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.”
I wrote a blogpost last year, where I went a level deeper into my NTY thesis. In short, in what situations and in front of what kind of ideas do I ask founders: Why now? Why this? And why you?
But let’s go a step deeper. As I’m writing another blogpost slated to come out next year, I’ve had the chance to sit down with some amazing multi-cycle investors. And a common thread across all those conversations has been that they chose to be the first check in companies that would be big, if true.
Which got me thinking…
If ‘big if true’ is for the preposterous ideas out there, then possible ideas would be ‘big when true.’ And plausible ideas would be ‘big AND true.’
Let’s break it down.
Big AND true
Not too long ago, the amazing Chris Douvosshared with me that the prerequisite to being “right and alone”, where fortune and glory lie, is to be “wrong and alone.”
Imagine a two-by-two matrix. On one axis, right and wrong. On the other axis, alone and in the crowd. You obviously don’t want to be wrong and in the crowd. But you do want to be in the right and alone quadrant. Because that’s where fortune and glory are at. Most people think that to get there, you must first start in the right and in the crowd quadrant. But it’s important to note, that once you’re in the crowd, and you get the dopamine hits of validation, it’s really hard to stray away from the crowd. So really, the only way to get to fortune and glory is to be wrong and alone. To be willing to go against the grain.
Unfortunately, for big AND true, you’re in the crowd. And while you can usually make money on the margins, it’s hard to be world-defining. ‘Cause you’re too late.
The thing to be wary of here if it is any investor’s strategy to deploy capital here is to not be the last money in. Hype and compounding are dangerous. And for many companies that exist here, they have a short half life. If you’re the last one holding the bag, that’s it.
Big WHEN true
You know that saying, “It’s a matter of when, not if…” it’s just as true in the innovation space. There are some things in life that are bound to happen. Recessions. Hype cycles. Rain. First snowfall. Summer heat. Progress. Maturity. When one’s baby teeth fall out. Wrinkles. Gray hair. Some with more predictability than others.
These ideas are defined as those with early commercial traction, likely with a niche audience or only your 1000 true fans. And that’s okay. Usually happens to be some of the toughest pre-seed and seed rounds to raise. There’s clearly traction, but no clear sense of rocket ship growth.
Timing matters. Is the larger market ready to adopt the beliefs and culture and habits of the few?
For some investors, it’s why they target quality of life improvements to the wealthy made ready for the masses. Living a wealthy lifestyle is, after all, aspirational for many. On the flip side, if you have a niche audience and are looking to expand, are there underlying beliefs and traits that the broader market has but has instead applied those beliefs and habits in other parts of their life?
Big IF true
Sam Altman put out a blogpost just yesterday, titled “What I Wish Someone Had Told Me.” And out of the 17 lessons he shares, one in particular resonated the most with me:
“It is easier for a team to do a hard thing that really matters than to do an easy thing that doesn’t really matter; audacious ideas motivate people.”
While the stories of Airbnb or Coinbase or Canva seem to suggest that these are nigh impossible ideas to raise on, anecdotally, I seem to find that the most transcendent companies with CEOs who are able to acquire world-class talent to their companies have less trouble fundraising than the ‘big when true’ ideas. But more difficulty raising than the ‘big and true’ ideas.
That said, instead of many smaller checks, you just need to find one big believer. In other words, the Garry Tan for your Coinbase or the Fred Wilson for your Twitter. One way to look at it, though not the only way, is what Paul Grahamputs as the “reasonable domain expert proposing something that sounds wrong.” Crazy, but reasonable. Simply, why you?
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 past weekend, I ended rewatching a classic and one of my favorite Eddie Murphy movies, A Thousand Words. Eddie, who plays Jack McCall, a literary agent, is someone who will say anything to get what he wants. And the plot of the movie effectively revolves around him trying to sign his next author and the after effects of doing so.
At one point, Dr. Sinja, the author he’s trying to sign, tells Jack, after he exclaims that he tells his wife he loves her “all the time”, “Words? More words, Jack. You tell her, like meaningless leaves that fly off a dying tree?
“Words.
“Can’t you show her that you love her? Make peace. Show them that you love them. And be truthful.”
One of my favorite people in the world, my friend who I met by way of mutual friend introduction, also happens to be one of the more well-traveled people I know. While it’s not my intention to embarrass her by writing this blogpost, she’s someone I’m deeply grateful for — my pen pal.
Every time we text, we send these long passages to each other. Paragraphs long. It doesn’t happen super often, every 2-3 months or so. And at times, we go six months without texting each other. But what makes her awesome aren’t our virtual letters, while I do really enjoy writing and reading them. What makes her awesome is that every time we meet in-person, she brings me gifts from abroad.
And she did so, ever since the day we first met, and I, in a passing remark, mentioned I didn’t travel often. And because of my work, my school, the need for me to be close to take care of family, I’ve stayed in the cocoon of the Bay Area my whole life. As such, I really do enjoy when friends tell me in detail of their travels beyond the horizons. But she took it a step further, where she would:
Buy gifts, snacks and souvenirs from abroad to bring back
Mail me postcards from every trip, sharing the smells, sights, sounds, and feels of her surroundings as she writes them
And of course, bring me back tales from her adventures when we meet in person.
They’re small things. But despite being small, they mean a lot to me.
I’m luckier now to be able to travel more. And just like my pen pal brings back treasures when she travels, I do so for her now too.
And of course, this extends beyond friendships. The fundamentals for any relationship (friendship, romantic, customer, investor, or some other business relationship) are fulfilling promises. Too often, I meet folks, who like Jack McCall say more than they can deliver. Most times unintentionally. A large part due to society’s expectations to be nice.
I’ll give an example. How often do we hear “How can I help?” at the end of a conversation? If you’re anyone who has something that others want — connections, capital, or advice — the ones on the receiving end probably wish to pay you back in some way. But most people ask that, and when they get an answer back, they take it in like the passing wind. Personally, I’d rather people who can’t deliver on that not ask that question than ask and not deliver (if there is something the other could use help on).
To go beyond just a normal relationship means you need to deliver the unexpected — beyond the initial promise. That requires you to actually spend time caring. And when you do, actions will naturally follow words or perform independent of words.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
All cards on the table, I love conferences. It’s a great exchange of ideas. And every once in a while, you meet some really cool people. In fact, I’ve met quite a few of my now-great friends via large events. And hell, I love swag! Like, frickin’ love them! Arguably too much so.
I also love events, and have deep respect for not only the magnitude, the effort, but also the creativity that goes into making great events great. And if you’re a regular fan of this humble piece of internet real estate, you’ve seen me write about it. If not, would recommend searching up “social experiment”, “community”, or “events” in the righthand side bar. But I digress.
So, all of this transpired, when a founder asked me publicly in a Slack community, “Is TechCrunch Disrupt worth going to, to meet investors?”
I love TC, and all it stands for! But if you’re looking to raise and meet VCs who’ll be interested in listening to you pitch, your bang for buck is better elsewhere. Not saying it’s not possible, but if you’re not on stage, it’s just a lot of wasted effort. Why?
VCs who are there are not looking there for deal flow, at least the good ones who have great pipelines.
‘Cause most people who are there are looking for investors as well. You’re not getting as much facetime with the right people as you would like. The ones you wanna get in front of are always the most popular ones.
On the flip side…
Why I think TC (or similar) is worth attending?
Conversion. Conferences should not be top of funnel for you. ‘Cause if it is, you’re one step too late. Maybe two steps. Use it as a conversion tool. Set up Zooms with investors prior. Then use IRL time to convert them into fans or reinforce why you’re awesome. I mean, have you ever been to a networking event where strangers intro themselves to you and you forget their name within 5 seconds? The same is true for most investors unless you have a story that’ll make you go viral. If that’s the case, then you really don’t need conferences anyway. (Unless you’re on stage.)
Hosting your own event/happy hour/fireside chat. Better to be a host of even a small intimate 6-8 person dinner than to be a participant. Participants are for the most part, forgettable. As a host, you’ll be able to live rent-free in someone’s mind for at least a few weeks.
Or purely for fun. Then yes, go have fun. Everything else is a cherry on top. Did I mention conference swag is usually really awesome?
In closing
Do I personally go to conferences?
No. Usually. This doesn’t have any bearing to a conference’s quality. In fact, I think events like Saastr’s, Upfront’s, All-In, just to name a few are very well-organized.
I’m just too busy.
I enjoy intimate conversations more. I’m an introvert, what can I say.
I like letting my creativity run wild by hosting my own.
So if you’re a founder fundraising, hopefully the above might be some helpful context when you are next at a crossroads in relation to event attendance. And yes, I find the above to be true if you’re an emerging manager fundraising as well.
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.
It’s fundraising season again. For founders. And for investors.
It may have been a product of the content I’ve been writing and the events I’ve been hosting. It could also be a product of my job title. But in the last few months, I’ve met a great deal of fund managers — from Fund I to Fund XIII. With a strong skew to the right. In other words, vastly Fund I through III.
And given the current market, there is the same pressing question from all: How should I pitch my fund?
And subsequent to that, who should I talk to? Or can you intro me to any LPs?
And in all these conversations, I’m reminded of a great piece Jason Lemkin once wrote on hiring the right VP of Marketing. I won’t go too much into depth since I’ve written about it here. But if you have a spare five minutes, I highly recommend the read. As such, the framework I share with fund managers is:
Fund I and II, it’s all about lead generation.
Fund III and IV, it’s about product marketing. The product is the fund. The product is the partners’ decision making.
Fund V and onwards, it’s all about brand marketing.
I’ll elaborate.
Now I’ll preface with most emerging funds won’t have the capacity to bring on an investor relations person, so the onus lies with the founding partners themselves.
Lead generation
Barely anyone knows you exist. You need to be out there. You’re pre-product-market fit. And you need to sell why you are the best sub-$50 million fund to return three times your LPs’ money back. Five times if you’re pre-seed or seed. LPs are looking for GP-thesis fit. But more importantly for you, this looks very much like a sales game, not a marketing game.
Generating demand where there is none is key. How do you best tell a story no one’s heard of?
You have to break an arm and a leg to close LPs outside of your initial friends and family. You have to show you care. Or as Mark Suster recently said (quoting Zig Ziglar), “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”
You’re going to events. Trade-show equivalents. You’re hosting your own. Your asking co-investors to be your LPs. You’re asking for LP intros to largely high net-worth individuals, who’ll be your beachhead “customers” before you prove the promise you’re selling capital allocators. And just as much as they’re looking for the right people to marry for the next 10 years or 20 years (latter if you’re working together for at least three funds), you need to qualify them as well. And while yes, it’s important to keep your funnel wide, you need to have a strong idea of who’s a good fit and who isn’t from the very beginning. If it helps, here are some of my favorite pre-qualifying questions.
You’ve now gotten to a stage where your strategy is known. Founders and LPs self-select themselves into investing in you or not. For instance, if you know you can win on a diversified strategy betting with portfolio sizes north of 50, all the LPs that look for concentrated portfolios or strong reserve strategies will turn the cheek.
You’ve built a strategy off of the scare tissue from Fund I. Now you’re selling that strategy. Are you fishing in ponds that other GPs are not? In other words, is it differentiated? And how?
It’s an interesting exercise but it’s usually not the first thing you think of, but the third. When you really dig into your fund’s soul. Why do founders come for you? Why will they choose you over all the other 4000 VC fund options out there? Equally as helpful to do a “Why did you choose me” survey with your founders.
The big question for LPs now is: Is this repeatable?
Why? Your initial LPs for Fund I, maybe II, are smaller checkwriters, given the size of most Fund I’s and II’s. A lot of them know, even innately, that as you scale in assets under management, you will eventually graduate from their check size. But starting from Fund III, and maybe even Fund II, you’re targeting sophisticated and larger LPs, who are looking to build that 20+ year relationship. And for them repeatability and consistency is important.
Brand marketing
When you’ve finally settled into your quartile, which usually takes at least 6-7 years of track record, you’re now focused on largely selling the returns on your previous fund. Your product works. For some funds, they diversify into other product offerings, or bring on new partners to manage new verticals and initiatives.
Just like a Super Bowl ad needs to be played at least seven times or in the marketing world the 7-11-4 strategy (you need at least seven hours of interaction, 11 touchpoints, and in four separate locations) before one remembers and hopefully buys your product, you’re trying to help LPs keep you top of mind. Again not hard and fast rules, but a useful reference point of just how much work it takes to stay top of mind.
That could mean a focus on content — a newsletter, podcast, great/frequent LP updates, social media and so on. Or great AGMs (annual general meetings). And hosting events. Or being that awesome co-investor that pops up other emerging managers’ pitch decks. Strong communication is key — either directly or indirectly — so that when you raise your next fund, your LPs are ready and have pre-allocated to re-up in your fund.
In closing
Now the purpose of all this segmentation isn’t to just be snotty about it, but that the focus for pitching and closing LPs varies per the number of your fund. Don’t try to do everything at the same time. It’s not worth it, and neither do you have the resources, time or bandwidth. Stick to one strategy and get really good at it.
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’ve had multiple conversations with emerging managers currently fundraising over the past few weeks, and the common theme, outside of the usual no’s, seems to be that larger LPs are saying, “If you were raising a larger fund, we would invest.”
And so there’s this catch 22 in the market right now. In one Fund I GP’s words, “either raise a larger fund and be told by the large checks that they don’t do Fund I’s. Or do a smaller fund, and be told by the high quality LPs that they’re too small.”
As a note, for the uninitiated, most large, seasoned LPs usually don’t want their check to be more than 10% of the fund. Why? Too much exposure in a single asset. And the need to diversify. Every year, there are really 20 great companies that are made. Or on the higher end, as Allocate’s Samir Kajirecently wrote, “30-50 companies drive the majority of returns.” Your goal as an LP, is to get as much exposure to those as possible. And they rarely all come out of just 1-2 funds.
If LPs are open to taking up more than 10% of the fund, they usually come with rather aggressive terms. For instance, investing into the GP stake, as opposed the to the LP. That’s a conversation for another day though.
As such, I’ve seen many a manager play both angles. They call it the “toggle.” If we raise a target of $10M fund, we’ll only do pre-seed. We’ll also have no reserves. If we raise a $25M fund, we’ll have 20% reserves and more seed checks. But if we’re able to close a $50M fund, we’ll have 33% reserves and do 50% pre-seed and 50% seed. The deltas between some fund managers’ targets and caps have grown as wide as the Grand Canyon. I was chatting with a Fund I GP yesterday who had a $10M target with $40M cap. Still relatively reasonable. Another GP raising their Fund I two weeks ago told me he had a $15M target and $70M cap. Far less reasonable. In fact, I might even say, a $15M fund and a $70M fund are two completely different strategies.
So begs the question, as a Fund I or II GP, is it worth raising a larger fund to possibly close large LPs or staying disciplined in your pre-product-market fit fund?
Spoiler alert… I don’t have the silver bullet. So if you’re looking for one, this blogpost isn’t worth your time.
But if you’re not, here’s how I’ve been thinking about it.
The short answer is really, whoever’s willing to give you money. Not the most sophisticated answer, but if you know large LPs well and they’re willing to invest in you, go bigger. Otherwise, you need to consider a more grassroots approach.
If you have a strong, portable, relevant track record that’s either returned good distributions already OR that has persisted for at least 6-7 years, larger LPs may be more open to investing in you. If not, you may need to play the numbers game with smaller LPs, that are liquidity-constrained as of now. And for that, you either take smaller checks, or prove you are the best option for their $250K LP check, that it somehow outcompetes the S&P, 3-year treasury bonds (because of interest rates), real estate and so on.
Also, remember that LPs are always nice in meeting #1. I’ve heard of very few instances where they’re not. A lot are just in exploratory mode. No pressure to commit. You will also need a great barometer of what nice looks like and what kindness looks like. Otherwise, you will waste a lot of time.
What does that mean? It is easier for a large LP to tell you “I will invest if your fund was bigger” than to tell you “No.” It’s the equivalent of VCs telling founders, “You’re too early for me.” And the same as recruiters and hiring managers telling job candidates “We have a highly competitive pool, and while we loved meeting you and you’re great…” There might be some truth to it, but a lot of smokes and mirrors, and a fear to offend people. I get it. We’re all people.
Just don’t lie to yourself.
Taking the hard road, which will be true for the vast majority of managers raising now, is to keep the fund size small and disciplined. Aim for a minimum viable fund. And deploy.
The minimum viable fund
Simply put, what is the minimum you need to execute your strategy? To set yourself up to raise a larger fund 1-2 funds from now?
What assumptions are you trying to prove?
What does your ideal Fund III look like? And What does fund-market fit look like to you? Be as detailed as you can. It could be that you’re getting four high quality deals per quarter. And that you have $30-40M to deploy per senior partner. That you’re leading rounds for target post-money valuations between $10-20M. That you have early DPI from Fund I by then. And so on.
Then work backwards. If that’s what Fund III looks like, what does Fund II look like? What does Fund I look like? As you’re backcasting, to borrow a Mike Maples Jr. term, each fund when you work backwards in time is focused on testing 1-2 key assumptions that you and LPs need to get conviction on. Assumptions that require data.
I’ll give an example of one kind of assumption. Your ability to win allocation.
If Fund III is where you lead pre-seed and seed rounds and have strong ownership targets, then Fund II is where you have to test if founders and other downstream investors will let you take pro rata for more than one round. And, if you can win or negotiate for that pro rata. It all comes down to, will a founder pick you over another awesome, possibly brand-name VC? And if so, why?
Some LPs prefer co-investment opportunities. And while it is helpful for them to go direct, part of the reason for it, is even if your fund can’t execute on the pro rata, just the ability to negotiate that is powerful for the day you need to lead. And if that’s Fund II, Fund I may be, can you win allocation in hot rounds and/or can you discover non-obvious companies before they become obvious?
Let’s say your Fund I is focused on the latter. You’re probably investing on $5-10M post-money valuations, and you’re going to try to maintain 5% ownership till the A-round. That’s $250-500K checks. $250K would be your base check, trying to get at least 30 shots on goal. That’s a $9-10M minimum viable fund, hoping for more than a 2% outlier rate in the generalist market, or north of a 10% outlier rate in bio, hard sciences, healthcare, or deep tech space.
Any less than 30 companies, you’re going for the hyper-concentrated portfolio and it’s a lot more about ownership and the greater the pressure, you need to pick well. But the goal is to get to a 3x net minimum for your fund by the time you get to a Fund III.
I heard from LPs with more miles on their odometer that once upon a time, it was normal for GPs to give undeployed capital back to their LPs. Circa 2002-2005 vintage funds. Where GPs don’t execute on 50% of their capital calls. But we don’t live in that era anymore. For better or worse.
Some LPs don’t even want their capital back early because then they need to pay taxes AND find another asset that compounds at the same or better rate your fund currently is. Say 25% IRR or CAGR. That’s hard. Because minus the inflated marks of the last 5 years, 25% is a hard benchmark to hit for the vast majority of funds.
So sometimes to be the best fiduciary, that means raising a small fund today (easier to return too) to set you best up for tomorrow.
The questions to ask
If you are in the midst of conversation and trying to court a large LP, do ask the following:
Have you invested in an emerging manager in the last two years? — If not, you’re unlikely to be their first. If you’re not seeing demonstrable progress from intro to partnership meeting to diligence within three meetings, move on. If they did so, 20 years ago, doesn’t count. That means investing in emerging managers is not top of mind for them.
What is your minimum check size? And how often, if ever do you deviate from it? If so, why was the last time you did so? — Multiply this number by 10. If it’s greater than your fund size, you might find more success elsewhere.
What is the typical process look like? — Find out what their process is and see if you’re progressing forward. If not, very clear they may not be interested.
(If the person you are talking to does seem to really like you) What are the questions you’re being asking in your investment committee? — Figure out the bottlenecks as soon as you can. And determine if that’s something you can solve for in the near future or not. If it’s track record, you realistically can’t.
What is the thing you hated most in the last few years? — Understand their red flags early on in the process. And cross your fingers, it’s not something that’s relevant to you or your fund. If it is, move on.
Of course, the above, while useful pre-qualifying questions, are mentioned in broad strokes. Your mileage may vary. Have there been examples of large LPs betting on small funds? Yes. But far and few in between. But don’t expect you will change many minds.
In closing
Fundraising is all about momentum and time you’re in market. You can theoretically spend six months trying to close one large LP, but your time might be better spent closing smaller checks in the beginning from people who believe in you and strong referenceable names. And if you so choose, come back to the large LP in the second half of your fundraise.
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.
Somehow do a better job of massaging the current data, which is challenging; or you have to
Be better at making qualitative judgments; or you have to
Be better at figuring out what the future holds.”
And while I go in length why the above are true in a former piece… today, I want to postulate a fourth.
Be better at listening to the silence.
Let me elaborate.
Facts and opinions
If I were to ask you, what day’s your birthday? I bet you could answer pretty quickly.
And the same would be true, if I asked you the color of the sky. Or what you ate for breakfast in the morning. Questions on facts have factual answers. There is either one immediate answer, or an answer you know exactly how to find, and at the very end, still a definitive answer. An example of the latter would be, What is the temperature right now?
On the other hand, if I were to ask you, what do you think about your life partner? The answer varies. You might say she or he is reliable. Or caring. And kind. And if I follow up with silence, you might spend some time thinking and filling the void with more words. Those words… are powerful. They simmer all of your life experiences and your stories — all your trials and tribulations, years, months, weeks, days, hours and minutes — onto a neatly organized platter for the other person. Those words that summarize it all are powerful. But what’s even more interesting to investor is the time it takes to come up with those words. That precious time, as your life is playing out like a flipbook, spends its precious milliseconds hugging silence.
No matter how miniscule those gaps are, they exist. And our goal as investors, and even more so for startup investors or emerging fund investors, with very little data to go on, is to create new datasets. In essence, to ask questions where the answers don’t just fill the air with vibrations, but to find answers that are dotted with tranquil stillness.
Great investors read between the lines. Listen to the pauses — the spaces between words. They look for the quiet thing out loud.
That silence is often more telling than anything you could put on a pitch deck or in a templated answer of “Tell me about your company.”
In closing
I know in this side of the world, we talk a lot about 10-year overnight successes. But let’s focus on the first two words of that phrase first. Ten-year. Startup journeys are long. They’re arduous. More things will go wrong than right. In the words of a serial founder with a few 9-figure exits under his belt, he once told me, “This shit sucks.” It’s tough. And if anyone discounts that — be it founder, operator, investor, friend or family — they don’t get it.
But that’s the very reason why investors look for grit, passion, and for me, obsession. But it’s also not a question we can really ask without getting a gift-wrapped, carefully-prepared answer. And so pushing the boundaries of questions is our job as investors. Why? Because even if for a moment, it sheds light into who we’re truly talking to.
And if there’s evidence of grit, passion, or obsession there, there might be something special.
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.
There was a fascinating episode on the Tim Ferriss Show recently, where we get the inside baseball on how David Maisel, founder of Marvel Studios, raised half a billion on a promise for a company who’s public market cap at the time was only a fifth of a billion. Naturally, not only was he against a lot of headwind externally, but internally as well. According to the board at the time, they would only greenlight the idea of producing their own films (as opposed to licensing their IP out) if “Marvel had no risk. Not little risk, but no risk.”
On the cusp of Captain America and Thor being licensed away, David asked the board to give him six months. The “zero risk” pitch then came in the form of external funding, huge financial upside (if things worked out), market timing, and a promise.
Financial upside for Marvel
As David puts it:
“First to my board, the argument, was if we own our own studio, it means we get the full financial upside that they understood very well.” As opposed to licensing, their traditional business model. Where Marvel only got five cents on every dollar of profit. As was the case with SONY and Spiderman.
“Number two, we decide on greenlight when the movies get made that they also understood because they only sold toys really at the time, and the toys were contingent on a movie, which they then control the timing. Now when you’re doing a public company and you’re giving guidance every year, how can you give guidance if you don’t even know what movies are going to get made? And so controlling greenlight was important, full creative control.”
Moreover, the team was able to take 5% of revenues as the producer fee AND keep all non-film revenues (i.e. toys, video games, etc.). And even if four out of the five films lost capital, they’d still make $25M in revenue each. In other words, $100M in sum. Half of Marvel’s public market cap at the time. Whose cap was only based on toy sales.
Market timing
“The bond bubble of 2004 was happening,” as David shared, “so it was a time where there was loans being made that shouldn’t have been made. And a lot of people were enamored with Hollywood as they get enamored every few years.”
Zero downside
Instead of funding the studio off balance sheet, David would go out to fundraise from others. So what was the external pitch?
“Give me four at bats, and if one of them hits, then every movie’s a sequel after that.”
On top of all the above, to me, there were some interesting terms for the investment that helped sweeten the deal:
Merrill Lynch got a 3% success fee upon the $525M closing.
David got a low interest rate loan from Merrill by getting it insured by MPAC, therefore the debt became AAA debt, which “was easy to sell to pensions and easy to sell to individual investors” in case things went awry.
Now I’m not sure if this is standard Hollywood practice. But I imagine it’s not, at least back in ’03 and ’04. I’m a venture guy after all. And as one, the above is news to me.
That said, the banks David went to fundraise from were not taking equity. It was “pure debt. So very low interest rate. And the only collateral were the film rights to ten Marvel characters of which we could make for the movies.” Which, to me, ten characters sounds like a lot for a company whose business is characters. I also imagine these were characters that had some level of historical fanbase, so they weren’t random ones from the archives.
But David clarifies. “A lot of people misunderstand that they think we pledged ten of our characters as collateral. It wasn’t that at all because in the worst case scenario, it only got collected if we lost money on those first four movies. And then those six characters, we owned all the rights besides film. And if a film was ever made by the bank, whoever collected this collateral, we got the same license fee that we get if we just license it that day to a party. So there was no opportunity cost.”
And the promise
This is history now, but at the time, was a bold claim. The idea was borne out of frustration as an entertainment investor. That:
Marvel couldn’t capture a large part of enterprise value through productions with just licensing
The first movie business was horrible. Sequels, on the other hand, were a lot more predictable. So, the focus after the first movie would not be on predicting profit, but maximizing profit margins.
So David had a thought. “What if after the first movie, every movie after that was a sequel or a quasi-sequel, which required all the characters, or a lot of the characters, to show up in multiple movies?”
The idea of sequel snowballed into what we now know as the MCU — the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Bringing it back to venture
It’s a nice corollary to raising a Fund I, where you’re also selling a promise. A world vision. A painting of the future. Nothing’s proven yet. You’re sure as hell not selling a repeatable strategy yet, and definitely not any returns. Since there’s a good chance you haven’t returned capital to LPs before.
And this is true for not just funders, but also founders. In the words of Mike Maples, “Breakthrough builders are visitors from the future, telling us what’s coming. They seem crazy in the present but they are right about the future.
“Legendary builders, therefore, must stand in the future and pull the present from the current reality to the future of their design. People living in the present usually dislike breakthrough ideas when they first hear about them. They have no context for what will be radically different in the future. So an important additional job of the builder is to persuade early like-minded people to join a new movement.”
Dissent is a luxury
The truth is loads of people will disagree with you. You’re not looking for consensus. In fact, it’s better to be wrong and alone than right and with the crowd if you’re in the venture world. Either as a founder or an emerging GP. It’s something I recently learned from the one and only Chris Douvos. If you imagine a 2×2 matrix… On one axis, you have right and wrong. On the other, you have with the crowd and alone. You want to be in the right and alone quadrant for sure. That’s where “fortune and glory” exists. It’s where alpha exists. It is how you become an outlier and achieved outsized returns.
But the prerequisite to be there is to have the guts to start in the wrong and alone quadrant. If you start from being right and in the crowd, you’re one among many. And that doesn’t give you the liberty to have independent thinking. You’re constantly trapped in noise.
It’s as Abhiraj Bhal says. “If you are a category-defining company, you will always have a TAM question, if the category is defined by somebody else, you will not have a TAM question.” You want people to question you. And as humans, we like to fit in. But to create something transcendent, external doubt is your best friend.
As such, your promise of the future must seem bizarre.
Don’t start with the product, start with your customers
When you have a promise, admittedly, the easiest way is to start engineering it right away. Without market validation. Without stress testing. Which pigeonholes a number of founders. I forgot the origination, but there’s a great line that says, “The only difference between a hallucination and a vision is that other people can see the latter.”
And in order to test that, you need to get in front of potential users and customers first. Max, someone I had the joy of working with, once wrote the below timeless tweet:
My hot take of the day:
Most aspiring startup founders who think they should learn to code would be better off learning to write well instead.
As Elizabeth once shared: “We decided that we’d start with no product. We would not build anything. And, we just started selling ads. We manually brokered deals with publishers and advertisers and took a cut in between. We got our customers by emailing people and setting up the copy and links ourselves. People would pay me through my personal PayPal account. It was only when we realized we were onto something that we started building technology to remove bottlenecks.”
On the investor side, it’s building a thesis where great investments fall into. It’s a way of looking at the world in a perspective that may seem foreign to others, but almost obvious in retrospect. The thesis should elicit the response, “Why didn’t I think of that first?” But no matter how obvious, you are the best positioned to bring the thesis to life. That doesn’t mean you need returns yet. Although good graduation rates certainly help as a leading indicator.
In that regard, it’s quite similar to how David Maisel foretold of the Universe to come. Obvious once explained, yet still met with resistance from legacy players.
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.
