existing “brand” and “network” without being able to quantify the pillars of it and how it’s repeatable.
For (a), a GP spinning out is evaluated differently than a partner or a junior investment member. A GP is one who manages the LP relationships, and knows intimately the value of what goes in an LPA, on top of her/his investing prowess. And the further you go down the food chain, the less visibility one gets of the end to end process. In many ways, the associates and analysts spinning out need the most help, but are also most willing to hustle.
Which brings me to (b). Most spinouts rely on the infrastructure and brand of their previous firm, and once they’ve left, they lose that brand within a year’s time. Meaning if they don’t find a way or have an existing way to continue to build deal flow, oftentimes, they’ll be left with the leftovers on the venture table. This question, for me, gives me a sense of whether an investor is a lean-in investor or a lean-back investor. The devil’s in the details.
What are the top 3 reasons I shouldn’t invest?
This is a test to see how much self-awareness a founder/GP has. The most dangerous answer is saying “There are no reasons not to invest.” There are always reasons not to. The question is, are you aware of them? And can you prioritize which risks to de-risk first?
In many ways, I think pitching a Fund I as illustrating the minimum viable assumption you need to get to the minimum viable product. And Fund II is getting to the minimum lovable strategy (by founders and other investors in the ecosystem). And with anything that is minimally viable, there are a bunch of holes in it.
Another way to say the above is also, “If halfway through the fund we realize the fund isn’t working, what is the most likely reason why?”
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.
This may very much be the hill I end up dying on as an angel. I also realize that the title of the blogpost itself is ionically charged. But it’s something I feel strongly about.
Two caveats.
One, this is going to be one of my more strongly worded blogposts. I don’t write many of these. It doesn’t give me joy to “call” people out. If you’re a reader to this blog for the more mild-mannered Cup of Zhou, I’ll see you next week. 🙂
Let’s just say I’m writing this out of frustration after chatting with a founder who hit all the below red flags. But more importantly, frustration at myself for not recognizing the below a mile away when I took the meeting. And the opening 2 questions for that meeting was can you share what you do? and what do you invest in? Both of which are quite evident on my LinkedIn. Moreover the cold outreach came via LinkedIn.
Two, I’m a small check angel. And this may not apply if you write north of a $100K angel check or a $250K LP check. You’re likely also excluded from this hill I’ll die on if you don’t have the network that would alert you on deals on a regular basis.
That said, if you’re a small check investor like me AND you have a decent network, any founder who doesn’t know exactly why they want you on the cap table outside of money is probably not a founder worth your time.
Why?
To them, you’re just another check, and not THE check. Whatever wrapper they put on things, you’re dumb money to them. Now, it’s not about feeling self-important. In fact, don’t delude yourself on your importance. It’s about being valuable, outside of the money. The early stages of company-building are so crucial that you really need all hands rowing in the same direction. Any hands that are idle, or worse, rowing in the opposite direction, is a waste of time, attention and resources.
They don’t know what they want. They don’t know the critical needs of the business. Is it talent? Is it getting to $1M ARR and developing a sales strategy? Is it scaling past product-market fit? Is it finding product-market fit? And because they don’t, they don’t know what they need help in. And any non-surgical answer, including terms relative to broad strokes, is a dud.
And in many ways, because of the above reasons, you’re wasting your dollar. The best founders are surgical and intentional to a fault. They’re also some of the best salespeople in the world. And they will make you feel like you’re the most important person in the world (whether actually true or not, but sometimes, even that doesn’t really matter). Because if they can win you over, they have a great batting average of winning key customers over.
FYI, also probably not worth your time if they:
Say you specialize in XX industry is not enough. Anyone can guess that at a glance at your LinkedIn. Even more so, if you’ve made it explicit.
Spend more time pitching to you than asking you questions to understand your values and what you’re interested in. They’re more interested in what comes out of their mouth than by how much reaches your ears.
Say you’re valuable for intros you can make. LinkedIn doesn’t tell people the strength of your first degree connections. For better or worse, I’m connected with a lot of people. Product of me being a bit too liberal with inbound connections early on. But it doesn’t mean I know them all equally as well. In fact, intros for a founder as an investor are table stakes. You must either be best friends with key decision makers/customers or downstream investors, or it’s really not as useful. And that only comes out if the founder spends time getting to know you, as listed in the second point above.
Ever since I added “Angel investor” to my LinkedIn profile, I’ve received a lot of noise. Quantity of deal flow went up by maybe 10-20 per week (and some weeks where I post something or get tagged in something that gets 5K+ impressions, that inbound deal flow from LinkedIn doubles if not more). But I’d say 95% of that are deals I would never invest in. Either since it’s out of scope, stage, check size, or just type of founder. Which at some point, when I remember to and I’m not typing this on my little 6×3 inch screen, I’ll have to redact that title, “Angel investor.”
Deal flow has become easy. But easy doesn’t mean good. The truth is, I’d rather mean a lot to a few than a little to a lot people.
And by the way, the same is true, if you’re a small check LP.
At the end of the day, as a founder (or emerging GP), it’s about finding your early believers. Those who choose to stand by you not just because everything’s going up and to the right. But those who will stand by you when shit hits the fan.
I was watching the latest episode of Hot Ones (yes, this is my guilty pleasure), where Sean is interviewing Will Smith, and Will shares that there are three kinds of friends in your life that you call at 3AM.
One kind of friend looks at the phone and pretends to be asleep.
A second kind of friend that picks up the phone that makes you feel bad for being in trouble.
And the third kind is putting their pants on while they’re answering the phone.
You want the third kind.
It also harkens back to the same conversationAakar, Ho, Vignesh, and I had two weeks ago. Believing comes from faith. And faith comes not just from where you are today, but where you will go. And that is established on Day 1.
To get early believers, you have to show you care. You have to give (even if it means your time, attention, and/or enthusiasm/interest), before you get. That is as true for investors as it is for customers.
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.
First off, my lizard brain that optimizes for immediate gratification thought “A Jerk’s Guide to Being Kind” would be a fun title. Clickbait-y (kinda). Great for SEO. So I used that as my prompt for this public journal entry. 🙂
So, if you didn’t come for a public apology and how I say no, I’ll see you in next week’s blogpost.
Secondly, I was reading Chris Neumann’s blogpost this week, aptly named “The Beginner VC’s Guide to Not Being a Jerk.” And realized, holy frick, I’m a jerk. In it, he describes five things that VCs do that come off as jerkish.
Don’t Use Possessive Adjectives
Don’t Multitask When a Founder is Pitching
Don’t Badmouth Founders
Don’t Mansplain
Don’t Ghost Founders
And of the five above, I know I’m an offender of three of the above. Using possessive adjectives. Multitasking. Ghosting. Probably in that order from most frequent to least frequent. (Sorry, Chris. Sorry to founders I’ve done this to.) The first two I don’t do intentionally, nor do I do the either of them often.
Not sure if it makes too much of a difference, but rather than say “my company” or “our companies,” I do say “our portfolio companies.” Just with one extra word in there. Occasionally, will let it slip when I’m trying to shorten the sentence I’m saying.
I know I’m more prone to multi-task when I’m not the only investor in the room, and definitely when I’m not the primary investor. Again, don’t do it often, but it happens. And I never do so when I’m the only other person in that conversation. 99% of the time I do let the founders and GPs I talk to know that I’m just taking notes of our conversation. Personally don’t use the AI notetakers, but that’s a discussion for another day.
And ghosting. My goal is to get to inbox zero every day. And I really do my best not to ghost. But three things will always happen:
Some email or text always ends up slipping through my inbox. Either it goes in spam, or during certain days, I’m bombarded with hundreds of emails and it slips through the cracks. And I do give every founder and GP who pitch me the right to re-surface past emails if it does slip through.
If the email or message seems like it came out of an automation or mail merge AND I’m not interested, I do let it drop. I read EVERY email for sure. But if that email looks like the same one that you send to every investor, those have been going straight into the archives more and more. That also means that some emails just read like it’s an automated email even if it doesn’t, and it slips through.
There’s a shortlist of people who have abused my old personal policy of responding to every email I get. And so for those people, I’m not sorry if I do ghost you. That said, it’s a pretty short list of people (probably 30-40 people as of now).
And lastly, well, I’ve made founders pitching me cry. Not something to brag about. But in sharing what I thought was honest feedback, I made tears flow.
So, in summary, I’m probably a jerk.
In my mind, a jerk is someone who prioritizes their own beliefs and priorities to the point that they either intentionally ignore or severely de-prioritize others’. Although I try my best not to ignore what other might want or need, but I do often prioritize my own. So to add on to all the above, I’m sharing some situations where my jerkiness comes out and what I say in those moments.
When having tough conversations
I actually learned this while listening to Lenny’s podcast with Matt Mochary. When I need to let someone go. When I need to call a friend out on their bad behavior. Or when my partner and I get into a fight. “Preface hard conversations with: This is going to be a difficult conversation. Are you ready?”
In addition, I also preface with how long I think the discussion will take. “May I have thirty minutes of your undivided attention?” And what the topic will be on. No point in blindsiding the other person.
It helps set the stage. And if the other person needs more time, they have the option to back out. Moreover, all tough conversations are 1:1 conversations. At least for me, even if it relates to many, I start notifying them all on a 1:1 basis.
When trying to leave a conversation at an event
This one also isn’t original. I learnt from a friend of mine who is far more eloquent than I am. Not all conversations at events are created equal. And sometimes, at an event, especially a networking event, my goal is to say hi to the event host or to talk to someone else on the floor. And in between, I may find myself in another serendipitous. Case in point, yesterday, I ended up meeting a founder who sold his last company for $500M exit to a large Fortune 50 company in the parking lot and who was figuring out his next thing. Serendipitous. And super fun, but I was going to be royally late for another event if I stayed chatting in the parking lot.
So, when I need to leave a conversation, instead of excusing myself to go to the bathroom or get more food, I’ve learned to say, “I’d love to ask you one last thing that I’d beat myself up tonight if I didn’t ask before I need to go say hi to XXX.”
One, it timeboxes the next few minutes of the conversation. Two, I’m still interested in the individual and I want them to get the last word before I head out.
For 1:1 conversations
I usually let people know at the very beginning of the conversation that I have a “hard stop” at a specific time. Which 90% of the time is true. Usually another meeting. Or I have just way too much work on my plate that I need to get to.
When turning down a meeting (for now)
I wish I had more time in a day to talk to awesome people. I also wish I had more energy in a day to talk to awesome people. But unfortunately, I only have 24 hours in a day. And well, I’m an introvert. As in, I enjoy writing this blogpost you’re reading right now since 5AM in the morning than telling someone in a live conversation what I will end up writing here.
As such, if I’m interested in meeting at some point, I usually say something to the tune of: “I would love to meet, but if I do so within the next XXX weeks / months, I would have failed in my promise to the people I care about. So if you’ll allow me to be a good friend / family member / supporter of my existing projects and investments, could we revisit this in YYY weeks / months?”
Other times to save everyone’s time, since I won’t find my interest levels gravitating towards said topic, I let people know it just isn’t of interest to me in the foreseeable future, and that their luck may be better elsewhere.
When turning down an investment opportunity
This is actually something that was inspired by one of Jason Calacanis’ podcast episodes. And while there are many things I may not agree with him on, I really like the phrasing he uses to turn down founders who push back against his investment decision. And I’ve added some lines that best fit the way I talk. Which I also included this in my 99 series for investors.
“I always have to accept the possibility that I’m making a mistake. The venture business keeps me humble, but these are the benchmarks that the team and I all believe in.”
In closing
Sometimes I think it’s inevitable to appear as a jerk to some people out there. While one can try to reduce the splash damage, the truth is sometimes what you have to say may not be what the other person wants to hear or see. But as long as you hold yourself to a high degree of integrity and do so in as kind of a way as you can, I think that’s all that really matters.
Often times, I do believe it’s more important to be kind than nice. I hope the above helps.
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.
Ok, before y’all rise up in arms, hear me out. And if by the end of this blogpost, you still want to bring the pitchforks and torches, so be it.
Generally, I get it. Who else is investing isn’t usually a great question. Because for most investors who ask this question, it means they’re outsourcing their conviction.
POV: you're at a tech week event full of contrarian investors who back founders at the earliest stage in frontier industries pic.twitter.com/k7p1cVNHjs
In fact, I wrote a quick LinkedIn (and tweet) post about it the day before yesterday. Which admittedly got a lot more attention than I expected. And if you have the time, it’s worth seeing the discussion on that post that ensued.
So, potentially hot take, I believe investors should ask the question. Who else is investing? It’s part of the diligence process. That said, when they ask that question is key. There’s a vast ocean between the shores of asking that question before you reach conviction and after.
If you pop the question before you reach conviction, well, we’ve seen the follies of that. Most evidenced by the manic rush of 2020 and 2021 into “hot deals” largely led by names that grew to popularity around the dinner table.
If you pop it after, it’s diligence. Where the availability of names shouldn’t convince you to bat or lack thereof to otherwise. But that you now have additional opportunities to reference check and cross-diligence the same opportunity. And it extends to the LP side as well. Jamie Rhode who’s now at Screendoor, said on a Superclusters episode that one of her greatest lessons as an LP was committing to a fund where there was a bunch of soft commits but far less in hard commits, and ended up overexposing Verdis (where she was at) to a single asset and taking a much higher ownership as an LP into a single fund.
Truth is, LPs pay GPs for their opinion. Not anyone else’s. And while given long feedback loops, no one really knows what’s right and what’s wrong except over a decade later and only in hindsight, you have to really believe it, and be able to back it up.
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.
Would the founders in your portfolio let you in on the cap table if you weren’t an investor? If you had no money? If they could only borrow your brain for two hours every three months, and that’s it?
The uncomfortable truth is that most founders won’t.
But to find the founder who will take that deal is the person you want to be focusing on. They’re the archetype of founder you want to win — that you put your whole heart into perfecting your craft for that founder.
Play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. Where do you have home field advantage?
Why does this matter?
All cards on the table, it won’t matter if you plan to stay a boutique VC firm or angel whose check size for an investment never goes past $250K. Even better if you don’t have any pro rata. But if you plan to institutionalize your firm — and I don’t mean to say this is the only way to institutionalize — you need to hire. To hire, you need enough management fees to support a team of that size. And to get enough management fees, most of the time, that requires you to scale your fund size.
Whereas in Fund I and maybe II, you played the participating investor. Squeezing in great deals. And everyone’s your friend. Founders love you. Your co-investors love you. With larger funds, you may end up scaling your check size. If you don’t, you start diversifying your portfolio more and more. And most large LPs prefer concentrated portfolios. Why?
They often do the diversification work in their own model. They pick their own verticals and stages they want exposure to. The product they want to buy is not to be their portfolio for them, but that it is just one asset in a larger portfolio. A lot of LPs also fear diversified portfolios in managers because at some point, managers will be investing in the same underlying asset. No LP wants to invest in 10 funds and have four of them all be investors in Stripe. If that’s the case, they might as well invest directly in Stripe via co-investment.
But at the end of the day, if your checks are bigger (along with ownership targets), it’s hard to always be 100% friendly with other investors since they have their own mandates. And at some point, the founder is forced to pick: you or any of those other interested investors.
And for you to win that deal, you must have something enduring that founders want outside of capital.
Examples
Of course, there are different ways to prove that you can win deals to your prospective LPs. The list below is by no means all-encompassing, but may help in giving you an idea of how people who have walked the path before you have done so.
Being chosen as the independent board member in other companies you didn’t invest in (Kudos to Ben Choi for sharing this one in our episode)
Even better if super pro rata (rarely happens though, especially after Series A)
(Co-)Leading rounds (met an emerging GP last year who syndicated the whole $2M round)
Repeat founders (with previous exits >$100M) let you invest in oversubscribed rounds with a check larger than $250K
Founders letting you invest on previous round’s terms (or highly preferential treatment)
Incubating the company
Evidence or repeatable ability for you to pre-empt rounds before founders go out to fundraise
Some combination of the above
In closing
Unintentionally, this blogpost is the unofficial part two of my first one on the topic of sourcing, picking, and winning. Part one was on sourcing. This one is on winning. No guarantees on picking, but who knows? I may end up writing something.
For the uninitiated, this was said by both Ben Choi and Samir Kaji on the Superclusters podcast. That to be a great investor, you need to be great in at least two of three things: sourcing, picking, and/or winning. If you only have great deal flow, but don’t know how to pick the right companies that come your way or have the best founders pick you, then you don’t have an advantage. If you’re really good at winning deals, but no one comes to you or you pick the wrong deals to win, then you also don’t have anything. You need at least two. Of course, ideally three.
But as you institutionalize, the third may come in the form of another team member or as you build out the platform.
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.
Jeff is a partner at Renaissance Venture Capital an innovative venture capital fund of funds. Jeff’s diverse background in venture capital and technology and his experience working in various start-up ventures uniquely position him to advise startups. In addition, Jeff is quite active in the Michigan start-up community, volunteering his time to mentor young entrepreneurs, judge pitch competitions, and guest lecture student classes and organizations. Through Jeff’s work on the Fund, his volunteer efforts, and his role as the chair of the Michigan Venture Capital Association’s board of directors, his passion for fostering a productive environment for venture capital investment in the State of Michigan is evident.
Martin Tobias is the Managing Partner and Founder of Incisive Ventures, an early-stage venture capital firm focused on investing in the first institutional round of technology companies that reduce friction at scale.
Martin was previously at Accenture and Microsoft and is a former Venture Partner at Ignition Partners. Martin is a 3X venture-funded CEO rising over $500M as CEO with two IPOs who has also invested in hundreds of companies and is a limited partner in over a dozen VC funds. Martin was an early investor in Google, Docusign, OpenSea, and over a dozen Unicorns.
Martin is the father of 3 daughters, a cyclist, surfer, poker player, and life hacker. Martin tinkers with motorcycles on the weekends. He writes about Venture Capital on Incisive Ventures blog and Twitter.
[00:00] Introducing Jeff Rinvelt and Martin Tobias [04:14] What was Jeff’s pitch to their LPs for Renaissance Capital? [06:30] Why did Jeff pivot from being a founder to an LP? [08:10] Renaissance Capital’s portfolio construction model [13:00] Jeff’s involvement in non-profits [15:56] How did Martin become an angel investor? [18:03] The big lesson from being an LP in SV Angel’s Fund I and II [20:10] Why is Martin starting a fund now? [26:07] A lesson on variable check sizes [28:53] What is Martin’s value add to founders? [33:29] What stood out about Martin’s deck and email when it arrived in Jeff’s inbox? [35:43] The 2 biggest worries Martin had in sharing his deck with Jeff [36:47] What does Jeff think about generalists? [40:49] What held Jeff back from making an investment in Incisive Ventures? [42:37] What kinds of conversations does Martin usually have with LPs? [47:05] One of the greatest professional lessons Jeff picked up as a manager [49:07] Martin’s greatest lesson from his days as a CEO [51:57] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [54:33] Like, comment and share if you enjoyed the episode
“One of the things a lot of investors don’t do is go back and be honest about where they got fucking lucky and where they had a thesis that they could potentially replicate in future investments.”
