Category: Startup

Posted on

Cerebral And Guttural Decisions

Earlier this week, Zach Coelius shared his path to running a fund with the On Deck Angels community. And near the end of the session, one of our fellows asked something along the lines of: How do you pick great founders? To which, Zach responded, and I’m paraphrasing: I look for really smart people I want to be around. And every person has something different that makes them smart.

I’ve heard many variations of Zach’s closing comment over the years. “I look for someone I want to work for.” “I look for someone who gets me excited about a space I didn’t I’d get excited about.” “A really sharp individual who teaches me something new almost every time we talk.” The common thread, in all these statements, is that the thing that drives early-stage investors to conviction is not quantitative, but qualitative in nature. Moreover, given that the next Steve Jobs or Elon Musk will look nothing like either of the afore-mentioned, it’s hard to build the search for outliers into a reliable mental model, other than the openness to be amazed.

Fred Wilson wrote a great piece at the beginning of this week about his rationale for investing in Coinbase, Twitter, and Dapper. His title, which sums it all up really well, is: Keeping It Simple. His lesson: “That’s keeping it simple. It doesn’t always work. We get more wrong than we get right. But when we get it right, amazing things can happen.”

Along a similar vein, I jumped on a call with a buddy of mine who’s raising his first fund after having an enviable track record as an angel. On this said call, we talked about how junior investors, the bottom 75% of investors, late-stage investors, and investors that have yet to find their own way to get to conviction, spend more time on the quantitative. A very analytical, repeatable, quantifiable approach. For better or for worse, cerebral. On the flip side, the best early-stage investors out there, by track record of consistent top-notch returns, don’t spend nearly as much time obsessing over the numbers. Or evidence. In fact, before you invest at the A, for most businesses, there really isn’t any hard metric that is going to get you from 50 to 90% conviction.

Even in my own personal journey, when I started off, I found myself sticking to the “tried and true” questions:

  • What are your unit economics?
  • How many customers do you have? How are they using your product?
  • What percent of your customers are coming back to use the product on the second day?
  • What do your retention curves look like?
  • Your monthly growth rate for the past three months?

All of which, you may notice, are quantitative in nature. In fact, this best part of this blog is that you can literally track my thinking over the past few years. I went from writing about metrics (more here, just to name a few) I look for in startups to writing about intuition. In fact, even my attempt to codify intuition is, by definition, using my frontal lobe.

All I need to worry about are moments when a founder teaches me something new that I didn’t know I would love. A simple, but surprisingly rare happenstance. I see a lot of good startup ideas and teams, even some great ones. But it’s rare I meet an “Oh sh*t!” one. Subsequently, that probably also means, at my current stage, I’d make a poor fund manager, since I don’t have enough consistently high-quality deal flow. Consistent, yes. High-quality, in my humble opinion, yes. But consistently high-quality, I’m still too early. At least in the scope of “Oh sh*t!”

One of the greatest sobering facts about venture is that it’s a business that’s designed to keep you humble. Like Fred mentioned, I am wrong way more often than I’m right. And the times I trusted my head over my gut are times I find most regretful. To better illustrate this, let me share an anecdote.

Back in 2018, one of my good friends introduced me to a set of co-founders. Scratch that. Even before they started working on the business idea. And I’m going to abstract the name of the startup. But if you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you’ve probably already seen the trail of cookie crumbs.

I met them for the first time at their beautiful, well-furnished SF apartment with Scandinavian furniture that definitely warranted a pretty price tag. Out of curiosity, I asked how much it cost to live there. And for four bedrooms and three baths, they shared a ridiculously low number. A third of the price I imagined they’d be paying. Then of course, I had to ask how much the furniture cost. “$100, just to ship them over. Otherwise, they’re all free.”

Apparently, they networked their way into a community of office managers. They learned that so many venture-backed startups in the Bay, upon receiving funding, want to look like Airbnb. Founders buy the most expensive furniture – modern layouts, quirky chairs, rustic-looking tables. They also bring the creme de la creme of interior designers to help them set it all up.

But as statistics show, most of these fold every year. When they do, the last thing they want to worry about is their reminder of frivolous spending. As such, office managers end up with so many pieces of high-end furniture they just need to get rid of. Those same pieces of artisanal furniture now sat in these three founders’ living room. And it’s even crazier to know that they weren’t from the Bay. They didn’t have connections coming here, nor jobs lined up initially.

The stories didn’t stop there. In subsequent catchups, I learned of their previous hustles. Each blew my mind more than the last.

When it finally came down to it, and I had the chance to invest, I fell into the comfort of the shackles of borrowed mental models, demand for traction, metrics, the whole nine yards of what made me sound like a really smart, possibly high-browed, VC. And I said no. Today, they’re worth over nine figures, with 8-figure revenue numbers at their last funding round.

I amassed a massive anti-portfolio in my early days trusting my brain over my gut. A brain, like most, was and continues to be incapable of fully understanding the effects of the power law.

To borrow a Pat Grady lesson, any person with a head above two shoulders – in other words, a recurring practitioner of logic and reasoning – is capable of figuring out what’s wrong. But as an early-stage investor, one of the biggest mental hurdles you have to overcome, is spending more time imagining what can go really, really right. And not its counterpart.

As an investor before product-market fit, you invest belief capital, not optimization capital. You’re not putting fuel on the fire. You’re putting faith in a person – in a team – and in an insight.

Photo by Daniel Mingook Kim 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!

Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

Posted on

What Does Signal Mean For An Early-Stage Investor?

signal, lighthouse

When winds and waves a mutual contest wage,
These foaming anger, those impelling rage;
Thy blissful light can cheer the dismal gloom,
And foster hopes beyond a wat’ry doom.

– John William Smith, “The Lighthouse,” 1814

Marc Andreessen answered a few weeks back to a question that has been ringing in many founders’ minds. What product do founders want to buy from investors? For the past few years, the natural answer rose as operational expertise. A notion that still holds true for the earliest stages of starting a business when you bring on strategic angels as small checks to help you find product-market fit. As you continue down the path and start raising institutional capital, the answer becomes more and more amorphous.

On a similar note, Bryce Roberts the exact same question last year:

To which, he responded:

Why do investors look for signal in the first place? A means to de-risk a very early, and very risky bet. A product of asymmetric information. Investors invest in lines not dots, but the truth is, most investors don’t have the time – luxury or ability – to see all lines. So what they must do instead is look for specific dots – be it traction, co-investors, or founding team “legitimacy” – that would help them trace out of a line of best fit. As Precursor’s Charles Hudson wrote earlier this week,

By definition, signal should be a leading indicator of long-term business value. Yet, for most investors in the world, what they look for are lagging indicators of conviction.

The signal paradox

In the investing world, there’s a paradoxical notion of signal. Through many conversations with syndicate leads, data teams of investing platforms, and LPs, I realized a common thread. For the majority of investors in the world, at the early stages, signal comes not from the founder, but from other funders.

In a syndicate, there are three things that make a deal move fast:

  1. Great co-investors
  2. Great traction
  3. And, great team

Arguably in that order. Synonymously, as an emerging fund manager, the best way to raise from family offices* (I’ll explain below why FO’s are my reference point here) who are notoriously closed off to cold emails, you need:

  1. Tier 1 VCs as your co-investors
  2. Tier 1 GPs as your fund’s LPs
  3. Or, deals that family offices wanted to get into anyway (which isn’t mutually exclusive from the above as well)

Quite noticeably, for many investors out there, signal comes in the form of people with a proven track record already. Or to break it down even more. Signal comes in the form of familiarity. Familiarity in the form of warm intros or college classmates or pattern recognition. The easiest pattern to follow for any investor without needing to do too much diligence or requiring too much personal conviction (I know, it’s funny), but to be able to write fast checks, is other top-tier investors. If you’re a founder who’ve fundraised before, you’re probably very familiar with this notion. Consciously or subconsciously. I’m gonna bet money that you’ve been asked, “Which other investors are you talking to? And how far along the process are you with them?” Or simply, “Do you have a lead investor?”

While there are some nuances to the last question, like the inability for smaller investors to pay for legal counsel fees, to have the resources to completely diligence a startup, or just that the check size required to lead/fill the round is just too large for them, generally speaking, my argument still stands. Put nicely, for many investors, they’re looking for external validation of the product. Put harshly, that question is a band-aid approach to their inability to get to conviction.

As a founder, you have to realize that capital has become a commodity. Investors are in the business of selling money. And subsequently, making $1 become $2. Or for a great early-stage investor, $1 becomes $5. There are many ways to underwrite risk. The one that requires the least amount of new thinking, or thought leadership, is following firms who have proven their investing acumen already and consistently.

*Additional context on family offices

I specifically mention family offices above since most LPs in Fund I’s are individuals and angels. Mostly small checks. And can quickly fill up the limit the SEC has set for how many accredited investors you can have investing in your fund. And their reason to invest is based on the founding GPs – very similar to why investors would back startups at the pre-seed stage.

While some GPs do pitch to institutional LPs (i.e. endowments, pension funds, fund of funds, etc.), very, very little institutional capital goes to Fund I’s and II’s – very similar to the fact that Tiger or Coatue very rarely invest before the A. You have yet to have a track record where they can fit into their financial model. They’re underwriting a very different type of risk. And so, if you’re a Fund I GP looking for larger checks, you’re looking to generational wealth in the form of family offices, who are surprisingly closed off to cold emails. But I digress.

The surplus of “signal” in 2021

In the last year, we’ve seen some record-breaking numbers. We’ve been in an exciting boom market. There have never been more venture dollars poured into the ecosystem. In fact, there were 1,148 concurrent unicorns in 2021. Half of which were new. In comparison, 2020 minted just 167 unicorns. Just looking at the two charts from Crunchbase below, we see just how crazy 2021 was.

Source: Crunchbase
Source: Crunchbase

And quite reflectively, there have never been as many “experts” in the market. To be fair, when everyone’s portfolio and/or startup is raising consecutive rounds of funding and mark ups are a dime a dozen, psychologically, I would also feel good about myself too. Everyone’s an “expert” in a boom market, especially if a16z or Tiger is leading the round. And a16z’s done double the number of deals they did in 2020. And Tiger’s invested 4 out of every 5 business days. In full disclosure, I did feel quite proud of myself as well. Nevertheless, I do my best to stay humble in this business.

Interestingly enough, while there were more seed, pre-seed and angel dollars going into startups, progressively, less startups were getting funded. Effectively, while the overall number of dollars invested look great, less founders come to bat. A smaller top of funnel means a more concentrated funnel in consecutive rounds.

Source: Crunchbase

The truth is fundraising will get harder over the next year and valuations won’t be as high. You can expect the current market correction in the public markets to soon be reflected in the private ones. So you may need to spend 12 months longer growing into your next round’s target valuation.

So where should investors look for signal?

In fairness, I am ill-equipped to answer this question for the masses. And most likely will never be fully equipped to make generalist statements. That said, I have and will continue to share what signal looks like for me. And if you’re a founder, here’s my template to conviction.

Two weeks ago, I broke down my sense of intuition around startup investing. I won’t go too deep in this essay, but I do share a more detailed internal calculus there. To put it simply, I look for different signals across the spectrum of idea plausibility and stages.

Signal by idea plausibility

Idea PlausibilityKey QuestionContext
PlausibleWhy this?Most people can see why this idea should exist. Because of the consensus, you’re competing in a saturated market of similar, if not the same ideas. Therefore, to stand out, you must show traction.
PossibleWhy now?It makes sense that this idea should exist, but it’s unclear whether there’s a market for this. To stand out, you have to convince investors on the market, and subsequently the market timing.
PreposterousWhy you?Hands down, this is just crazy. You’re clearly in the non-consensus. Now the only way you can redeem yourself is if you have incredible insight and foresight. What’s the future you see and why does that make sense given the information we have today? If an investor doesn’t walk out of that meeting having been mind-blown on your lesson from the future, you’ve got no chance.

Signals by stage

Stage of investmentKey QuestionContext
Pre-seedWhy you?The earlier you go, the less quantitative data you have to support your bet. And therefore, your bet is largely on the founder. For me, it matters less their XX years of experience, but more so their expertise. In other words, insight. Can I learn something new in my first meeting (and consecutive ones too) with them?

At the pre-seed, there is also one more key signal I look for in founders – their level of focus. Rather than wanting to do everything, can they streamline their resources to tackle one thing? What is their minimum viable assumption they have to prove before they can build their MVP (or MLP – minimum lovable product)? Startups often die of indigestion, not starvation.
SeedWhy now?By the seed stage these days, you’ve either found your product-market fit or really close to finding it. The larger your round, the more you’re feeling the pull of the market. Whereas pull can come be measured (i.e. daily organic sign ups, demand converting to supply in a marketplace, etc.), sometimes when you’re at the cusp of it, there’s a level of foresight that is required. Some leading indicator for the business often comes as a lagging indicator from industry trends. What is the inflection point(s) (political, socio-economic, technological, cultural) we are at today that is going to have compounding effects on the business?
Series AWhy this?By the time you get to the A, you’re ready to scale. In other words, what you mainly need is to add fuel to the fire. I place a larger emphasis on traction here. Admittedly for me, compared to the two earlier stages, this is more of a numbers conversation. The best founders here have a very clear picture of what worked and didn’t work for the business. They’re already familiar with their main GTM channel, but are exploring new opportunities for channel-market fit where they need capital to test.

Not incredibly pertinent yet, but founders will have started thinking about their Act II. What’s the next product they’re going to offer to secure their immortality in the market?

In closing

A simple litmus test I often share with founders on signal is:

Your ability to raise capital is directly correlated with your ability to inspire confidence in your investor that you will get straight A’s with little to no help.

This isn’t just true for myself, but also most investors out there. While the best investors out there will always be there for you in your time of need, before they decide to jump aboard the same ship with you, you need to convince them that you’re a top 10% founder. Or a top 1% in-the-making.

While I dislike using the dating analogy, it’s an apt comparison in this case. You’re not going to share your deepest, least desirable secrets on your first date. You’re also not going around saying you’re the perfect – and I underscore perfect – partner without any flaws. ‘Cause that’s as much baloney as an unknown African prince in your inbox telling you to help him secure $5 million in gold bars by helping him set up a Swiss bank account with a deposit of $10K. It’s too good to be true. In reality, you’re most likely going to share that you have a number of great qualities, but you’re still growing in many ways.

Admit what you don’t know or don’t have. As long as it’s not mission critical or the biggest risk in your business (and if it is, figure that out before you raise VC funding), the investors who truly believe in you will understand. Always err on the side of honesty, but not bravado.

‘Cause you yourself are a signal. If you’ve got your bases covered and still have to go out of your way to convince an investor or try to flip their “no”, they’re probably not worth your time.

Cover photo by Michael Denning 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!

Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

Posted on

The Gravitational Force of Founder-Market Fit

wildfire, founder market fit

There’s a question I love asking founders. What does product-market fit look like to you?

PMF is often nonobvious and guesswork in foresight, but incredibly obvious in hindsight. But the ability to foresee and measure an inflection point in the business is a common thread among the best founders in the world. For Rahul Vohra, that was when 40% or more of his customers responded with “very disappointed” to the survey question “How would you feel if you could no longer use Superhuman?” After all, the famous Peter Drucker did say, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

Founders often find themselves pushing their product onto customers pre-PMF. But once they find PMF, they feel the pull of the market. In the words of David Sacks, when you find PMF, “the market is pulling product out of the startup.”

For further reading here, I highly recommend reading Lenny Rachitsky’s essay on the topic.

But, what is founder-market fit?

Much like PMF, for founders, there exhibits a similar level of pull. But its measurability is often not by quantitative metrics like PMF, but qualitative. At a virtual lunch last week, Founders Fund’s and Varda’s Delian Asparouhov shared his brutally candid remarks on living a fulfilling life.

One of the questions he answered was when did he know he just had to start Varda. Why didn’t he just stay a full-time VC? Delian called it the “mind virus.” When the problem hits you like a truck and you just can’t get rid of it. Once you get it, it infects your whole brain, and you can’t not think about it.

When you have more questions than answers. And each layer of questions gets more and more specific, and no longer generalist. In fact, the majority of questions that take up your mental real estate do not have membership in the:

  1. First 500 questions about the topic in a generalist’s mind
  2. First 100 questions in a specialist or expert’s mind space. In fact, one of the greatest litmus tests (not the only) you can administer is getting the “Oh f**k, how come I haven’t thought of that?” response.

Naivete matters

Paul Graham wrote an equally great piece on the topic. “Naive optimism can compensate for the bit rot that rapid change causes in established beliefs. You plunge into some problem saying ‘How hard can it be?’, and then after solving it you learn that it was till recently insoluble. Naivete is an obstacle for anyone who wants to seem sophisticated, and this is one reason would-be intellectuals find it so difficult to understand Silicon Valley.”

In the analogous words of Delian, “Just ask the technical experts, is this impossible? There’s a big difference between very, very difficult and impossible. Is it just a very technical religion where people say no or is it impossible?” There’s a superpower in knowing just enough to dream and reach for the “impossible”, but not enough to get trapped in the technical dogma of what is “possible.”

Great founders are armed with the ability to balance childlike wonder with optimistic pragmatism. Great founders dare to dream. It is neither the first, nor the last you’ll hear of James Stockdale on this blog. But nevertheless, I find his words to ring equally as true for the best founders who have graced this planet. “You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end – which you can never afford to lose – with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they may be.”

In closing

In sum, what is founder-market fit? It is when passion turns into obsession. When founders are married to the problem, as opposed to the solution. When curiously passionate founders cannot stop themselves from doing everything in their power to engineer the solution to a problem deeply personal to them.

Here’s a simple way to think about it, using an equation most scientists are familiar with.

F = ma

Or otherwise, known as Newton’s second law. Force is the product of mass and acceleration. Think of force as the gravitational pulling force a founder has. Mass as the first impression a founder makes in meeting number one. Some permutation of their insights, their background and experience, and their domain expertise. And acceleration as the multiplicative velocity in which the founder learns. Subsequently, we have an equation that looks more or less like this:

Founder-market fit =
(initial impression) x
(founder’s compounding rate of learning)

For investors, a good sign of that is when that passion is contagious in the first meeting. And founders learn incredibly quickly (as a function of action) in every consecutive one after. The gravitational pull a founder brings where you just want to put down everything to listen to them. As investors, we love paying for that world-class education.

Photo by Tobias Seidl 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!

Posted on

How to Develop Intuition as a Rookie Startup Investor

intuition, how to develop intuition

In the month before I started this blog in 2019, I had written 20 odd blogposts as a safety net in case I ran out of ideas in my weekly cadence. Most of which never had the chance to stand in the limelight, including my first one on intuition. Particularly, my one on intuition. Over the years, I’ve honed my own “intuition” – if I may be bold enough to call it that – on vetting startups. My intuition today is very different beast from my intuition 2.5 years back. This essay is a product of such constantly evolving self-discovery.

The spark of my intuition

When I first started my career in VC at Berkeley’s SkyDeck, I reached out to about 70-80 investors for a coffee chat, in which I posed one of my now favorite questions. What is the difference between a good and a great VC? Unsurprisingly, but frustratingly enough, most of the answers came in the form of “intuition.” Or its cousin, “pattern recognition.”

To me, who was still so new to venture, that was the best and worst non-answer I could get. Yet despite knowing that there was truth in their answer, I was still directionless. It wasn’t until an afternoon walk through San Francisco’s South Park with a very generous, but curt gentleman who carried quite the luggage beneath both of his eyes that I got the answer I wasn’t looking for.

“See a shitload of startups. When you see 10, pick your top 2. Then see 100, pick your top 2. Then see 1000, and again, pick your top 2. You’re going to notice that your podium will look quite different the more founders you meet with and the more startups you see.”

Recently, Plexo‘s Lo Toney told our fellows at DECODE the exact same thing:

And so, in hopes to guide someone in my shoes when I first started, here’s how I think about building intuition. Of course, I am a human and will always be a work in progress. It’s likely that next year I will see things differently than I see them today. Nevertheless this essay is a record of my thoughts today in early 2022.

Where to find a “shitload” of startups

There are multiple avenues these days for deal flow, including, but not limited to:

When I first jumped into venture, I used to ask my friends who I knew were early adopters (a product of going to a school in the Bay Area, like Berkeley) of products to recommend me 3-5 startups/products every other week. When they did, I would treat them out to boba. And if they introduced me to the founders for those products that I’d be excited to talk to, I’d treat my friends out to a small meal – around $10-15. At the same time, at SkyDeck, I tried to sit in on as many meetings as I could, particularly the ones around deal evaluation at the beginning of every cohort.

While I do recommend all of the above, the best training grounds for developing intuition is when you talk to founders yourself.

The five senses

Google defines intuition as “the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.”

Source: Google

So, by definition, intuition is subconscious – built upon the brain’s natural ability to recognize patterns. An apt synonym, according to the trillion-plus dollar company… “sixth sense.” A sixth sense birthed from the intense neural processing of the five other senses. So, it was only logical for me to understand the sixth sense by first fully comprehending my five others. That said, I use the five-sense nomenclature loosely, but it nevertheless has become my guiding framework for venture decisions over the years.

Smell

“I invested based on my sense of smell.” These are the very words Softbank’s Masayoshi Son shared about his early investment in Alibaba. And he said the same about his investment into Yahoo! In fairness, his words make for good PR. And may just seem like smokes and mirrors. But for Son to have chosen Jack Ma out of the 20 prospective Chinese entrepreneurs he met with to invest in, he must be onto something.

There are two ways to develop an acute sense of smell as an investor, which you can develop in tandem.

  1. Spending a lot of time looking into the market
  2. Talking to many founders

On the former, we’ve been seeing a number of funds incubate their own startup ideas as a result of investors becoming deep subject-matter experts, but are discontent with the current ideas or teams on the market right now. Two examples include General Catalyst and Founders Fund. Draw market maps. Write research reports. Follow the experts on socials or on their blogs. Even better, talk to them as well. As a general warning, it’s hard being a generalist here. I would pick a few industries and/or functions you’re excited about or knowledgeable in already. Go deep before you go wide.

A few questions that have served me well include:

  1. What kind of inflection points are we at in the market? In what areas have headwinds become tailwinds?
  2. What are the technological, political, and/or socio-economic trends to be aware of right now? And where do these trends set up the world tomorrow to be?
    • I really encourage investors here to dream a little bit. To envision a world given these trends in which you’d be excited to have future generations live in.

On the latter, while Masayoshi talked to only 20, you can assume you he went through at least ten times that number of decks and business ideas. There’s no better practice than being in the field. Assuming you’ve taken step one (i.e. researching the market), one of the best litmus tests I’ve used to gauge a founder is their ability to riff on adjacent subjects to the business with me. Are they capable of going on tangents that really demonstrate domain expertise? Or are they caught up in the myopia of just their business?

Taste

There’s two kinds of tastes in which I look for, almost subconsciously, now.

  1. Have they tasted excellence?
  2. Have they tasted blood?

On excellence, many investors out there look for prior success in the field. For instance, previously founder of a unicorn exit, early employee or key executive at a now-successful company, or former big-time investor. Admittedly, there are only a small handful of these individuals out there. But I knew in my early days of scouting, I was at a massive disadvantage here for two major reasons.

  1. I didn’t have strong connections with most of this subset of the entrepreneurial market.
  2. This was also a founder persona I didn’t have unique insight to. In fact, it was general consensus to always take first meetings with these individuals in the venture industry. And as I learned early in my venture career, you make money either if you’re right on consensus or right on non-consensus. The latter of which is counted in multiples instead of percentages, which I’ve written about here and here.

In knowing so, I look for excellence, period. Have they tasted earned glory in any discipline? Do they know what it’s like to succeed in their field? And do they know what it takes to get there? On the flip side, do they know how hard it was to get there?

On the other hand, for blood, I want to know a founder’s propensity for conflict resolution. When was the last time they fundamentally disagreed with their co-founders? And how did they resolve it? Conflicts are inevitable. They’re bound to arise when you’re putting so much at stake for a common goal. I care less about the fact that they do come up, but more about that when they do, the team doesn’t just fall apart.

Every once in a while, I might disagree with the founder as well. And hear I look for the founder’s knee-jerk reaction and their ability to engage in thoughtful discussion. That does not mean they cannot disagree. Neither am I looking for another yes-person. But are they capable of helping me, and themselves, explore new horizons? Are they open-minded enough to entertain new possibilities, but still hold a remarkable level of focus to their 12-month horizon?

Touch

How high-touch or low-touch is this business? How much legwork does an investor need to do for this business to 10x its KPIs (within the next 12 months)?

For me, during my first meeting with the founder, ideally before, I try to answer two very simple questions:

  1. What is the biggest risk of this business?
  2. And is the person who can solve this risk on the team slide/in the room?

99% of the time, the person who can solve the biggest risk of the business has to be in the room. For instance, if it’s a machine-learning (ML) product, it’s a technical risk. So at least one of the co-founders must be a technical genius, not three MBAs. If it’s a B2B SaaS product, it’s a distribution risk. Meaning someone on the team must have deep connections to key decision makers to their target customers. In the early days, that’s really just at least one to two big-name customers. And ten other referenceable businesses. The second biggest risk is sales, and that I count on the founders’ ability to hustle.

1% of the time, and this is probably an exaggeration, you just have to really believe in the founder AND the product or market.

Hearing

Do founders spend more time talking, or more importantly, listening to their customers than they do in Rapunzel’s tower?

While I don’t ask all of them (since we’re guaranteed to run out of time before we run out of topics), here are the questions I consider when assessing how boots-on-the-ground a founder is:

What are customers saying about their product? The good? And the bad?

How did they acquire their first users/customers outside of their existing first degree network? Where from? What messaging do they use?

What is their customer win rate? In knowing so, what worked and what didn’t? At what point in the onboarding process do customers churn? What are their assumptions for why churn happens?

Do they know the numbers of their business (and ideally the market) like the back of their hand? For numbers of the market, are they able to recall the sources of most important numbers? For product metrics, how well do they know the main ones, like engagement, churn, monthly growth rates (over the past 3 months), net retention, and so on? Every so often, there’s a number or two, the founders are not aware of. And it’s fine. The test is once they realize their blind spot, how quickly do they move to patch it up? Subsequently, report back to me about their updated data measurements.

Of course, my job is not to distract founders. And I really try my best not to, so I don’t ask they measure superfluous metrics, unless I really do believe they’re crucial to the business.

Because I usually talk with founders who are pre-product-market fit, I usually lead with the question, “what does product-market fit look like to you?” Are they able to arrive at an actionable and measurable metric to optimize for? And can they back up why that metric is a good proxy for product-market fit?

(In)Sight

Can this founder teach me something new? Something that I never thought of or heard before, but makes complete sense. Is it a preposterous idea but backed by logic? Or does the founder have an original (and money-making) angle to what is already unoriginal? As an investor, especially as you see more startup ideas, the latter question is likely to surface more than the former.

Once the original insight is uncovered, it is then up to me to figure out the potential energy of the insight. How far can this insight take this team? Is it likely that this insight will uncover more insights down the road?

As an investor, you want to be right on the insight and team, not one or the other. Mike Maples Jr. articulates it best when he said, “We realize, oh no, this team doesn’t have the stuff to bend the arc of the present to that different future. Because I like to say, it’s not enough. […] I’d say that’s the first mistake we’ve made is we were right about the insight, but we were wrong about the team.”

“I’d say the reverse mistake we’ve made is the team just seems awesome, and we just can’t look past the fact that they didn’t articulate good inflections, and they can’t articulate a radically different future. They end up executing to a local maximum, and we have an okay, but not great outcome.”

In closing

Seedscout’s Mat Sherman wrote a great Twitter thread last month to help founders who are outsiders raise venture funding.

The fact of the matter is that despite the venture industry being a rather well-connected circle of individuals and firms, most entrepreneurs – both currently and aspiring – are outsiders. If you can’t hit up a close friend to write you a couple million dollars, you’re an outsider. This essay, while written for new investors, hopefully, is equally useful as a guide for founders looking for some insight as to how investors think. Or at the very minimum, how I think.

Photo by Liam Shaw on Unsplash

Any thoughts here are mine and mine alone. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

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!

Posted on

How Do Investors Think About Early Dilution On The Cap Table?

dilution water investment

A founder recently asked me how investors would perceive her going through two different accelerator programs. Specifically, what would investors think if she took dilutive capital from two investors who care about ownership targets, yet have similar, if not the same, value adds to her business?

How each type of investor thinks about dilution

It’s a great question. Unsurprisingly, a nuanced one as well.

Honestly, a “messy” cap table or early dilution is an excuse investors give when they’re not sold on you or the business. Investors regress to the “why this”, or otherwise known as, traction, when you haven’t convinced them on “why you.”

Investors want to be excited about you. They want to brag about you to their partnership, colleagues and friends. But if you don’t give them a strong reason to, they’re going to regress to what they know will return them capital. Predictability. And that comes in the form of traction. But I digress.

If Max Levchin or Phil Libin or Elon Musk or Justin Kan – pick your favorite serial entrepreneur with unicorn exits under their belt – wanted to raise for a new startup, no matter what it is or how early, people are gonna jump on the opportunity to regardless of how saturated the cap table is.

Let’s stand in the shoes of an investor for a second. Of which there are three main kinds of early investors.

  1. Angels
  2. Non-lead VCs and syndicate leads
  3. VCs who lead rounds

For individual angels, ownership targets don’t matter. They just want a piece of the action. In fact, multiple sources of signal and validation give them more confidence to invest. Especially if you’ve taken previous or current checks from your small handful of top tier VCs. These angels’ check sizes are negligible on the cap table, so they won’t end up crowding anyone else out.

On the other hand, notice how I bucketed non-lead VCs and syndicate leads into the same category. Why? These investors are writing bigger checks. They won’t price the round. And they move a lot faster if someone with a great track record is leading the round. Once again, ownership also doesn’t matter, but great co-investors do. As long as ownership targets don’t matter, the excuse of dilution is merely lip service. The story here is “I just need to get in the best deals, so I can raise my next fund from LPs.” Or “I need build my track record as an investor, so I can raise a fund one day.” I’m going to generalize here really quickly. While it doesn’t apply to every non-lead investor, it does apply to the vast majority. I dare say, 90% of them. These investors move on the combination of three levers:

  1. Great traction
  2. Great team,
  3. And great co-investors – the last of which is often the most important.

The more of the above levers you have as a founder, the faster you’ll get a check from the above individuals and institutions. Why do great co-investors matter so much? Outside of branding and social rapport, their investors – their LPs – also want to invest in these top deals led by these funds, but often can’t invest into these top-tier funds since everyone wants to get into a16z or Sequoia. In fact, for many of these top-tier funds, there’s a massive waitlist of LPs.

Finally, lead VCs. Ownership does matter. Really, this is the only audience you need to worry about when it comes to the topic of early dilution. While you as a founder should be dilution-preserving, sometimes, taking the capital (and subsequently, the dilution) is the best option. Maybe you really need something from an accelerator or an early investor that would be hard to get for you yourself. At that point, their capital becomes optimization capital. Early checks can get you from A to B faster, with less burn potentially, and with less detours.

So, the question you have to figure out if you take subsequent capital injections is that each time you dilute the cap table, did you reach an important milestone? What’s worrying is if you keep diluting your cap table without making meaningful progress each time. Think in the framework of milestone-based financing. Raise what you need, while giving you and your team an appropriate margin of error.

In closing

As a footnote, it’s also important to consider how much equity you as the founder will have left upon exit. If you’re going through large amounts of early dilution, you’re going to have very little upside unless you go through a massive exit. Unlike investors who invest in many businesses and have diversified their risk appetite, you, the founder, have put all your eggs in one basket. So if you care about the upside, you want to reduce dilution unless there is an absolute necessity to raise capital.

Photo by Lucas Benjamin 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!

Posted on

Three Types of Risk An Early-Stage Investor Takes

risk

From market risk to product risk to execution risk, I’ve written many a time the types of risks a founder takes, including here, here, and here. As well as shared that the first and foremost question founders need to answer is: What is the biggest risk of this business? Subsequently, is the person who can solve the biggest risk of this business in the room (or on the team slide)?

Over the weekend, I heard an incredible breakdown of the other side of the table. Rather than the founder, the three types of risks an investor takes. The same of which need to be addressed for LPs to invest. From Kanyi Maqubela on Venture Unlocked.

  1. Market risk as a function of ownership
  2. Judgment risk
  3. Win rate risk

Market risk as a function of ownership

If you’re investing in an consensus market – be it hot, growing, and is garnering a lot of attention, you don’t need a huge percentage. I mentioned before that every year there are only 20 companies that matter. And the goal of a great VC is to get into one of these 20 companies. Ownership doesn’t matter. Even 1% of a $10B outcome is a solid $100 million.

On the other hand, if you’re in a small or non-consensus market, you need a meaningful ownership to justify your bets. For the same $100 million return, you need to maintain 10% at the time of a unicorn exit.

Going back to economics 101, revenue is price multiplied by quantity. Revenue in this case is your returns, your DPI, or your TVPI. Price is the valuation of the business. Quantity is how much you own in that business. Valuation, as a function of market size, and percent ownership are inversely proportional to reach the same returns. The smaller the market, the more ownership matters. The bigger the market, the less it matters.

Judgment risk

At the top of the funnel, the job of any investor is to pick or to get picked. I’ll take the latter first. Getting picked is often far less risky. But far harder to get allocations for, especially if you’re a fund that has ownership targets, vis a vis the market risk above. At the same time, the larger your check size, the harder it is to squeeze into the round.

To generate alphas from picking, there are two ways:

  1. Get in early.
  2. Go to where everyone else said it’ll rain, but it didn’t. Do the opposite of what people do. That said, being in the non-consensus means you’ll strike out a lot and it’ll be hard to find support.

The question to ask yourself here is: What do you know that other investors are overlooking, underestimating, or altogether not seeing? And how did you reach that conclusion as a function of your experience and analysis?

As Kanyi said on the podcast, “We think we’ve got unusually good judgment and nobody else likes this, but we like it for reasons that are unfair.” The unfair part is key.

Win rate risk

Win rate risk breaks down to what unique advantage you, as an investor, bring to the table that will help the company win. In simpler terms, what is your value add? Of the businesses you say “yes” to, can you increase the number of those who win? As an early-stage investor – angel or VC, there are four main ways an investor can help founders:

  1. Access to downstream capital or capital from strategic investors
  2. Access to talent – How can you increase the output of the business?
  3. Sales pipeline – How can you help grow revenue directly?
  4. Strategy – Do you have unique insight into the industry, business model, product, GTM, or team management that will meaningfully move the business forward?

In closing

If you’re an investor, I hope you found the above as useful of a reframing as I did. If you’re a founder reading this, I often find it useful to stand in the shoes of your investors. And in understanding how your investors think, you can better formulate your pitch that’ll align your collective incentives.

The conversation around risk management, at the end of the day, is a conversation of prevention. A realm of prevention while useful to hedge your bets is a strategy to not lose. It’ll help your LPs find comfort in investing dollars into you. But to truly stand as a signal above the rest and to win, you have to look where other investors aren’t. The non-obvious. Specifically the non-obvious that’ll become obvious one day. And you have to do so consistently.

Photo by Matthew Sleeper 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!

Posted on

Where Does Implicit Gender Bias In The Startup World Come From

Last Thursday, I had an extremely thought-provoking conversation with an attorney-turned-investor. Out of the incredible array of topics our open-ended exploration on the topic of diversity – geographically and demographically – led us to, there was one thing in particular that I had to double click on.

She shared, “Men typically get asked promotion questions. ‘What does your upside look like?’ Whereas women and other underrepresented founders get asked prevention questions. ‘How do you prevent your startup from going out of business?’ And promotion questions begets more promotion questions. Similarly, prevention questions leads to more prevention questions. Founders who are typically asked prevention questions raise less capital than those who are asked promotion questions.”

I found that inextricably fascinating. I’ve never thought about investing through those lens before. It makes complete sense. The more an investor asks how are you not going to fail, the more they has convinced themselves this won’t be a good investment. On the flip side, the more an investor asks how awesome will you be, the more they’ve convinced themselves that this will be an investment worth their time.

And subsequently, I ended up reexamining the way I ask questions. I’ve never tracked the way I ask questions by demographic. But I fear that I may, in the past, have done something along the same veins.

When we closed out our conversation, she left me with one name: Dana Kanze. And well, if you know me, I had to look into her.

Lack of Venture Dollars

Dana Kanze is an assistant professor of organizational behavior over at London Business School. She wrote a paper titled We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding back in 2018 that won her the Academy of Management Journal’s Best Article of the Year award, which she inevitably did a TED talk on that I highly recommend checking out.

She cites in that research that “although women found 38% of US companies, they only get 2% of the venture funding.” While that metric is a few years old, recent trends echo the same notion. Despite the increase in conversations to include diversity at the table, in board rooms and as decision makers, Crunchbase found in a study back in August that women still only get 2.2% of venture funding, which is actually lower than any of the previous five years.

Source: Crunchbase

And despite larger round sizes, we don’t see a rise in round sizes to female-only and mixed-gender teams either.

Source: Crunchbase

Cynthia Franklin, director of entrepreneurship at Berkley’s Innovation Labs at NYU, did say, “The bets are being made, but they’re smaller.” Which accounts for the fact that 61% of total funding for female founders happens at the early stages. Frankly, it might be too early to tell. Nevertheless, Dana has a point.

Why female founders raise less capital

Originating from E. Tory Higgins‘ regulatory focus, Dana shares the bifurcation of questions that male and female founders get. Promotion and prevention questions, respectively. “A promotion focus is concerned with gains and emphasizes hopes, accomplishments, and advancement needs, while a prevention focus is concern with losses and emphasizes safety, responsibility, and security needs.”

After analyzing nearly 2,000 questions and answers asked at TechCrunch Disrupt to presenting founders, she found that investors often ask male founders promotion questions. And investors ask female founders prevention questions. Specifically, 67% of questions to males were promotion questions. And 66% to females were prevention ones.

Yet I found one notion Dana shared particularly fascinating. “All VCs displayed the same implicit gender bias manifested in the regulatory focus of the questions they posed to male versus female candidates.” That both female and male investors had the exact same implicit cognitive biases against females.

Promotion questions beget promotion answers, which beget more promotion questions, reinforcing favorable opinions. It becomes a virtuous feedback loop, which culminates often times in a “yes”. On the other hand, prevention questions beget prevention answers. Which leads to more prevention questions. This, subsequently, leads founders down a negative feedback loop, reinforcing loss-correlated opinions. When it came down to it, “startups who were asked predominantly promotion questions went on to raise seven times as much funding as those asked prevention questions.”

The silver lining, as Dana shares, is that if founders respond to prevention questions with promotion answers, they raise 14 times more funding than those who answer prevention with prevention. The lesson is reframe your answers positively, betting on the long term potential and vision. Or in Alex Sok‘s words, focus on a strategy to win rather than a strategy not to lose.

In closing

Investors invest in lines, not dots. And often times, VCs don’t realize they’re spending more time analyzing the y-intercept than the slope. And that mentality actualizes in the form of questions founders get.

As a founder, understand your investor intention – subconscious and conscious. Playing off of Matt Lerner‘s language/market fit, find your fundraising language/investor fit. Once you understand their intention, capture their attention. In a saturated market of information, attention is your audience’s scarcest resource. Frame the dialogue with a promotion focus to get your investors over the activation energy to book the next meeting.

As an investor, pay attention to your cognitive biases. Most of the time, and often the most detrimental, are the ones we don’t realize. If anything, this blogpost is me pinching myself to wake up.

Photo by Garrett Jackson 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!

Posted on

VCs Are Science Fiction, Not Non-Fiction Writers

science fiction, camera lens, city

With the crazy market we’re in today, VCs are frontloading their diligence. They’re having smarter conversations earlier. Before 2021, most investors would have intro conversations with founders before taking a deeper dive into the market to see if the opportunity is big enough. Nowadays, investors do most, if not all, their homework before they start conversations with founders. And when they’ve gotten a good understanding of the market and a more robust thesis, then:

  1. They go out finding and talking to the founders who are solving the problems and gaps in the market they know exist.
  2. They incubate their own companies that solve these same issues.

Subsequently, they are more exploratory than ever before. In frontloading their diligence, VCs have become more informed, if not better, predictors of not only where the market is today, but where the market is going to be tomorrow. They have a better grasp on the non-obvious. Or at the very minimum, have a much better understanding on the obvious, so that the boundaries of the non-obvious are pushed further. In turn, they can truly invest in the outliers. Outliers that are more than three standard deviations from the mean.

Startup ideas are often pushing the boundaries of our understanding of the world we live in. The team at Floodgate use an incredible breakdown to frame the amount of data that needs to be present to qualify the validity of a team and idea. “[W]e like to say some secrets are plausible, some are possible, and some are preposterous, all different types of insights. It matters what type it is because the type of team you need, the type of people you need to hire, the fundraising strategy, the risk profile, the amount of inflections that have to come together. All of those things vary, depending on the type of secret about future that you’re pursuing,” said Mike Maples Jr. recently on the Invest Like the Best podcast.

Science fiction is, by definition, preposterous. But so are the true outliers. And as any great investor knows, that’s where the greatest alphas are generated.

Preposterous ideas are backed by logic and insight

To quote PG from an essay he wrote earlier this year, “Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they’re proposed by reasonable domain experts. If the person proposing the idea is reasonable, then they know how implausible it sounds. And yet they’re proposing it anyway. That suggests they know something you don’t. And if they have deep domain expertise, that’s probably the source of it.

“Such ideas are not merely unsafe to dismiss, but disproportionately likely to be interesting.”

But no matter how implausible your startup idea sounds, there still has to fundamentally be an audience. And while it may not be obvious today, the goal is that it will be obvious one day. Frankly, if it’s forever non-obvious and forever in the non-consensus, you just can’t make any money there. If Airbnb stuck only with the convention industry or Uber only with the black cab, or Shopify only with snowboards, they would never have the ability to be as big as they are today.

Shopify’s Alex Danco has this great line in his essay World Building. “If you can create a world that’s more clear and compelling than the complex, ambiguous real world, then people will be attracted to that story.”

As investors, we have to start from first principle thinking. Investors, in frontloading their diligence, find the answers to “why now” and “why this”. All they’re looking for after is the “why you.” The further down the line towards preposterous science fiction you are, the more you need to sell investors on “why you”.

Idea PlausibilityKey QuestionContext
PlausibleWhy this?Most people can see why this idea should exist. Because of the consensus, you’re competing in a saturated market of similar, if not the same ideas. Therefore, to stand out, you must show traction.
PossibleWhy now?It makes sense that this idea should exist, but it’s unclear whether there’s a market for this. To stand out, you have to convince investors on the market, and subsequently the market timing.
PreposterousWhy you?Hands down, this is just crazy. You’re clearly in the non-consensus. Now the only way you can redeem yourself is if you have incredible insight and foresight. What’s the future you see and why does that make sense given the information we have today? If an investor doesn’t walk out of that meeting having been mind-blown on your lesson from the future, you’ve got no chance.

And when answering the “why you”, it’s not just on your background and years of experience, but your expertise. As Sequoia’s Roelof Botha puts it, “So what was the insight? What is the problem that you’re addressing? And why is your solution compelling and unique in addressing that problem? Even if it’s compelling, if it’s not unique there’re going to be lots of competitors. And then you’re probably going to struggle to build a distinctive business. So it’s that unique and compelling value proposition that I look for.” So before anything else, the best investors, like Roelof, “think of value creation before value capture.”

In order to find that earned secret – that compelling and unique secret sauce – in the first place, you have to love what you’re working. And not just passionate, but obsessive. The problem you’re trying to solve keeps you up at night. You have to be more of a “missionary” than a “mercenary” as Roelof would put it. If you’re truly a missionary, even the most preposterous idea will sound plausible if you can break down why it truly matters.

The Regulatory Dilemma

The most important and arguably the hardest part about writing science fiction – and this is equally true for funders as it is for founders – is that we have to self-regulate. Regulation will always be a lagging indicator of technological development. Regulators won’t move until there’s enough momentum.

But, as we learned in high school physics, with every action, you need an equal and opposite reaction. The hard about momentum, and I imagine this’ll only be more true in a decentralized world, is that it’s second order derivative is positive. In other words, it’ll only get faster and faster. On the other hand, regulation follows the afterimage of innovation. It sees where the puck was or, at best, is at, but not, until much later, where the puck is going. And truth be told, innovation will eventually plateau, as it follows a rather step-wise function, as I’ve written before. And when it does, regulation will catch up.

S-Curves
Source: Tim Urban’s “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence“

So, in the high school physics example of Newtonian physics, the reaction, in this case, regulation, needs to be equal and opposite force comparative to where the puck will be. But as you’ve guessed, that will stop innovation. And I don’t think the vast majority of the world would want that. Progress fuels the human race.

Science fiction needs rules

Brandon Sanderson, one of my favorite fictional authors, has these three laws that govern great worldbuilding. To which, he coined as Sanderson’s Three Laws. The second of which reads:

Limitations > powers

In fantastical worlds, we are often used to how awesome things can be. Making the impossible possible. But as Brandon explains, “the truth is that it’s virtually impossible to come up with a magical effect that nobody else has thought of. Originality, I’ve seen, doesn’t come so often with the power itself as with the limitation.”

As the infamous line goes, “with great power comes great responsibility.” If you end up having access to every single person on this planet’s data, what makes you a company worth betting on isn’t your power, but how you use that power. How you self-regulate in using that power. Take, Open AI’s GPT-3. Instead of sharing the entire AI with the world, they limited that power to prevent malicious actors through an API.

What does self-regulation mean? Simply, aligning incentives so that all stakeholders win. When you have two people, you have a 2×2 matrix to account for four possible outcomes. There’s a situation where both people win, two situations where one wins, one loses, and another where both lose. Needless to say, we want to be maximizing for win-win situations.

As Balaji Srinivasan said on the Tim Ferriss Show recently, “When you have three people, it’s a 2x2x2, because there’s eight outcomes, win/lose times win/lose times win/lose. It’s a Cartesian product.. […] When you have N people, it’s two by two by two to the Nth power. It’s like this hypercube it as it gets very complicated.” Subsequently, the greater the organization, the more stakeholders there, and the harder it is to account for the “win” to the Nth power outcome. Nevertheless, it’s important for founder and funders at the frontier of technological and economic development to consider such outcomes. And at what point is there a divergence of incentives.

There’s usually a strict alignment in the value creation days. But as the business grows and evolves to worry more about value capture, there needs to be a recalibration of growth and an ownership of responsibility as the architects who willed a seemingly preposterous idea into existence.

In closing

We live in a day in age that is crazier than ever before. To use Tim Urban’s analogy, if you brought someone from 1750 to today and had them just observe the world we live in, that person will not only be mind-blown, but literally, die of shock. To get the same effect of having someone die of shock in 1750, you can’t just bring someone from 1500, but you’d have to go further back till 12,000 BC. The world is changing exponentially. And new technologies further that. Who knows? In 50 years, we in 2021, might die of shock from what the world will have become.

And rightly because of such velocity, innovators – founders and investors – will have to lead the charge not only technically and economically, but also morally.

Photo by Octavian Rosca 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!

Posted on

We’re More Similar Than You Think: The Founder and the Funder

Last weekend, I tuned into Samir Kaji’s recent episode with LPs (limited partners). Not once, but twice. And as you might’ve guessed, was damn inspired by their conversation. The more I listened to it, the more synonymous the paths of a founder and an emerging manager (EM) seemed to be. Or what I call the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial VC. If you’re a regular here, you’ll know I love writing about the intellectual horsepower of both sides of the table. But in this post, rather than delineating the two, I’d love to share how similar founders and funders actually are.

Surprises suck, but pivots are okay

On Samir’s podcast, Guy Perelmuter of GRIDS Capital voiced: “There’s only one thing that LPs hate more than losing money. It’s surprises.”

Be transparent. Be clear on your expectations, and steer clear of left hooks. As a fund, something I’ve heard a number of GPs and LPs say is don’t deviate on your thesis. LPs invest in you for your strategy. But as soon as you deviate from that initial strategy, you become increasingly unpredictable.

Take, for example, you go to a steakhouse and order steak. But they serve you sushi instead. If it’s not good sushi, obviously you’re not coming back. Not only did they surprise you, but it was also a poorly executed one. This goes in the column of one-star Yelp reviews.

But, say it was great sushi. You had one great dining experience and you’re a happy customer. Some time in the future, you think of getting sushi again. And you remember what a great experience you had at the steakhouse. So you go back to the steakhouse, only to realize it was a fluke and the sushi wasn’t like the last time you’ve had it. Your inability to replicate surprises scares LPs, which limits your ability to raise a subsequent fund.

Nevertheless, these days markets are changing quickly. And sometimes your initial thesis may not serve you as well in today’s market as it did yesterday. As John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian economics, once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” But, if you do need to deviate, communicate it clearly, formulate a new strategy, and preemptively tell your LPs. Then at that point, it’s no longer a surprise, but a strategy. Great examples include:

  • Accelerators making discovery checks part of their core business
    • Note: LPs historically dislike GPs (general partners) writing discovery checks because they’re:
      1. Not investing via their fund strategy (i.e. typically ad hoc),
      2. Require less diligence and therefore less conviction,
      3. Send negative signals to other investors if the GP doesn’t do a follow-on check at the next round, and
      4. Because of (2) and (3) are usually cash sinks.
  • The On Deck Accelerator (ODX) – Backing founders at the earliest stages (i.e. pre-product, pre-revenue) as long as they have deep conviction in their own business.
  • The recent announcement of The Sequoia Fund – a systematic and predictable strategy to invest in not just startups, but venture funds backing incredible founders as well.

The same holds for founders. Don’t get me wrong. Startups pivot. And they should. Mike Maples Jr., founder of one of the best performing seed stage venture firms, recently shared: “Most investors are going to look at what the company does and evaluate the business for what it is, but 90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.” And just like fund managers, clearly convey why, how, and what you’re pivoting to to your shareholders. It’s always better to preempt these conversations than leave these as surprises. Often times, you’ll find your investors, having seen as many pivots as they have and knowing that is the name of the game, can offer you much more feedback and insight than you imagined for your pivot.

Optimize for the “Oh shit! moment*

In every conversation, your goal should just be to teach your investors something. An earned secret. A unique insight. What do you know that other people don’t, overlook, or underestimate? What do you know that other people would find it very hard to learn organically? This is especially true for consensus ideas – or obvious ideas. The best obvious products may seem obvious at first glance, but usually have non-obvious insights to back them up.

If you’re a fund, what is your insight – your access point – that’ll win you an asymmetric upside?

I’ve talked to too many founders and EMs that claim to be experts with X years of experience in a particular field. Yet after 30 minutes, I realized I learned nothing from them. I realize that for half an hour straight I ended up with a prep book full of buzzwords and vague jargon that would rival the SAT vocab section. But let’s be real. The SAT doesn’t get me excited to want to retake the test.

The best founders and funders out there are able to break down deep, technical, esoteric, and sometimes crazy concepts into simple bitesize ideas. The equivalent of taking the whole universe and simplifying it to its origin. A single point. The Big Bang.

I’ve also realized over the years that the world’s smartest teachers – and when you’re trying to convince people to join you in a non-obvious vision, you are teaching – lead with analogies. And the best analogies lead investors to that “Oh Shit! moment.”

COVID made capital cheaper

Equally true for startups and funds. Capital is digital. If you think about capital in the frame of investor acquisition cost, you no longer have to travel to your investors to pitch to them. This means you can take far more meetings than before. Less travel and more meetings mean your investor acquisition cost goes down.

Founders no longer have to book a week to Sand Hill Road or South Park to have introductory conversations with investors. Only to have 80-90% turn down a second conversation. This becomes even more costly the earlier you are in your startup journey. You have to have a lot more first conversations as a pre-seed founder than you do as a founder raising an A. At the same time, you have many more options for raising capital today: accelerators, syndicates, equity crowdfunding, and roll-up vehicles (RUVs). While it’s not that these resources didn’t exist before COVID, the pandemic made it much more apparent that VC money didn’t have to be the only way to raise capital. And that you can also leverage speed and your community to help you grow.

Similarly, EMs no longer have to travel across the states to talk to institutional capital. Even more so, as an EM, you’re most likely raising from individual investors. Raising a rolling fund or a 506c lets you generally solicit investments, where you couldn’t with a 506b. Subsequently, Twitter and having a community became your superpower. Mac at Rarebreed, Packy’s Not Boring Fund I, and Harry at 20VC all raised during the time of COVID, leveraging the power of their following and community to do so.

Keep it simple

“There’s no favorable wind for the sailor who doesn’t know where to go.” – Seneca

Two Saturdays ago, I caught up with my ridiculously smart engineer friend from college – “Fred”. We were reminiscing about the “good ol’ days” when we first started punching above our weight class. Particularly in regards to cold outreaches to individuals we really admired. While I was an operator at two startups that shaped my entrepreneurial career, I spent many a night struggling on how to best position our products in the market. Many hours of copy and rephrasing and reframing. In both we were competing against the existing saturation of information and solutions on the market. How do we tell our customers and investors the reason we’re awesome is because of A and B and C, and also D?

Most people, friends, customers, and investors didn’t understand the value we thought we were obviously conveying. And subsequently, we were rejected more often than I would have liked to admit. In the early days, we didn’t lose on price nor on quality, but on brand and messaging. And while we thought and strove to prove we were better in areas that mattered, both startups eventually ended up having exceedingly simple one-liners.

On the other hand, “Fred” was working on something related to liquid fuel and cold fires. Something extremely technical. But he was able to win proportionally more yes’s than I was able to. When I asked him how, he said it was simple. “We’re putting a rocket into space. That’s it. And that’s really exciting.”

I made something extraordinarily simple into something extraordinarily complex. In all honesty, I sounded really, really smart. And I felt like I was the shit. Except no one else did. “Fred” took something extraordinarily complex and made it extraordinarily simple. He didn’t sound as smart. But celebrities, sponsors, companies – people just got it.

The true value of a product is usually exceedingly simple. The fallacy of including a Rolodex of esoteric jargon comes in two-fold. Either you’re trying to sound smarter than you actually are. Or you’re trying to cram too many things in too little space. As economist Herbert A. Simon said, “A wealth of information creates of poverty of attention.”

In closing

Whether you’re an entrepreneur or an emerging manager, you’re swinging for the fences. I was chatting with an investor yesterday who had an incredible analogy. “It’s like a pinball machine. The ball goes up, and you never know how it’ll fall down. You don’t know how many bounce pads and flippers it will hit. You don’t know how many points you’re going to get. But no matter how many points you’ll get, the ball has to go up first.” Similarly, whether you start a company or a fund, you have to step up to the plate to bat. You don’t know what the upside will be. You don’t know if you’re going to return your investors 2x, 5x or a 100x.

You’re taking an asymmetric bet on the compelling future you bring. Your valuation as a startup is not how much your startups is worth, which is why the 409a valuation is always different from the valuation your investors set for you. Your valuation is a bet your investors made that you will be as big as the major players in the market. If you’re valued at $10M today, your investors are saying you are 10 in 1000, or a 1% chance, to be a unicorn. And a 0.1% chance to be a decacorn.

Valuations might seem crazy today. VC firms are also raising larger and larger funds, which lead many to be skeptical on their ability to return capital. In fairness, most funds will return a modest 2-3x over their lifetime, if at all. Most startups are and will be overvalued. On the same token, the best ones, despite their crazy price, are still undervalued. Imagine if you were an investor who could invest in Facebook’s then-unicorn valuation. You’d have made a lot of money. But we’re in an optimistic market.

At the end of the day, both parties are just managing someone else’s capital. And as such, through a fiduciary responsibility, in that regard, both are cut from the same cloth.

Photo by Luke Leung 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!

Posted on

#unfiltered #59 I Am The Worst Marketer Out There

billboard, marketing

Last week, after a lovely conversation with a startup operator, he asked if there was anything he could help me with. I defaulted to my usual. As I’m working on being a better writer, I asked him if time permitted, could he give me some feedback on my writing. For the sake of this blogpost, let’s call him “Alex.”

While I expected just general feedback on my style of content delivery, Alex gave me a full audit of this blog. He told me I should focus, until I’ve built up an audience. He also said that I should find my top 20 blogposts, figure which category they fall under and narrow down by writing more of those. On the same token, he recommended I reference Hubspot’s “topic clusters.” Which is an amazing piece about how to nail SEO in 2021, if I say so myself. Incredibly prescient. And incredibly true.

He also recommended I use Medium or Substack over my antiquated design of a website. And forgo the header image. Which you might have noticed I haven’t (yet).

The thing is… he’s 100% right. I’ve done little right, in the sense of marketing and branding. In fact, in the Google search engines, I probably am a mess to categorize, which means I exist in no category. Even in my own words, focusing on everything means focusing on nothing. While at the time of writing this post, a good majority of my content is based in startups and venture capital. If I focused on better branding, I would have doubled down on fundraising, or marketing. Or social experiments. But I haven’t.

Truth be told, I’ve stunted my growth, or my brand’s growth, by intentionally choosing otherwise. In turn, there are only two questions I optimize for in this blog.

  1. Will this make David from yesterday smarter?
  2. Is this still fun?

I started this blog writing for an audience of one. For the person I was yesterday. And if I know the me from yesterday would love it, then I have at least one happy customer.

I don’t write this blog for profit. This blog is my de-stressor. It is my entertainer, yet also my coach. It is my confidant. And it is just fun. The process of learning and thinking through writing – refining my thoughts – gets me really excited. I don’t want to end up dragging my feet through mud. Funnily enough, despite being an extremely, and I stress the former word, small blogger, I’ve had the occasional brand reach out to sponsor content. As you might have guessed, I said “no” to everyone so far. Either I didn’t believe that the product would make the world a better place or that I just didn’t get their product. This is not to say I won’t ever take on sponsors, but I just want to be really excited about it.

I’ve also had a number of folks reach out wanting to guest post on this blog, to which I’ve also said “no” to everyone so far. Because (a) it makes me lazy and defeats the purpose of me writing to think, and (b) I haven’t learned anything from them yet.

And because I write from a motivation of “psychic gratification,” borrowing the phrasing Tim Ferriss used in his recent episode, my writing is “very me,” to borrow the phrasing of readers and friends who’ve talked to me face-to-face before. I feel I can be genuine. And I can be unapologetically curious. I can learn what I want when I want how I want. I love each topic I write about, at least in the moment my pen touches paper. It excites me. It inspires me. And it pulls me with a force I want more of.

As a product of me being me, every so often, a random essay sees a momentary breath of fame. On average, it happens every 7th or 8th blogpost. I have these random spikes of several hundred views within 24 hours every so often. And don’t get me wrong. I would be lying if I said that wasn’t gratifying as well. Other times, some essays are far more perennial and see anywhere between two and ten views a day – almost every day. There are the ones that never make it onto the stage. And live somewhere in a virtual public graveyard.

I’m publicly logging my thought process here as a bookmark for future reference. And so that my future self can’t go back in time and write off my thought processes now in a grand motion of revisionist’s history.

I also know that this won’t be the last time I revisit this topic. My future mental model might differ greatly from what it is now. As John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian economics, once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” But it might stay the same. Who knows?

I’ll keep you updated.

Photo by Bram Naus on Unsplash

#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!

Proudly powered by WordPress