When she complains about the dishes…

dishes

This is a repost of a piece I wrote earlier this week on my investing topic only blog that seemed to get good feedback, so sharing here as well, in hopes that it is helpful to you as well.

The post is for GPs who’ve gotten rejections from LPs, but I think the analogy stands if you’re a founder hearing back from a VC, or anyone who is doing any kind of fundraising or sales.


One of the most memorable pieces of relationship advice Iโ€™ve gotten is that line. โ€œWhen she complains about the dishes, itโ€™s not about the dishes.โ€

By the time your spouse complains about the dishes, itโ€™s a culmination of other pent-up emotions simmering at the surface. And when she says it’s the dishes, itโ€™s not. Potentially it never was. But it may have been the reason that tipped her over the edge.

That said, this is not a post about relationships. Iโ€™m not a marriage counselor or a relationship coach. This is a post about rejections. And all the reasons that come with rejections. Or more specifically, about LPs passing on GPs. Or hell, VCs passing on founders.

And yes, Iโ€™m going to use gendered language but itโ€™s purely for the purpose of extending this analogy and lesson my friend gave me. So I hope you allow me this literary liberty.

When she complains about you being too early, itโ€™s that she never had conviction over the deal. When she says you need more traction (track record), itโ€™s because she couldnโ€™t see why you would see and win the most interesting deals in your space. What you say has yet to be proven by what you did. So, the underwriting will start now for what you will do. She doesnโ€™t trust you can execute against what you promised. Youโ€™re either talking a big game (using superlatives that feel disingenuous) and/or you create a feeling of naivete. Be assured that the best allocators will be keeping track of what you promised before. Even if you, as a GP, rewrite your Docsend pitch deck. Admittedly, still, most wonโ€™t.

You will wonder why she backs others with no track record and no prior relationship with her. And 9 out of 10 times, itโ€™s a communication issue in the first (few) meetings. You gave her no reason to generate enough dopamine that would get her to act outside of the meeting.

When she complains about there being higher priority opportunities, your strategy doesnโ€™t align with the organizationโ€™s strategy. She likely did some work, and her initial work and/or references discounted the initial enthusiasm she had. She didnโ€™t know how to say no politely and without seeming like an asshole. So only after a few meetings, and only after sheโ€™s felt like sheโ€™s given you the time and respect she thinks you deserve (whether you accept it or not), she can finally pass. Your problem is you never figured out what her motivations are. What she wants in her career. What her โ€œfamilyโ€ (organization) wants of her. What keeps her up at night. Why she wants to go to work every Monday.

When she complains that there isnโ€™t enough capital to left to deploy, itโ€™s the fact you arenโ€™t good enough to be an exception that would help her raise her next vehicle or to get board approval. Excluding institutions (including family offices) who own their own pool of evergreen capital, anyone who has to ask other stakeholders for more capital to invest has at least 20-30% left to deploy when they go out to raise their next vehicle. The primary motivator for the remainder of capital are people or opportunities that best highlight an allocatorโ€™s promise to their stakeholders. Fund-of-funds promise access. That means either a multi-million dollar allocation in Anthropic or an individual (usually spinout, but sometimes highly reputable founder/operator) whoโ€™s been early in generational opportunities. Others, like multi-family offices, depending on their mandate, either promise access or their ability to pick great pickers, which means 5X+ DPI in 5 years in a prior fund is extraordinarily exciting. Realized IRR or DPI matter a lot.

When she gives you a whole list of reasons as to why theyโ€™re passing, itโ€™s because of the first reason, but she needed a laundry list of reasons to justify the one small thing she felt like she would get judged for. But that small thing came up as a recurring theme again and again, among references, among pushback from her investment committee, among her own doubts she never unearthed with you. One reason is all you need to pass. One reason is all you need. And sometimes, itโ€™s the dirty laundry (i.e. gossiping). Or the speed of your communication. Sometimes, itโ€™s the fact that you boast about another LP competitor in front of them. Sometimes, itโ€™s the fact that you forgot what you talked about in the last meeting. The reasons will always feel like bullshit to you. But trust me, theyโ€™re as real, and as meaningful as they get.

When she doesnโ€™t complain at all and just disappears from your life, she didnโ€™t feel safe with you to give you the feedback you ought to hear. She feared your reaction, or at least the expectation of your reaction. You never provided the safe space she needed. Itโ€™s likely because of how you talked about others. The more judgmental you are about others, the more sheโ€™ll thinkโ€ฆ if things go awry, will you say the same about me behind my back? Can you even handle any amount of criticism?

Thereโ€™s another great line on communication, but also on relationships by writer and poet Khalil Gibran. โ€œBetween what is said and not meant, and what is meant and not said, most of love is lost.โ€

If thereโ€™s one takeaway you need from this post, whether youโ€™re a LP, there is more love (and reputation) lost in the lack of communication than in overcommunicating.

Photo by Scott Umstattd on Unsplash


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


The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

On spinouts

When British voters voted for Brexit in 2016, comedian James Acaster gave a hilarious and apt analogy.

When you make tea, “if you leave the [tea] bag in, and over time, the cup of tea itself as a whole gets stronger. And it might appear like the bag is getting weaker but it’s now part of a stronger cup of tea. Whereas if you take the bag out, the tea is now quite weak, and the bag itself goes directly in the bin.”

I think that’s the case with a lot of spinouts. Not all. But a lot.


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.

GP EQ

conversation, eq, fundraising

A conversation with an LP reminded me of this recently. Can we trust a GP’s word that they’re a good picker if they can’t assess how likely an LP is to commit?

I’ve had multiple conversations with GPs where they tell me XXX and YYY are excited to come in the fund, and they just need more time to close their fundraise or for their process. Then the same XXX and YYY LPs ghost these GPs for months on end. For me, that’s enough for me to question their level of commitment, but not having been in those conversations firsthand, I can’t speak to the actual incentives. Sometimes, I actually know XXX and YYY LPs well enough to pick up the phone and dial them right away and ask them what’s up. Which I do. Only to hear from them and they say they had passed already.

Now I don’t know what actually goes on between those two parties. What’s said and what’s not said. There are many LPs out there who give very soft “no’s.” In hopes to not offend, they imply it’s a “no.” There are also LPs who explicitly say it’s a “yes” ONLY IF ZZZ happens. Given the current market, most of the time, ZZZ doesn’t happen, which becomes an easy out for the LP. The LP’s felt like they’ve delivered the “no.” The GP is still hanging onto the hope the LP likes them enough to break the rule. And then, there are many GPs who have selective hearing loss.

Nevertheless, there are multiple instances of this. And it’s not my job to point fingers to any party other than elucidate that this exists in our world.

That said, even if an LP doesn’t explicitly say “no”, there should be enough breadcrumbs to point to whether someone is a pass. Probably harder to know if they’re a “yes.” But there’s definitely writing on the walls if it’s a pass. And it’s almost always better to assume an LP is an out than an in if there’s hesitation.

The outstanding question for someone like me or any of my friends who I’ve had this conversation with is… is this indicative of a GP’s EQ when talking to founders? Is this GP more prone to rewriting history and facts? Is there a massive perception bias here and is the GP living through rose-tinted lens?

Richard Feynman has this great line. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself โ€” and you are the easiest person to fool.”

And I’ve also had this conversation with another GPs a few weeks back, and I said, “You’re either lying to me or you’re lying to yourself. One is worse than the other. But neither gives me a reason to back you.”

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฆ on Unsplash


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


The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

Whac-A-Mole

One of the questions that seem to come up every so often, whether it’s when I’m on a podcast or a fireside chat or just in conversation, is: Between sourcing, picking, and winning, which one do you think is the most important that emerging managers have?

The cop-out answer is always: They need all three. Or, they’re all important. Which is theoretically true. One in isolation is really hard to pull off ’cause then you need to account for sheer dumb luck (hope is never a strategy). And while everyone is subject to their own answer, I’m a big believer that the lead domino between the trifecta is sourcing. If you never see it, how do you even pick or win it?

We can talk about how you’d theoretically and systematically pick the best founders or how your value-add is something that is something truly valuable to your investments, but if you never have the opportunity to interact with a generational founder, I don’t care how smart you are. Or how well-connected you are. Or how experienced you are. I don’t care if you’re the world’s greatest X if no one’s heard of you or thinks of you when they or someone close to them starts a company.

Venture is a game of outliers. (I feel like a broken record at this point writing and saying this.) And I would much rather a GP see and miss generational founders again and again (and well, learn each time they do) than to have only seen one their entire life. Obviously, both are better than not having met any ever. You don’t know what quality looks like if you’ve never seen quality before they became obvious. No amount of books you’ve read or podcasts you’ve listened to will help you with that. I would rather you have a large anti-portfolio than build one for the first time as you’re starting your first fund. And in that anti-portfolio, it’s a lot of “I didn’t pick it” or “I didn’t win it” or “I didn’t even know I wanted to be an investor yet.” Yet despite all of that, I’ve chosen to stay in touch with these generational talents and they still value my presence in their orbit.

If you’ve only met one generational founder in your life before, I need to figure out if your network and sourcing channels would allow you to see another in the next 3-4 years (or whatever your deployment period is). And that when you see it, you’ll know that that is the one. But every generational founder looks different from the rest. So if you’ve only seen one in the past, how will I know if you have both the pattern recognition and the exception recognition to pick the next?

For those who have seen one or less generational founders in their lives, I have to bet that you somehow can “use the Force.”

That on the off-chance you do find one, can I trust your intuition to recognize it AND win it?

On the flip side, there’s this game that many of us grew up with. Whac-A-Mole. It’s an arcade game that has a series of moles hiding in holes. The goal is to whack as many moles as you can as they pop their heads up. Venture investing is similar. Each mole is a generational founder. That you may miss “whacking” many a generational founder, but as long as you keep seeing them, and as long as you keep trying to pick them, you’ll eventually hit one. And if you’re lucky, more than one. But in order to see multiple generational founders, you need the cards to be stacked in your favor. The ideal venture manager should be playing a constant game of Whac-A-Mole, as opposed to using the force. Although, damn, being a Luke Skywalker sounds a hell of a lot cooler than playing an arcade game.

To pull a line from Scale’s Rory O’Driscoll that I wrote about in a previous post, “Having to deal with the psychological burden of having an anti-portfolio is a privilege. If you never have the psychological tax of passing on multiple generational deals, you shouldnโ€™t be in venture. Passing on 20 great companies out of 40 great companies you see is always more preferable than investing in 2 great companies after seeing 40 average companies.”

Then there’s the question of whether our definition of generational founders even match up. Does your definition lead you to find founders who will exit at $1B+ outcomes? $100B+ outcomes? Or $100M outcomes? But a topic for another day.

Photo by Yuheng Ouyang on Unsplash


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


The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

What is the Density of your Founder NPS? | El Pack w/ Charlotte Zhang | Superclusters

charlotte zhang

โ€œWeโ€™re going into a world where there will be an increase in inequality in terms of the haveโ€™s versus have-notโ€™s. And so if you are invested in some of the haveโ€™s, I would actually bet on their acceleration of value aggregation in the later stages of scaling which is why I, personally, think a winning strategy is to hold onto them for as long as possible.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

Charlotte Zhang from Inatai Foundation is back! And if you’ve tuned into her first episode on Superclusters, you’ll know exactly why. Charlotte has been one of my favorite guests on the podcast, marrying both her profound ability for deep analysis with strong framework-oriented assessments. You might remember her 4 P’s to underwriting every manager from our prior episode.

Naturally I had to have her back for an El Pack episode to answer your questions on how to build a venture capital fund. We bring on 3 GPs at VC funds to ask 3 different questions.

99VC’s Lisa Yu asks about what LPs look for in Fund I’s beyond track record.

Escape Velocity’s Mahesh Ramakrishnan asks about recycling and what happens when you have 30% of your fund size as distributions in the first few years of the fund.

Founder Embassy’s Helena Gagern asks about investing in AI frontier labs where the first round of financing already puts the company at $400M+ in valuation. And also, how do you communicate to LPs that you have an “exceptionalism” bucket to invest out of?

As the director of investments at Inatai Foundation, Charlotte Zhang oversees the selection of external investment managers, conducts portfolio research, and helps to institutionalize processes, tools, and resources. She previously served as a senior associate at ICONIQ Capital and, before that, Medley Partners. When not working, you can find her globetrotting (18 countries and counting), writing a Yelp review about the best bite in town, or cuddling up with a book and her two adorable cats.

You can find Charlotte on her LinkedIn here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlotterzhang/

Listen to the episode onย Apple Podcastsย andย Spotify. You can alsoย watch the episode on YouTube here.

OUTLINE:

(00:00) Intro
(01:04) What’s new in Charlotte’s life?
(04:06) LPs Charlotte would love to meet
(05:41) Who is Lisa and 99VC?
(09:31) What qualities does Charlotte look for beyond track record?
(14:55) How does a GP know if they have a differentiated strategy?
(15:49) Charlotte’s pet peeve
(17:29) The bottoms up exercise of building a fund strategy
(18:00) Consistency of execution
(20:05) The highest level of signal you can get from a founder reference
(22:18) The ask
(22:51) Who is better at bowling: Mahesh or David?
(24:44) Who is Mahesh and Escape Velocity?
(25:20) Why is Escape Velocity spelled as EV^3?
(27:10) What happens when you have 30% DPI in the first 2 years of your fund?
(30:19) Does early DPI matter more in Fund I than Fund III?
(33:26) Should you sell secondaries at the Series B as a pre-seed/seed GP?
(37:34) Venture is under siege for no DPI
(38:18) Would Charlotte rather have 4X in 10 years or 7X in 15 years?
(39:42) Have’s and have-not’s
(40:35) Who is Helena and Founder Embassy?
(44:45) What is Charlotte’s reaction when a pre-seed GP invests in a $400M post valuation?
(49:23) How do the best GPs communicate betting off-thesis?
(50:44) How many GPs have an “exceptionalism” bucket to invest out of?
(55:56) How much underwriting goes into a GP breaking the rules?
(58:10) “A-players are obvious” but what isn’t?
(1:00:38) Charlotte’s last piece of advice for LPs
(1:03:43) Charlotte’s last piece of advice for GPs
(1:07:18) Why you should talk about the anti-portfolio
(1:09:33) David’s favorite moment from Charlotte’s previous episode

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

โ€œIn venture capital, although the top quartile of emerging managers outperforms the established funds. On average, you would actually be better off investing in established funds than in an emerging manager because the dispersion of returns is so much wider in emerging managers.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

โ€œBecause incumbent brands create access flywheels, the most important thing for an emerging manager is having a clearly differentiated strategy. Otherwise, itโ€™s fighting an unwinnable war.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

โ€œInvestment strategies are simply financial products serving the market of what founders and management teams in businesses need.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

โ€œThe best founders will know who the best VCs are.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

โ€œItโ€™s all about the density of the NPS you have amongst the best talent. Of course, if they have a good experience with you, theyโ€™re more likely to refer others they think highly of to you. And thatโ€™s the reason why it becomes a leading indicator and therefore, a self-fulfilling prophecy as to who rises to the top.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

โ€œItโ€™s actually a higher signal to me if itโ€™s someone referring you that didnโ€™t take money from you.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

โ€œWhen weโ€™re conducting diligence as an LP, you should be looking under the rocks where you are more likely to find disproving evidence.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

โ€œIf [venture] does not produce any realized returns, how will it be self-funding? And how can you continue pacing sustainably into this asset class?โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang

โ€œWeโ€™re going into a world where there will be an increase in inequality in terms of the haveโ€™s versus have-notโ€™s. And so if you are invested in some of the haveโ€™s, I would actually bet on their acceleration of value aggregation in the later stages of scaling which is why I, personally, think a winning strategy is to hold onto them for as long as possible.โ€ โ€” Charlotte Zhang


Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
For Superclusters After Hours: โ https://superclusterslp.substack.com/โ 
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP


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.

12 Types of LPs

I just shared this verbally on a podcast and a talk recently, and realized while I’ve shared this friends, I’ve never shared it publicly explicitly or made a graphic for it.

What is it? And this was helpful when I was in IR, but also hopefully helpful as a GP pitching LPs, what are the types of LPs that exist?

I never really liked the line, “If you know one family office, you only know one.” Or if you know 1 LP, you only know one.” Probably true in a lot of circumstances, but feels odd that there are 100,000+ types of family offices or LPs.

Short blogpost, but I’ll probably elaborate on each in a future one, but sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words.

This is not all-inclusive, just like Myers-Briggs or OCEAN/Big 5 or the enneagram isn’t. But hopefully a good orienting framework in the first few meetings with LPs.

I borrowed a little bit of the nomenclature my buddy Matt Curtolo used as my original segmentation of LP archetypes was not as well-worded.

X-axis is if they own / create the wealth or not. Y-axis is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

P.S. This is not a framework you brag about to your LPs. You don’t tell any LPs how they’re bucketed. Just like you as the GP don’t like to get bucketed, no LP wants to. But in this case, when fundraising, you need to eat your ego.

P.P.S. Honestly, you should probably eat your ego while investing, but no one usually listens to this latter comment.


    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.

    (Not) Relationship Advice

    relationships, biking

    Earlier this year, when catching up with a friend and talking about love, he shared his greatest relationship advice. “You want to marry someone who believes the world happens because of them, not to them.” And it really stuck with me. Both he and I are people who have big dreams. That in order to make our dreams happen we need every oar rowing in the same direction. That includes the people we surround ourselves with. More than anyone else, our romantic partner is likely the one we spend the MOST time with. But that in itself is a slight digression.

    In a somewhat parallel sequence of events, at the end of last year, I had the opportunity to join a much, much larger shop. And while I ended up choosing not to join, the primary question I was asking myself was: If I were successful here, would I be successful in spite or because of the institution? The truth was from an outsider’s perspective, maybe even personally, it’d be really hard to tell.

    Now why do I share the above? And where the hell am I going with all of this? What does love have to do with career opportunities?

    So… this won’t be my most graceful transition between thoughts, but in my head, they all orbit the same genre.

    One of the questions I used to ask LPs during my time in investor relations was: “What was the last investment you made that didn’t work out? Without naming names, what happened?”

    And there are two reasons I ask that:

    1. Oftentimes, knowing what an LP doesn’t or won’t ever invest in again is more telling than asking them what they do invest in. LPs are, by definition, generalist. And under that premise, they technically invest in “everything,” so you’ll end up getting very broad answers, especially if they cover more than one asset class.
    2. Do they describe an investment that didn’t work out with active or passive verbs? Did it happen to them? Or do they own up/exhibit agency over their own decisions? Are they arbiters of their own destiny? “I made this investment decision, learned, and this is what I won’t do in the future. Or will still continue to do.” is different from… “This mishap happened to me. How could I have known? It is what it is. It’s not my fault. It was out of my control. It was someone else’s decision.”

    For the latter point, people who don’t seem to be able to own up to the decision will likely not be your greatest champions if you’re an emerging manager. If at all. To them, life happens to them. They can’t control it. They have a narrative they keep telling themselves that they have no power. Some might be true. But these folks rarely stick their neck out for you.

    By default, most emerging managers look less than pretty. A million reasons (most of which likely true) of what could go wrong. And it’s actually in the best interest of a capital allocator’s career and income that they stick their neck out for risky bets. Many institutions don’t compensate their team based on outlier performance. So incentives won’t be aligned. But to borrow an adage of Jobs, “the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” And at the very minimum, they have to believe they can change their own world.

    When things are non-obviousโ€”from a returns perspective or strategy or anything elseโ€”you need people who can and will invest courageously and own that decision.

    Photo by Everton Vila on Unsplash


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


    The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

    “How do I prove to an LP that I have good deal flow?”

    So, this is the first blogpost I’m cross-posting from my brand new Substack, Superclusters After Hours. Don’t worry, I’ll still write here weekly. This blog has always started as a personal blog. I write about what I want to write about on a weekly basis. Sometimes, it’s about venture. Other times, it’s about food, adventure, and random things I think about. The goal of the new blog is to become the primary catalog and archive for ephemeral LP content that I post on LinkedIn, with event invites whenever I do them. Events, for those of you reading this blog and know me, I have almost never publicized them before or after the event. And it’ll continue to stay that way. But I’m going to start playing around with the idea of doing Superclusters-only webinars with a very strict rule of confidentiality. TBD.


    Hereโ€™s a question I got from a GP recently, which to be fair, took me much longer than I initially intended to respond to.

    To the GP who sent this to me, and I know youโ€™re reading this, thank you. Itโ€™s a great question. And one Iโ€™ve heard frustrate many a good GP out there.

    So Iโ€™m going to include below what I wrote to that GP โ€” word for word. So apologizing ahead of time for typos and grammatical errors.

    Ok, this is an awesome question! Took some time here so I could better process my answer for you. Apologize for the delay and ramble ahead of time.

    So I think there are 2 questions here: (a) how do you stand out as a GP who actually has deal flow when everyone claims they do, and (b) in a broader scope, how do LPs diligence deal flow?

    Iโ€™ll start with the former.

    (a) How can you prove to LPs you have deal flow thatโ€™s different/better than others?

    So first off, most people say the same thing: โ€œI get deal flow from founders in my network and co-investors.โ€ But if everyone says that than even if itโ€™s true, how does yours look any different? The truth is most LPs donโ€™t know either. And in some ways, it might be easier to guide LPs how to think, that not only helps them diligence your fund, but also makes them a better LP, period. Keep in mind, most LPs cover a wide variety of asset classes and venture, much less emerging managers, is the smallest of the smallest chunk. And so they donโ€™t have the incentive or the experience to really dedicate all their time to try to figure out how to better underwrite venture.

    Itโ€™s similar to a question a friend of mine recently asked me. My friend is someone who eats to live (as opposed to lives to eat. Yes, those people exist in the world). And recently he found himself in love with someone who loves to eat, and by function of that, lives to eat. And so he asked me, despite having eaten at a bunch of restaurants, โ€œhow do I know which fine dining restaurant to bring his girlfriend to for their 6-month anniversary?โ€ And I gave him a whole list of things I look for when it comes to picking restaurants. For instance, reading Google and Yelp reviews, but specifically the 3 and 4-star ones, not the 5- or 1-star ones because theyโ€™re so biased. And on top of that, I gave him recs of date-ish things to do pre- and post-dinner as well based on proximity to the restaurant. I also told him in the reservation to ask for a 10-15 minute kitchen tour after the dinner as an extra special experience. And after giving him all of that, he stares blankly at me. Not because he didnโ€™t hear or understand what I told him, but because, really, he was just looking for a name. One name. He would then book it, and move on with his life. Because food, for him, was and is not his focus area. He had other โ€œmore importantโ€ things to focus on in his life and in the relationship.

    Similarly, most LPs are the same when they look at venture. They do it because they need to think about total portfolio allocation or the David Swenson model, but they donโ€™t do it because they love it or that they believe in it. And so they need to know a name, and thatโ€™s all they need.

    So to get off my preamble, assuming that an LP has committed in their mind to spend time and do the work in emerging manager land, then you proceed with the next step. And unfortunately, most wonโ€™t. And thatโ€™s okay. Theyโ€™re just not the right fit for you now.

    So, the next step is really to guide them. One thing Iโ€™ve found to be helpful (if you have it) is to take your strongest few co-investors that you think you have the best relationship with, and ask the LP, โ€œLetโ€™s take X firm. What are the best investments they made in the last 12 months, say by revenue growth or headcount growth? And I will tell you if I saw them before they made their investment and who shared it with me.โ€

    Conversely, you should look at who else you know well in their existing portfolio, and have them vouch for you and the type of deals you see. Also potentially more importantly, the kind of person you are. The strongest co-signs are often GPs in their existing portfolio and institutional LPs that specialize in venture that theyโ€™re really close to.

    Another thing Iโ€™ve seen a GP do (paraphrasing here): โ€œIโ€™m going to give you a list of folks who send me deals, short list, and I can give you a longer one if youโ€™d like. And I havenโ€™t told them youโ€™re going to call, so please use your best judgment when asking for their time. But ask them how many other VCs they passed the last 5 deals they shared with VCs to? If theyโ€™re doing their job right, theyโ€™ll likely pass to more than one. But see if my name comes up. If it doesnโ€™t, you have your answer. If it does, you have your answer.โ€

    Going a step further, and I donโ€™t think Iโ€™ve seen any GP do this yet, but I feel like it should be more of a thing: Take all the deals youโ€™ve gotten from your โ€œnetworkโ€ (i.e. founders, investors, etc), and segment them by, who sent you a deal because:

    • You co-invested with them in the past
    • You invested in them
    • You didnโ€™t invest in them (compliment to an investor to get strong deal flow from someone they passed on) – anti-portfolio, but keep in mind this only matters, if the people you receive it from are successful founders in the eyes of an LP, maybe you asterisk these
    • You had no prior economic relationship with them
    • You used to work with them
    • Theyโ€™re a fan of you/your content/etc
    • Iโ€™m sure there are other segmentations, but you get the gist.

    And in addition to that, when you pass on a deal that someone refers, categorize the deal into why itโ€™s a pass:

    • Not a strong founder
    • Too expensive, but good founder
    • Good founder, but not in sector/thesis
    • Not raising at the time

    And all the above you would show to an investor and I think should be a good snapshot as to the quality of your deals. Then if youโ€™re comfortable with them, challenge them to try the same exercise with other investors. Part of proving something to an LP is to help them become a better investor, period. Whether they invest or not.

    (b) How do LPs diligence deal flow?

    The simple answer is: they do references. In terms of how many, Iโ€™ve heard everything from 3 to 40. The highest end being Cendana. Most institutions

    For those that do 5 or less, primarily either use an oCIO/RIA (i.e. Cambridge, Stepstone, Hamilton Lane, some kind of MFO, etc.) or they primarily bet on firms that are hard to get but also wonโ€™t get them fired, largely because they donโ€™t just have the time/resources/team members to specifically underwrite emerging managers in venture. Because of the optimization of โ€œI need to see โ€˜everythingโ€™โ€ and I donโ€™t have the time to go deep and assuming they choose to do (in some parts) their own work, they:

    (i) talk to a lot of spinouts โ€˜cause easier to reference and draft a memo to get buy in

    (ii) talk on stage at conferences with the perception that they are open for business, which they technically are, but very selective

    (iii) have you go through really long ODDs and DDQs in front of a (large) panel of stakeholders and decision makers in the organization. Ranges for 3 to 20-something people all listening to you answering questions. At that point, itโ€™s your word against your word, but a committee will nitpick on everything. The upside is that itโ€™s easier to share something you do that youโ€™re 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 who do (as opposed to FoFs and venture-focused MFOs or institutions who need you to be 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000). The downside is you need to appeal to a larger group of people, and it takes more time outside of meetings (up to 350 question ODD).

    But I digress. For the purpose of your question of your question and what I believe your frustration might be, Iโ€™m going to focus on diligencing deal flow when youโ€™re not in the room. Assuming itโ€™s an LP who is actually intentional about diligence AND is open-minded enough to not bring too many of their own biases in…

    • On-list
      • Founders: sticking to the facts. How did you meet the GP? What did you talk about in the first meeting? How long did they take before they committed? What questions were asked? Did other VCs ask the same questions? How competitive was the round? If you offered any special terms, why and who else did you offer it to? Did they all take it? Have you introed any other founders or people to the GP? Has the GP provided you value post-investment?
      • Co-investors: Who gives you the best quality of deals? Intro to meeting ratio? Meeting to diligence ratio? Meeting to commitment ratio? How does this GP stack rank against other relationships/other verticals? Did the emerging GP intro you to the deal youโ€™re co-investors in?
      • LPs: How many other firms of a similar strategy did you talk to? What were the sourcing strategies for the other firms? Compare and contrast.
      • Former employers/misc: deal flow isnโ€™t really diligenced here. The best thing these folks can attest to is your character + network.
    • Off-list (a lot of off-list is done with people who, in the words of an LP, โ€œowe you [the LP] more favors than they owe the GPโ€)
      • Founders: Rank your favorite investors on the cap table. Who are your top 3? Why? If you were to start a new co, who would you take with you again?
      • Co-investors: How much signal is a deal if that GP sends it to you? Compare with other GPs. Why?
      • LPs: Have you gotten co-investments from the GP? How is their level of communication post-investment?
      • Others: Same as above.

    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.

    Nemawashi

    early morning, nemawashi

    I learned a new word today. Nemawashi.

    The Japanese word for the business practice of building consensus and hearing people’s opinion before the decision or change is formally proposed.

    And I don’t think I know the English parallel to that.

    I’ve always told the GPs and founders I work with/have invested in that they should involve their investors in major decisions before they’re proposed and discussed. That no board meeting or LPAC (LP advisory committee) topics should ever be a surprise. It also shows that you’re not talking at people and you’re trying to involve them as a true partner for your business. Both LPs and VCs (to founders) highly prefer that. Conversations should never be out of convenience, but they should feel intentional. You also don’t have to be perfect, neither should you pretend to be with the people who’ve chosen to be with you long-term. Just as you shouldn’t hide any trauma, sentiment, and harbored feelings from your romantic partner and family.

    The quarterly board meeting and the LPAC meeting are merely formalities. You should be able to trust your investors outside of those structured events. You may not need to bring up certain topics because it’s not written in the term sheet or limited partner agreement, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. Partner struggles. Off-thesis investment opportunities. Major hires. Or layoffs.

    There are a lot of VCs and LPs who would love to be true partners with you, but sometimes they don’t know how to help unless you ask for help before you make the decision. Have the conversation early on about how they would like to be involved in your business. And for those who do, go to them before you propose a decision or change.

    Now I know there’s a word for it.

    Photo by Jasper Graetsch on Unsplash


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


    The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

    DGQ 26: Which Slide in my Deck Stood Out the Most?

    slide

    One of my most used lines in my diction is: “Your mileage may vary.”

    Maybe because of what I’ve written historically about. Maybe ’cause of my previous life in investor relations. Or maybe, it’s because of the interesting node I sit at in the venture ecosystem. I often get asked by GPs and founders alike for fundraising advice. Now before you come to any conclusions, I don’t have a silver bullet. I’m not even sure if my advice when it comes to fundraising is any good. While I’m lucky to have heard back from a number of people I’ve shared my thoughts with on the result of their fundraise after employing my “advice,” I’m still not completely sure how much of it was the fundraiser themselves and how much of it was the advice. And how much the color of the jersey matters.

    And so when I share what I’ve seen or done, I always caveat with that first line. That said, what I think is more useful than any advice I could give pre-mortem is listening to the feedback of the market. The people you’re pitching to. When someone says no, why do they say no? When someone says yes, why do they say yes?

    Inspired by a conversation I had the previous week at a summit, getting feedback from someone who passed is tough. Through the archives of fundraising, you’re more likely to get no’s than yes’s. And when you do, do you know why? Very rarely do you get much feedback. Investors (LPs and VCs) are either too busy or have too much to go through to give feedback as intimately as you probably like. And so I’ve always found it useful to make it easy for people to give feedback. Naturally, it’s never guaranteed you’ll get a response, but usually, the below question I like to ask reaches less deaf ears than “Can you give me feedback?”

    I know you’re busy, and you simply don’t have the time to give every pass a share of feedback. But if I could ask for 30 seconds of your time (no more than that), which number slide on my deck did you most notice (good or bad)?

    Or… was there a particular slide in my deck that piqued your interest the most that led you to schedule our initial meeting?

    The goal of this question is to triangulate attention and mindshare. When you get the answer, then you can come to your own (hopefully intellectually honest) conclusion about whether the message shared on that slide is strong or weak. Controversial or not.

    Moreover, you’re not overstaying your welcome. The advice and feedback you’re asking for in pointed and doesn’t consume a lot of time for the other party to answer (yet will feel to them as if they’re doing you a favor and/or being helpful).

    Only once you know why people say no can you actually iterate on the pitch. Of course, there are many different ways to ask for feedback, and… your mileage may vary. Usual fundraising advice gets you through the first 10 pitch meetings. After that, you need to course-correct based on the feedback you get back.

    One thing I will note is that in the age of agentic venture firms and tools that can be built within hours that cover every stretch of the imagination. One thing an LP told me that a GP told them was that some founders are getting smart. Preparing two decks for investors: one for the human eye, the other for the agentic audience. The latter with more appendices than the former. I imagine that it’s only a matter of time before VCs do the same to LPs as LPs are building agentic deck readers. In that sense, asking for deck feedback may not hold as much weight as it used to. Who knows?

    Nevertheless, if there’s one takeaway from this blogpost, it’s that if you want help, if you want feedback, make it specific, low friction, and direct.


    The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. Itโ€™s an inside scoop of what goes on in my nogginโ€™. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. Iโ€™ll let you decide which it falls under.


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


    The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.