I used to send intro requests for as many people as I humanly could. Admittedly, a sillier, more naive me a long, long while back.
The most number of intro requests came from people I did not know. Usually founders. Given that I had just entered the venture world at that time, I was labeled as an investor or, at least, someone, who was connected to the investor world based on my LinkedIn. I also had a habit of adding anyone who reached out to connect (unless they were obviously spam). At the time, I thought, “What was the downside?”
Spoiler alert: There is a downside.
They would try to tell me about their startup. Then asked if I would invest. I’d say no, so they’d ask if I knew anyone who might be interested. A fair question. And a natural lead-in, had I offered any names, to: Can you intro me to them?
In trying to be a good Samaritan, I’d ask for the deck and blurb in a forwardable email. Half of them would. Half of them would say something to the effect of “You know enough about my company already; you write the email.”
And my dumbass, fearing to offend, would go out of my way to write intros for strangers who didn’t even bother to write anything themselves. So, I’d send that email to a friend or colleague in the industry. “You interested?” along with the email they sent me. And if they didn’t, just their LinkedIn, website, and/or deck.
Naturally, most would say no. Some would ask for my take on them. To which, I’d share that I didn’t know much about them outside of the obvious. I wasn’t investing myself, but they wanted to meet. 10-20% of the time, some friends and colleagues would say yes. (To this day, I wonder if it was just their policy to say yes to all warm intros or they were trying to be considerate of me. Some, over the years, I’ve asked. As such, it’s all the above.)
Over time, I would just include “I’m not investing. Only met them once.” in addition to “You interested?” in those emails.
Then one day, and I don’t remember when I first thought to myself, why the hell am I putting my reputation on the line each time for someone I don’t know and personally haven’t bothered to dig deeper only to write an email to show I also didn’t care about them? Why would I put myself through that? It had also become emotionally taxing to me to go through all those actions only to disappoint the founders (and myself) 99% of the time. Not only would I feel bad (often delayed disappointment and resent at myself), but I also wasn’t doing anyone any good.
So I stopped. Full stop. Period.
Around the early innings of the pandemic when it felt like there was a greater influx of deals and noise.
My rule became, and still is, unless:
I’m investing/invested
I’m advising (investing my time)
I’ve worked with you before and I would instantly jump at the chance to work together again
I’ve hired you
I’ve known you for so long and to a level we’ve become good friends and I feel like you’re a good reflection of the people I choose to surround myself with (that does not mean you have to be successful, but that you need to have good values and the discipline to pursue them)
You are someone I care about
Or someone, that has wowed me in a fundamental way.
AND I know the other person who you want an intro to well enough…
I’m not writing any intros.
I still read every email I get. Cold or not. And I still respond to every warm email I get. But for my fragile heart that can’t stand disappointing more people and the volume of emails I get, I’m not responding to any emails that look like they’re templated, AI-generated, or written without care. So I can focus on the ones that matter.
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.
“19% of our GDP attracts about 55% of capital inflows, aka venture activity, and 81% is underinvested.” – Vijen Patel
We’re back with one of our crowd favorite formats, where we bring on one LP and one GP, and share why that LP invested in this GP. This time, we have Grady Buchanan, co-founder of NVNG, and Vijen Patel, founding partner of The 81 Collection.
Vijen Patel is an entrepreneur and investor. He founded The 81 Collection, a high growth equity firm in boring industries. Previously, he founded what is now known as Tide Cleaners. He bootstrapped what eventually became the largest dry cleaner in the country (1,200 locations) before selling to Procter & Gamble in 2018. Before Tide Cleaners, he worked in private equity, McKinsey & Company, and Goldman Sachs. He lives in Chicago with his wife and two kids.
Grady Buchanan is an institutional and risk-based asset allocation professional with a passion for bringing venture capital to those who have the interest. He founded NVNG in late 2019 and oversees investment strategies, the firm’s venture fund pipeline, manager sourcing, due diligence, and external events. Before launching NVNG, Grady worked with the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation’s (WARF) $3B investment portfolio, focused on private equity and venture capital initiatives, including fund diligence, investment strategy, and policy. Grady is based in Milwaukee, WI.
[00:00] Intro [02:41] The pressure of quitting a PE job for dry cleaning [05:09] Vijen’s self talk as a founder [06:50] How to overcome doubt [09:00] How Vijen learned customer success [10:35] What did Pressbox become? [12:41] The dichotomy between society’s needs and what gets funded [14:19] How did Grady go from selling pancakes to being an LP? [23:51] Why did Grady think he bombed the LP interview? [29:15] What is The 81 Collection? [32:22] How did Vijen meet Grady? [34:39] How is Vijen fluent in Spanish? [36:40] How did Grady meet Vijen? [42:21] How did Grady underwrite 81 Collection? [44:44] What about Vijen made Grady hesitate? [48:35] What’s one thing about 81 Collection that could’ve gone wrong? [50:33] The 3 things that create alpha [52:42] Why does NVNG have the coolest fund of funds’ names? [53:47] The legacy Grady plans to leave behind [56:06] The legacy Vijen plans to leave behind
“I wrote down everyone’s concerns, and I just sat on it. A lot of the founders we like to work with, the ones who we really love are the ones who take it in and listen, write it down, then take some time to synthesize everything and then they’ll act with conviction. ‘Why is this stupid? Tell me why. Let’s go deeper and deeper.’ And oftentimes these reasons are very rational and slowly over time, what if I derisk this by doing that?” – Vijen Patel
“19% of our GDP attracts about 55% of capital inflows, aka venture activity, and 81% is underinvested.” – Vijen Patel
“There’s this crazy stat we recall often: the 50 richest families on Earth, who often build in this 81, they’ve held, on average, their business for 44 years.” – Vijen Patel
“We invest in only amazing managers; we will not invest in every amazing manager.” – Grady Buchanan
“Alpha’s three things: information asymmetry, access, and, actually, taxes.” – Vijen Patel
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.
Pattern Ventures’ John Felix joins David on El Pack to answer your questions on how to build a venture capital fund. We bring on three GPs at VC funds to ask three different questions.
Atria Ventures’ Chris Leiter asked about the common mistakes LPs make when underwriting solo GPs.
Garuda Ventures’ Arpan Punyani asked how quickly do most LPs get to conviction. First 10 minutes? First meeting?
Geek Ventures’ Ihar Mahaniok asked how LPs evaluate Fund IIs when the Fund I has no distributions.
John Felix is a General Partner and Head of Research at Pattern Ventures, a specialized fund of funds focused on backing the best small venture managers. Prior to Pattern, John served as the Head of Emerging Managers at Allocate where he was an early employee and helped to launch Allocate’s emerging manager platform. Prior to joining Allocate, John worked at Bowdoin College’s Office of Investments, helping to invest the $2.8 billion endowment across all asset classes, focusing on venture capital. Prior to Bowdoin, John worked at Edgehill Endowment Partners, a $2 billion boutique OCIO. At Edgehill, John was responsible for building out the firm’s venture capital portfolio, sourcing and leading all venture fund commitments. John started his career at Washington University’s Investment Management Company as a member of the small investment team responsible for managing the university’s now $13 billion endowment. John graduated from Washington University in St. Louis with a BSBA in Finance and Entrepreneurship.
[00:00] Intro [02:20] What’s changed for John since our last recording? [04:08] What is Pattern Ventures? [06:22] Why is Pattern’s cutoff for funds they’re interested in at $50M? [07:32] How does John define noise? [09:34] Do non-sexy industries require larger seed funds? [11:36] How does think about overlap in the underlying startup portfolio? [15:22] Enter Chris and Atria Ventures [18:03] Should solo GPs scale past themselves? [24:14] Partnerships have more risk than solo GPs [26:10] How does John think about spinouts from large VC firms? [27:53] The psychology of being a partner at a big firm versus your own [30:38] Enter Arpan and Garuda Ventures [31:26] Geoguessr [32:52] Garuda’s podcast, Brick by Brick [34:52] How quickly do LPs know they intuitively want to invest in a GP? [38:02] The analogy to what GPs do to founders [43:50] There are many ways to make money [44:57] Quantifying intuition as an investor [49:12] Enter Ihar and Geek Ventures [49:36] How do LPs evaluate Fund IIs when Fund I has no DPI? [53:01] How do you know if a GP did what they said they were going to do? [54:47] What if the key value driver is off-thesis, but everything else is on-thesis? [56:21] Is signing 1 uncapped SAFE per fund reasonable? [57:14] What is the allowable percentage of exceptions in a fund? [1:01:32] Good vs bad exceptions [1:06:06] Reminders that we are in the good old days [1:07:31] John’s last piece of advice to new allocators [1:09:00] David’s favorite moment from John’s last episode
“In life, it’s always easy to justify ‘why now’ is not the right time. I think it’s hard to justify ‘why now’ is the right time to do something.” – John Felix
“We love investing in things that are contrarian and non-consensus, but there has to be a path to becoming consensus because something can’t remain non-consensus forever. There has to be a catalyst that the market eventually realizes this or else the company’s not going to be able to raise venture capital. It’s not going to be able to sustain it and continue to grow and survive.” – John Felix
“The type of spinouts we want to back are the people who are successful in spite of working at the big brand, not because they worked at the big brand.” – John Felix
“You need to earn the right to start your new firm to do your own thing. I don’t think enough people realize that.” – John Felix
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.
A while back, my friend Augustine, CEO and founder of Digify, asked me to write something for his company, Digify’s blog, about how I think about maintaining relationships between fundraising cycles when I was still an investor relations professional. As such, I wrote a mini two-part series on the frameworks and tactics I use to maintain LP relationships. Been given the liberty to cross-post on this humble blog of mine, in hopes that it helps any emerging managers or IR professionals here.
Voila, two of two! The first one you can find here (also linked below).
Author’s note: My promise to you is that we’ll share advice you’ve likely never heard before. By the time you get to the end of this article, if you’re intimidated, then we’ll have done our job. Because that’s just how much it takes to fight in the same arena as people I’ve personally admired over the years and work to emulate and iterate daily. That said, this won’t be comprehensive, but a compilation of N of 1 practices that hopefully serve as tools in your toolkit. As such, we will be separating this piece into Part 1 and 2. The first of which is about overarching frameworks that govern how I think about managing relationships. The second of which focuses on tactical elements governed by the initial frameworks brought up.
It’s easy to stay high-level and strategic. I won’t. I personally find it helpful to have tactical examples on how to execute frameworks on LP relationship management. As your mileage may vary, the below will hopefully serve as tools for the toolkit, as opposed to Commandments or the Constitution for investor relations practices.
Tactic 1: Co-create
In general, people who help create a product have more mental and emotional buy-in to the continued success of said product. It’s why influencers leverage their fanbase to generate new ideas for content. It’s why laws and propositions are voted on. It’s why your parents asked what you wanted for dinner. It’s why, if you’re a junior team member and want budget and resources for your project, you ask for feedback from leadership (often). While not every LP wants to be intimately involved in the day-to-day, and even if they don’t end up helping, it still goes a long way when you ask for their feedback and advice for major firm decisions, regardless of whether they’re on the LPAC or not. Building strong LP relationships requires making them feel like true partners in the decision-making process. They want to be involved in:
Hiring/promoting a new partner or GP
Pivoting or expanding fund strategy
Increasing the length of the deployment period or fund term
Generating early DPI
Breaking a partnership
LPs want to hear news before they become news. And if time and expertise allows, they’d like to write the press release with you.
In addition, if you have the bandwidth and resources, host events with them on topic areas they’re interested in. Even if it’s a small gathering of four to six people, it’s the intentionality and the willingness that counts.
Tactic 2: Follow up without asks, often and thoughtfully
I think a lot about Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve. Effectively, how long does it take someone to forget new information and as a function, how often do you need to remind someone for them to retain memory of that new piece of information? Within an hour, the average person forgets half of what they learned. Within 24 hours, the average person forgets 70% of it. And within a week, they forget 90%. I won’t get too technical here, but if you are interested in learning more, I highly recommend reading this paper: Murre and Dros’ Replication and Analysis of Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve.
And so, in theory, every time someone’s memory of you, of your thesis, or of your firm drops below 90% memory retention, you should remind them. Rough intervals of which are within minutes, within 2 hours, within a day, within a week, within 30 days, and so on. In practice, after you catch up with an LP, text them a note saying that you’ll follow up within the day. And yes, texts are often far more effective in maintaining relationships with LPs than emails. Emails are read by other team members and often lost in inboxes. The only exception to this rule is if you or your LP is an RIA, and requires all communication to be archived, including text.
Outside of scheduled catchups, spend a lot of time tracking people’s hobbies and interests in your CRM, and sending LPs an article, video, interview or insight that reminded you of them or that you think they’d genuinely appreciate; it goes a long way. Oh, and sending thank you notes more often than you think you need to, especially unprompted ones, really helps cement relationships. Over time, this will become a habit. Here’s an example of an email I send often:
Hey [name],
Read this article [link article] this morning as I was grabbing my morning coffee and it reminded me of our conversation half a year back on [insert topic you were talking about].
One of my favorite lines from the piece was [insert quote from the article] – something I thought you would really get a kick out of.
I know you’re busy, so there’s no need to reply to this email, but I want to send this your way in case it’s interesting for you, as well as send you good vibes on this beautiful Tuesday.
Keep staying awesome,
David
Two things here:
You do not have to write like me.
Telling people that they don’t have to reply is more likely to result in a reply. Works for me 80-90% of the time when sending to a warm connection. Though, your mileage may vary.
When I had Felipe Valencia from Veronorte on my podcast, he mentioned that he brought Colombian coffee for GPs whenever he visited the States. I also know of IR people and GPs who do the same for LPs. And vice versa from LPs to Heads of IR and GPs, especially from our Asian counterparts, where gifting culture is more common. Do note though that if your LP is from a public institution—sovereign wealth fund, pension, endowment, or sometimes, even a large corporation—individuals are not allowed to accept gifts more than $50, or sometimes none at all.
“Going to see accounts before budgets are set helps get your brand and your story in the mind of the budget setter. In the case of the US, budgets are set in January and July, depending on the fiscal year. In the case of Japan, budgets are set at the end of March, early April. To get into the budget for Tokyo, you gotta be working with the client in the fall to get them ready to do it for the next fiscal year. [For] Korea, the budgets are set in January, but they don’t really get executed until the first of April. So there’s time in there where you can work on those things. The same thing is true with Europe. A lot of budgets are mid-year. So you develop some understanding of patterns. You need to give yourself, for better or worse if you’re raising money, two to three years of relationship-building with clients.”
Knowing the timing of when to see who is important, especially these days when you’re required to meet and build relationships across the world. Strategic timing can make or break an LP relationship, particularly when it comes to securing allocations.
While the above are usually for pensions, corporates and sovereign wealth funds, endowments, foundations, and large family offices all have recurring cycles. And meeting a few months before the ball has to roll can mean the difference between you being a line item somewhere and being on top of the docket.
Tactic 4: The 11-star experiences
I first learned of this when tuning into a Reid Hoffman and Brian Chesky interview, which I highly recommend. It was further reinforced as I spent more time learning from people in the hospitality and culinary world.
To summarize, everyone knows what a 1- to 5-star experience looks and feels like. But when everyone is optimizing on a 5-point scale, to outcompete others, you must compete on a scale they have yet to conceptualize. And so a five out of five experience is one where you leave happy and content enough to leave a glowing review because all the boxes were checked. Everything in your ideal vacation, retreat, or dining experience was fulfilled. So… if that’s the new baseline, then what does a six out of five experience look like?
Maybe that’s sending a limo to pick someone up at the airport, so they don’t have to find their own way to the establishment. That could also be finding your guest’s favorite bottle of champagne and having it ready when they enter your premises.
So, if that’s a six out of five, what does a seven out of five look like? You’ve pre-booked everything your guest is interested in before they show up and without them having to lift a finger. Or you learned that on their entire NY trip, your diners never had the chance to try an original New York hot dog from a street vendor, so you replace one course of the menu just so that they can try it. (True story. Would highly recommend reading Will Guidara’s Unreasonable Hospitality.)
So, if that’s a seven-star experience, what does an eight look like? What about a nine-star? 10-star? 11-star?
At some point, the stakes get quite insane. Meeting their role model from the history books. Using time travel or teleportation devices. Meeting aliens. But trust me, if competitive sports taught me anything, it’s that it’s good to envision the impossible as possible. And, the most important part to envision in this entire exercise is the genuine, and unstoppable smile that appears.
So what does this look like in practice? I cannot list everything out there, because it’s 1. not possible, and 2. if I can spell out a true 7- or 8-star experience, it’s generalizable. And if it is, it won’t feel special. That said, let me list out some I’ve done in the past that hopefully serve as inspiration. Caveat, I’m a Bay Area native, and I still live in the Bay Area.
An LP tells me they’re coming to visit the Bay. I send them a suggested itinerary based on the number of days they’re here, which balances both work and some under-the-radar touristy things. On top of that, I send hotels I suggest, restaurants I recommend, and more. All of which I offer to call on their behalf because I know the staff there and I might be able to get them a discounted rate or an automatic upgrade.
If I recommend a restaurant, and they agree to host a meeting there or just to try it out, I call the restaurant, tell them that they’re really important people to me (can do so if I’m a regular patron there already), and on top of that, I ask them to give the guests a kitchen tour.
I ask a local chocolatier to custom make some bonbons for me that are inspired by the individuals visiting, that I give to the LPs when I meet them in person.
If it’s a rush order, I call one of the long-established fortune cookie shops in San Francisco for them to do a custom order and write custom fortunes inside each fortune cookie. And inside each fortune is a fun fact about each person I’ve introduced them to meet while they’re here.
When it comes to intros, 70% of my intros will be relevant to their business interests. Startups. VCs. Other LPs. 20% of my intros are my recommendation of who they should meet but might not know they should. 10% are 1-2 people I think extremely highly of who are outside of technology and startups, but will offer a fascinating perspective to the world. A YouTuber with millions of subscribers. A legendary restaurateur. A lead game designer. An author. A Nobel prize winning professor. Naturally, I do the last selectively. My job is also to protect their bandwidth. For the last set of intros, I also don’t take intro requests.
All-in-all, LPs, like the rest of us, are human. We’re emotional creatures. We love stories. We are naturally curious. We love wonder. Their job doesn’t always allow for them to be, especially with tons of back-to-back diligence meetings, conversations with stakeholders, and so on. So it makes me personally really happy when I can balance suspense and surprise when I help them craft trips to the Bay.
In closing
These are just a few strategies and tactics among many. The goal with this piece was never to be exhaustive, but to inspire possibilities and your favorite practices. And if you’re willing, I, as well as the Digify team, are always all ears about practices you’ve come to appreciate and build into your own routine. Until the next time, keep staying awesome!
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, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
“It’s not the probability; it’s the consequence. It’s not the probability when something goes wrong. It’s the consequence when it goes wrong.” – Wendy Li
Wendy Li is the co-founder and Chief Investment Officer at Ivy Invest, a fintech investment platform bringing an endowment-style portfolio to everyday investors.
Before Ivy Invest, Wendy was Managing Director of Investments at the Mother Cabrini Health Foundation, where she built the Investment Office from the ground up and managed a $4 billion portfolio. Prior to Mother Cabrini Health Foundation, Wendy was Director of Investments at UJA-Federation, investing across a broad range of asset classes. Wendy began her career in the Investment Office at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia University and is a CFA charterholder.
[00:00] Intro [02:29] Wendy’s family’s history with Columbia University [07:55] The importance of understanding family history [11:09] Why Wendy chose to work at The Met [15:16] How did Wendy know in the interview that Lauren would be her mentor? [19:18] Specialist vs generalist in 2006 [22:58] Pros and cons of using AI as an LP [29:02] The 80-20 rule for how an LP thinks [29:29] The one mistake EVERY SINGLE LP makes [33:27] What is the Takahashi-Alexander model? [39:38] Who do you learn from when your LP institution is so small? [41:22] The wisdom of an open-sourced LP reading list [45:34] What is headline risk? [47:09] What does ‘uncompensated risk’ mean? [50:20] Why now for ‘endowment-in-a-box’ [55:07] Wendy’s proudest dish from her mom’s recipe book [57:09] Wendy’s last piece of advice
“Where [using AI] is a challenge and can present a challenge to somebody’s development is in the utilization of these tools where perhaps there’s not an innate understanding of why the data is important.” – Wendy Li
“The pattern of mistakes that I certainly made and I saw the others make—and I know those listening and are earlier in their investor journey—will inevitably make-… We all make it. Even knowing this is a trap that we all fall into… even though they are all going to be aware of this trap, they’re still going to make the same mistake because we all do it, but we all have to learn this one and develop our own scar tissue on this one. It’s the exciting investment manager that other really smart LPs are invested with that is a ‘hard-to-access’ manager – that has a window in which they will take your capital. And there’s this sense of urgency. Sometimes real, sometimes forced. And there’s this sense that all these really smart investors are doing this thing. And the added layer on the endowment foundation side is oftentimes that there’s an investment committee member who is super excited about the investment because—and I’ll use a real quote that someone once said to me, ‘It would be a trophy manager to have in the portfolio’—and that is invariably a mistake that we all make in our investment careers. I would say that when I have been regretful of avoidable mistakes, it has had that pattern.” – Wendy Li
“I deeply subscribe to, ‘There’s always another train leaving the station.’” – Wendy Li
“There’s a great risk in being overconfident. There’s a great risk in assuming a normal distribution of events and returns.” – Wendy Li
“It’s not the probability; it’s the consequence. It’s not the probability when something goes wrong. It’s the consequence when it goes wrong.” – Wendy Li
“In-the-moment decision-making is always harder than you might remember post-mortem.” – Wendy Li
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.
A while back, my friend Augustine, CEO and founder of Digify, asked me to write something for his company, Digify’s blog, about how I think about maintaining relationships between fundraising cycles when I was still an investor relations professional. As such, I wrote a mini two-part series on the frameworks and tactics I use to maintain LP relationships. Been given the liberty to cross-post on this humble blog of mine, in hopes that it helps any emerging managers or IR professionals here.
Voila, the first of two!
Author’s note [aka me]: My promise to you is that we’ll share advice you’ve likely never heard before. By the time you get to the end of this article, if you’re intimidated, then we’ll have done our job. Because that’s just how much it takes to fight in the same arena as people I’ve personally admired over the years and work to emulate and iterate daily. That said, this won’t be comprehensive, but a compilation of N of 1 practices that hopefully serve as tools in your toolkit. As such, we will be separating this piece into Part 1 and 2. The first of which is about overarching frameworks that govern how I think about managing relationships. The second of which focuses on tactical elements governed by the initial frameworks brought up.
One of the best pieces of advice I got when I started as an investor relations professional was that you never want your first conversation with an allocator to be an ask. To be fair, this piece of advice extends to all areas of life. You never want your long-anticipated catch up with a childhood friend to be about asking for a job. You never want the first interaction with an event sponsor to be one where they force you to subscribe to their product. Similarly, you never want your first meeting with an LP to be one where you ask for money.
And in my years of being both an allocator and the Head of IR (as well as in co-building a community of IR professionals), this extends across regions, across asset classes, and across archetypes of LPs.
So, this begs the question, how do you build and, more importantly, retain rapport with LPs outside of fundraising cycles? The foundation of any successful LP relationship lies in consistent engagement beyond capital asks.
To set the context and before we get into the tactics (i.e. what structured variables to track in your CRM, how often to engage LPs, AGM best practices, etc.), let’s start with two frameworks:
Three hats on the ball
Scientists, celebrities, and magicians
“Three hats on the ball”
This is something I learned from Rick Zullo, founding partner of Equal Ventures. The saying itself takes its origin from American football. (Yes, I get it; I’m an Americano). And I also realize that football means something completely different for everyone based outside of our stars and stripes. The sport I’m talking about is the one where big muscular dudes run at each other at full force, fighting over a ball shaped like an olive pit. And in this sport, the one thing you learn is that the play isn’t dead unless you have at least three people over the person running the ball. One isn’t enough. Two leaves things to chance. Three is the gamechanger.
The same is true when building relationships with LPs. You should always know at least three people at the institutions that are backing you. You never know when your primary champion will retire, switch roles, go on maternity leave, leave on sabbatical, or get stung by a bee and go into anaphylactic shock. Yes, all the above have happened to people I know. Plus, having more people rooting for you is always good.
Institutions often have high employee turnover rates. CIOs and Heads of Investment cycle through every 7-8 years, if not less. And even if the headcount doesn’t change, LPs, by definition, are generalists. They need to play in multiple asset classes. And venture is the smallest of the small asset classes. It often gets the least attention.
So, having multiple champions root for you and remind each other of something forgotten outside of the deal room helps immensely. Your brand is what people say about you when you’re not in the room. Remind people why they love you. And remind as many as possible, as often as possible. This multi-touch approach is essential for nurturing a robust LP relationship strategy.
Scientists, celebrities, and magicians
My buddy Ian Park told me this when I first became an IR professional. “In IR, there are product specialists and there are relationship managers. Figure out which you’re better at and lean into it.” Since then, he’s luckily also put it into writing. In essence, as an IR professional, you’re either really good at building and maintaining relationships or can teach people about the firm, the craft, the thesis, the portfolio, and the decisions behind them.
To caveat ‘relationship managers,’ I believe there are two kinds: sales and customer success. Sales is really capital formation. How do you build (as opposed to maintain) relationships? How do you win strangers over? This is a topic for another day. For now, we’ll focus on ‘customer success’ later in this piece.
There’s also this equation that I hear a number of Heads of IR and Chief Development Officers use.
track record X differentiation / complexity
I don’t know the origin, but I first heard it from my friends at General Catalyst, so I’ll give them the kudos here.
Everyone at the firm should play a key role influencing at least one of these variables. The operations and portfolio support team should focus on differentiation. The investment partners focus on the track record. Us IR folks focus on complexity. And yes, everyone does help everyone else with their variables as well.
That said, to transpose Ian’s framework to this function, the relationship managers primarily focus on reducing the size of the denominator. Help LPs understand what could be complex about your firm through regular catchups—these touchpoints are crucial for maintaining a strong LP relationship:
Why are you increasing the fund size?
Why are you diversifying the thesis?
How do you address key person risk?
Why are you expanding to new asset classes?
Are you on an American or European waterfall distribution structure?
Why are you missing an independent management company?
Who will be the GP if the current one gets hit by a bus?
The product specialists split time between the numerator and the denominator. They spend intimate time in the partnership meetings, and might potentially be involved in the investment committee. Oftentimes, I see product specialists either actively building their own angel track record and/or working their way to become full-time investment partners.
One of my favorite laws of magic by one of my favorite authors, Brandon Sanderson, is his first law: “An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.”
In turn, an IR professional’s ability to get an LP to re-up is directly proportional to how well the LP understands said magic at the firm.
My friend and former Broadway playwright, Michael Roderick, once said, the modern professional specializes in three ways:
The scientist is wired for process. The subject-matter expert. They thrive on the details, the small nuances most others would overlook. They will discover things that revolutionize how the industry works. The passionately curious.
The celebrity. They thrive on building and maintaining relationships. And their superpower is that they can make others feel like celebrities.
The magician thrives on novelty. Looking at old things in new ways – new perspectives. The translator. They’re great at making things click. Turning arcane, esoteric knowledge into something your grandma gets.
The product specialists are the scientists. The relationship managers are the celebrities. But every IR professional, especially as you grow, needs to be a magician.
Going back to the fact that most LPs are generalists, and that most venture firms look extremely similar to each other, you need to be able to describe the magic and your firm’s ‘rules’ for said magic to your grandma.
For the next half, I’ll share some individual tactics I’ve worked into my rotation. Most are not original in nature, but borrowed, inspired, and co-created with fellow IR professionals.
This post was first shared on Digify’s blog, which you can find here.
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, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
You know that feeling when you enjoy something so much, you have to do it again. That’s exactly what happened with my buddy Ben Ehrlich. There’s a line I really like by the amazing Penn and Teller. “Magic is just spending more time on a trick that anyone would ever expect to be worth it.”
Ben is exactly that. He’s a magician with how he thinks about underwriting, arguably, the riskiest class of emerging managers. This piece originated opportunistically from another series of intellectual sparring matches between the two of us. Both learning the lens of how the other thinks. It was pure joy to be able to put this piece together, just like our last. Selfishly, hopefully, two of many more.
You can find the same blogpost under his blog, which I highly recommend also checking out.
Venture is a game of outliers. We invest in outlier managers, who invest in outlier companies, capitalizing on outlier opportunities.
Angel investments have excelled at catching and generating outlier outcomes. However, in recent years, angel checks are not just a critical piece of the capital stack for startups, they are also a way where amazing people can learn and grow into spectacular investors. In the past 20 years, angel activity has gone from a niche subsection, to a robust industry with angel groups all over the world, and the emergence of platforms to facilitate their growth.
As LPs, we see this every day. A common story that we diligence is the angel turned institutional VC. This process is what allows aspiring GPs who come from all walks of life, with often quite esoteric track records, to raise funds and prove they can be exceptional venture capitalists. These people are often the outliers at the fund level. The non-obvious investors who are taking their angel investing experience and turning it into elite cornerstones of the venture ecosystem. For example:
Arthur Rock, having done a few years of angel investments, goes to raise his first $5M fund that returns $90M in 1968. Then goes on to invest $2.5M for 50% of the company two guys with no business plan started. By the way, that became Intel.
Each of these angels-turned-investors returned their earliest believers many times over. And these are far from the only examples.
So, as an allocator, it is logical to want to pattern match to the angel investor turned GP as a way to assess how good a manager might be in building their firm. However, with more venture firms than there have ever been, and more ways to access angel-investing, differentiating signal from noise has never been harder. The hardest being where the track record is too young, too limited, and there’s not enough to go on. So it begs the question: How the hell do you underwrite an angel track record that’s still in its infancy?
The simple answer is you don’t. At least not completely. You look for other clues. Telltale signs.
So, our hope with this piece is to share what we each look for – most of which is beyond the numbers. The beauty of this piece is that even while writing it, Ben and David have learned from each other Socratically on how to better underwrite managers. This is one that can be pretty controversial, and we don’t agree on everything. So, let us know what you think….
Understanding the returns
Every pitch deck we look at has a track record slide. Usually this is some amalgamation of previous funds (if they have any), advisor relationships, and angel investing track record. Angel investing track record is usually the largest number in terms of TVPI or IRR. However it also has the least clear implications, so we need to be careful in understanding what it means. Here are the steps we take in understanding the track record.
Step 1: Filtering the Track Record
First, we get aggressive with filtering the track record the GP shows you. Not the select investments track record on the deck, but the entire track record including advisor shares, SPVs, funds, and any other equity stake. We do this as angel track records are usually the result of opportunistic or inbound access over a long period of time. The companies in their angel portfolio don’t necessarily relate to their thesis or plan for their fund. So cutting the data by asset type and starting with thesis vs off thesis investments is a helpful starting point.
Next, it’s helpful to understand the timeframe. Funds have fixed lifespans1, and strict deployment time periods, which we call vintages. In order to understand the performance, we break down the time periods of their investments including entry date, exit date, values relative to median at that time, and average hold period. Naturally, also, we do note entry valuation, entry round, exit valuation, and ideally if they have it price per share. Having the afore-mentioned will help you filter returns, especially if a GP is pitching you a pre-seed/seed fund, but the bulk of their returns come from one company they got into at the Series B.
Lastly, it’s helpful to group investments into quartiles. Without sounding like a broken record, it’s important to remember that venture is fundamentally outlier-driven. Grouping the investments, understanding them at the company specific level vs aggregate is critical to the next phase, which is understanding the drivers of the track record.
Also, it’s important to note that some vintages will perform better than others. And as an LP, it’s important to consider vintage diversification (since no one can time the market) and what the public market equivalent is. For a number of vintages, even top-quartile venture underperforms the QQQ, SPY, and NASDAQ. A longer discussion for another post. Cash, or a low-cost index is just as valid of a position as a venture fund.
Step 2: Understanding the Drivers
Once you have broken down the data, we want to understand the real drivers behind the returns from the track record. We tend to start by asking these questions:
Are there other outliers in the off-thesis investments?
What are the most successful on-thesis investments?
Has any money actually been delivered, or is it entirely paper markups?
For the on-thesis investments that returned less than 10X the check size, what did this individual learn? How will that impact how this GP makes decisions going forward?
How much of a GP’s track record is attributed to luck?
And simply, do the founders in the GP’s supposed track record even know that the GP exists?4
With respect to the second-to-last question, if their on-thesis track record has more than 10 investments, we take out the top performer and the bottom performer, is their MOIC still interesting enough? While there is no consistency of returns in venture, it gives a good sense of how much luck impacts the GP’s portfolio.
The last question is extremely prescient, since the goal of a GP trying to build an institution – a platform – is that they need the surface area for serendipity to stick to compound. Yesterday’s source of deal flow needs to be worse than today’s. And today’s should be eclipsed by tomorrow’s. As LPs, we want the GPs to be intimately involved in the success of their outliers not because attribution of value add matters, but because great companies bring together great teams. Great teams aggregate and spawn other ambitious people. Ambitious people will often leave to start new ventures. And we want the GP to be the first call. More on that in the next section.
Step 3: Transferability to a Fund
Lastly, the analysis will need to shift from purely quantitative to qualitative guided by the quantitative. We are moving from the realm of backward-looking data, into forward projection. The main question here is how do all the data points we have point to the success of the fund and the differences in running a fund versus an angel portfolio such as:
Fixed deployment periods
Weighted portfolio risks
Correlation risk between underlying portfolio companies
Information rights and regulatory requirements
Angel check size vs fund’s target check size
One heuristic that we use is that of finding the “hyper learner.” The idea is basically, how fast is this person growing, learning and adding it into their decision-making around investing. Do they have real time feedback loops that influence their process, and can they take those feedback loops to the next level with their fund? Essentially, understanding that what matters with emerging VCs is the slope, not y-intercept, so can you see how their decisions will get better?
While everyone learns differently, some of the useful thought experiments to go through include:
What is the GP’s information diet? Where are they consuming information through channels not well-documented or read by their peers?
How are they consuming and synthesizing information in ways others are not?
How does each iteration of their pitch deck vary between themselves?5
Do you learn something new every conversation you have with the GP?
Overall, this is more a bet on the person learning how to be a great fund manager, and can’t all drive from just pure angel investing track record.
The details the numbers can’t tell you:
“We spend all our time talking about attributes because we can easily measure them. ‘Therefore, this is all that matters.’ And that’s a lie. It’s important but it’s partial truth.” — Jony Ive
Angel track records can point to how serious the potential GP is about the business of investing. At the same time, there are factors outside of raw numbers that also offer perspective to how fund-ready a GP is. Looking through the details, it is important to ask in the lead-up to making the decision to run a fund, how have they spent their time meaningfully? For example:
What advisory roles have they taken? What impact did they deliver in each? For those companies and firms, who else was in the running? And why did they ultimately go with this individual?
Have they taken independent board seats? Why? What was the relationship of the founder and board member prior to the official role?
If they’re a venture partner or advisor to another VC firm, what is their role in that firm? When do they get a call from the GPs or partners of that firm?
Is the angel/advisor part of non-redundant, unique networks?
Does the angel/advisor have a unique knowledge arbitrage that founders want access to?
Does the GP’s skillset match the strategy they’re proposing?
Money isn’t the only valuable asset. Time, effort, experience, and network are others. Especially if an angel has little capital to deploy (i.e. tied up in company stock, younger in their career, saving up for a life-impacting major purchase like a house), the others are leading indicators to how a network may compound for the angel-turned-GP over time.
Anti-portfolio
Lastly, one of the hardest parts of understanding angel investing track record is the anti-portfolio as popularized by BVP. As picking is such an important aspect of a GP’s job, understanding how the person has previously made investment decisions based on the opportunities they are pursuing and what they missed out on is critical.
The stopwatch really starts counting when the angel decides that she wants to be a full-time investor one day. The truth is no third party will really know when that ticker starts, outside of the GP’s own words. And maybe her immediate friends and family. While helpful to reference check, it’s her words against her own.
Instead, we find their first angel check or their first advisory role as a proxy for that data point. The outcome of that check isn’t important. The rationale behind that check also matters less than the memos of the more recent checks. Nevertheless, it is helpful to understand how much the GP has grown.
But what’s more helpful is to come up with a list of anti-portfolio companies. Companies within the investor’s thesis that rose to prominence during the time when that individual started to deploy. And within good reason, that individual may have come across during their time angel investing or advising. In particular, if the angel has not been able to be in the pre-seed. More often than not, folks investing in that round are friends and family. If they are in the seed round, the questions that pop up are:
Did she not see it?
Did she not pick it?
Or, did she not win it?
For the latter two questions, how much has she changed the way she invests based on those decisions? And are those adjustments to decision-making scalable to a firm? In other words, how much will that scar tissue impact how she trains other team members to identify great companies?
Contradictions
One of the most important truths in venture is that to deliver exceptional returns, you have to be non-consensus and right. This ultimately derives from someone being contradictory, with purpose throughout their life.
There is beauty in the resume and the LinkedIn profile. But it often only offers a snapshot into a person’s career, much less their life. So we usually spend the first meeting only on the GP’s life. Where did she grow up? How did she choose her extracurriculars? Why the college she chose? Why the career? Why the different career inflection points?
We look for contradictions. What does this GP end up choosing that the normal, rational person would not? And why?
More importantly, is there any part of their past the GP does not want us to know? Why? How will that piece of hidden knowledge affect how she makes decisions going forward?
Naturally, to have such a dialogue, the LP, who more often than not are in a position of power in that exchange, needs to create a safe, non-judgmental space. Failure to do so will prevent candid discussions.
In Closing
It is extremely easy to over-intellectualize this exercise. There are always going to be more unknowns to you, as an LP, than there are knowns. Your goal isn’t to uncover everything. Your time may be better spent investing in other asset classes, if that’s the case. Your goal, at least with respect to underwriting emerging managers, is to find the minimum number of risks you can stomach before having the conviction to make an investment decision.
And if you’re not sure where to start with evaluating risks, the last piece (Ben’s blog, cross-posted on this blog) we wrote together on the many risks of investing in emerging managers may be a good starting point.
We are choosing to ignore evergreen funds for the purpose of this article, but we know they exist. ↩︎
Beware of GPs who count SAFEs as mark ups. While we do believe most aren’t doing so with deception in mind, many GPs are just not experienced enough in venture to know that only priced rounds count as marks. ↩︎
Separately, is the GP holding 2020-early 2022 marks at the last round valuation (LRV)? Most companies that raised during that time are not worth anything near their peak. Are they also discounting any revenue multiples north of 10-20X? How a GP thinks here will help you differentiate between who’s an investor and who’s a fund manager. ↩︎
This may seem callous, but we have come across the instance multiple times where an aspiring GP over states (or in one case, lied) their position on the cap table. Founder reference checks are a must! ↩︎
David sometimes asks GPs to send every version of their current fund’s pitch deck to him, as an indicator on how the GP’s thinking has evolved over time. Even better if they’re on a Fund II+ because you can see earlier funds’ pitches. Shoutout to Eric Friedman who first inspired David to do this. ↩︎
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.
Ahoy Capital’s founder, Chris Douvos, joins David on El Pack to answer your questions on how to build a venture capital fund. We bring on three GPs at VC funds to ask three different questions.
Pachamama Ventures’ Karen Sheffield asked about how GPs should think about when and how to sell secondaries.
Mangusta Capital’s Kevin Jiang asked about how GPs should think about staying top of mind with LPs between fundraises.
Stellar Ventures’ David Anderman asked Chris about GPs who start to specialize in different stages of investment compared to their previous funds.
Chris Douvos founded Ahoy Capital in 2018 to build an intentionally right-sized firm that could pursue investment excellence while prizing a spirit of partnership with all of its constituencies. A pioneering investor in the micro-VC movement, Chris has been a fixture in venture capital for nearly two decades. Prior to Ahoy Capital, Chris spearheaded investment efforts at Venture Investment Associates, and The Investment Fund for Foundations. He learned the craft of illiquid investing at Princeton University’s endowment. Chris earned his B.A. with Distinction from Yale College in 1994 and an M.B.A. from Yale School of Management in 2001.
[00:00] Intro [01:03] The facade of tough times [05:03] The last time Chris hugged someone [06:53] The art (and science?) of a good hug [08:32] How does Chris start his quarterly letters? [10:35] Quotes, writing, and AI [15:13] Venture is dead. Why? [17:33] But… why is venture still exciting? [21:13] Enter Karen Sheffield [21:48] The never-to-be-aired episode with Chris and Beezer [22:55] Karen and Pachamama Ventures [24:19] The third iteration of climate tech vocabulary [26:55] How should GPs think about secondaries? [33:53] Where can GPs go to learn more about when to sell? [36:53] Are secondary transactions actually happening or is it bluff? [38:44] “Entrepreneurship is like a gas, hottest when compressed” [42:26] Enter Kevin Jiang and Mangusta Capital [44:21] The significance of the mongoose [46:36] How do LPs like to stay updated on a GP’s progress? [59:35] How does a GP show an LP they’re in it for the long run? [1:03:57] David’s Anderman part of the Superclusters story [1:05:41] David Anderman’s gripe about the name Boom [1:06:31] Enter David Anderman and Stellar Ventures [1:10:21] What do LPs think of GPs expanding their thesis for later-stage rounds? [1:21:43] Why not invest all of your private portfolio in buyout funds [1:25:48] Good answers to why didn’t things work out [1:28:13] Chris’ one last piece of advice [1:35:18] My favorite clip from Chris’ first episode on Superclusters
“Every letter seems to say portfolios have ‘limited exposure to tariffs.’ The reality is we’re seeing potentially the breakdown of the entire post-war Bretton Woods system. And that’s going to have radical impacts on everything across the entire economy. So to say ‘we have limited exposure to tariffs’ is one thing, but what they really are saying is ‘we don’t understand the exposure we have to the broader economy as a whole.’” – Chris Douvos
“Everybody is always trying to put the best spin on quarterly results. I love how every single letter I get starts: ‘We are pleased to share our quarterly letter.’ I write my own quarterly letters. Sometimes I’m not pleased to share them. All of my funds – I love them like my children – equally but differently. There’s one that’s keeping me up a lot at night. Man, I’m not pleased to share anything about that fund, but I have to.” – Chris Douvos
“There’s ups and downs. We live in a business of failure. Ted Williams once said, ‘Baseball is the only human endeavor where being successful three times out of ten can get you to the Hall of Fame.’ If you think about venture, it’s such a power law business that if you were successful three times out of ten, you’d be a radical hero.” – Chris Douvos
“Tim Berners-Lee’s outset of the internet talked about the change from the static web to the social web to the semantic web. Each iteration of the web has three layers: the compute layer, an interaction layer, and a data layer.” – Chris Douvos
“Venture doesn’t know the train that’s headed down the tracks to hit it. Every investor I talk to—and I talk mostly to endowments and foundations—is thinking about how to shorten the duration of their portfolio. People have too many long-dated way-out-of-the-money options, and quite frankly, they haven’t, at least in recent memory, been appropriately compensated for taking those long-term bets.” – Chris Douvos
“Entrepreneurship is like a gas. It’s the hottest when it’s compressed.” – Chris Douvos
On communication with LPs, “come with curiosity, not sales.” – Chris Douvos
“Process drives repeatability.” – Andy Weissman
“The worst time to figure out who you’re going to marry is when you’re buying flowers and setting the menu. Most funds that are raising now, especially if it’s to institutional investors—we’re getting to know you for Fund n plus one.” – Chris Douvos
On frequent GP/LP checkins… “Too many calls I get on, it’s a re-hash of what the strategy is. Assume if I’m taking the call, I actually spent five minutes reminding myself of who you are and what you do.” – Chris Douvos
“One thing I hate is when I meet with someone, they tell me about A, B, and C. And then the next time I meet with them, it’s companies D, E, and F. ‘What happened to A, B, and C?’ So I’ve told people, ‘Hey, we’re having serious conversations. Help me understand the arc.’ As LPs, we get snapshots in time, but what I want is enough snapshots of the whole scene to create a movie of you, like one of those picturebooks that you can flip. I want to see the evolution. I want to know about the hypotheses that didn’t work.” – Chris Douvos
“We invest in funds as LPs that last twice as long as the average American marriage.” – Chris Douvos
“The typical vest in Silicon Valley is four years. He says, ‘Think about how long you want to work. Think about how old you are now and divide that period by four. That’s the number of shots on goal you’re going to have to create intergenerational wealth.’ When you actually do that, it’s actually not very many shots. ‘So I want to know, is this the opportunity that you want to spend the next four years on building that option value?’” – Chris Douvos, quoting Stewart Alsop
When underwriting passion… “So you start with the null hypothesis that this person is a dilettante or tourist. What you try to do when you try to understand their behavioral footprint is you try to understand their passion. Some people are builders for the sake of building and get their psychic income from the communities they build while building.” – Chris Douvos
“There’s pre-spreadsheet and post-spreadsheet investing. For me, it’s a very different risk-adjusted return footprint because once you are post-spreadsheet—you talk about B and C rounds, companies have product-market fit, they’re moving to traction—that’s very different and analyzable. In my personal opinion, that’s ‘super beta venture.’ Like it’s just public market super beta. Whereas pre-spreadsheet is Adam and God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with their fingers almost touching. You can feel the electricity. […] That’s pure alpha. I think the purest alpha left in the investing markets. But alpha can have a negative sign in front of it. That’s the game we play.” – Chris Douvos
“Strategy is an integrated set of choices that inform timely action.” – Michael Porter
“I’m not here to tell you about Jesus. You already know about Jesus. He either lives in your heart or he doesn’t.” – Don Draper in Mad Men
“If there are 4000 people investing and people are generally on a 2-year cycle, that means in any given year, there are 2000 funds. And the top quartile fund is 500th. I don’t want to invest in the 50th best fund, much less the 500th. But that’s tyranny of the relativists. Why do we care if our portfolio is top quartile if we’re not keeping up with the opportunity cost of equity capital of the public markets?” – Chris Douvos
“In venture, the top three funds matter. Probably the top three funds will be Sequoia, Kleiner, and whoever gets lucky or whoever is in the right industry when that industry gets hot.” – Michael Moritz in 2002
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 was grabbing lunch with my buddy Rahul the other day. And we were talking about how frickin’ tough it was for us to become proficient at our respective sport. Tennis for him. Swimming for me. On one hand, both of us wish it were easier. That he could pick up the racket for the first time, and win matches without breaking a sweat. That I could execute a perfect dive and a sub-20-second 50-sprint with just six months of practice. But the truth is neither of us could. We had select teammates who could though.
I remember one teammate who was two years older than I was. 14 to be exact. He swam with us for two months with no formal training prior, then went to his first competition. Broke 30 seconds for 50-yard freestyle in that very first race. A few months later, broke 25-seconds. In his first year, he never lost a sprint. It got to a point that while the rest of us were swimming six days a week. 2-4 hours a day. He swam with us twice, at best thrice a week. And he still won.
Was I envious? Hell ya. No doubt about it.
It wasn’t till later that year, where he was competing in meets a step above Junior Olympics — Far Western to be specific — that he lost his first race. Then at the next one again. Then again. And the guy broke. He took his anger out on the rest of us. Beat some folks up as well. Just, give or take, 18 months after he had started, he quit. I never saw him again.
Had he stuck with the sport, I’m confident he would have been one of the best. Some people do have the genetic disposition to do well in a certain craft. They won the genetic lottery. And I’m really happy for them. If you do have it, you should definitely lean into it. Why waste the free bingo tile you’ve been given?
Circling back from earlier… on the other hand, Rahul and I are both glad it took a shitload of effort to actually win for the first time. And even more the second time. Then the third. Which by the way, really fucking sucked. I once beat the shit out of a wall in my parents’ home with my bare knuckles ’cause I was so frustrated at plateauing. Much to my parents’ horror.
But it made us better people. We are the sum of all our mistakes. The sum of all our blood, sweat and tears.
The last few months I’ve been lucky to be a part of conversations about the intersection of AI and investing. So many funds we see have built out AI screening tools, automated email management, and memo creation. Some LPs too. The latter is few and far in between. And there were multiple discussions from senior LPs and GPs that they became the investor they were today because they did the work of putting together the memos and hunting down references and details. That they made mistakes, but learned quickly why certain mistakes were worse than others. Some miscalculations were more egregious than others. That they were scolded. Some fired. The younger generation may not have the same scrutiny. And with AI, they might not fully understand why they need to do certain things other than tell AI to put together a memo.
Similarly, so many companies are building things incredibly quickly. Vibe coded overnight. They’re getting to distribution faster than any other era of innovation. It’s not uncommon we’re seeing solid 7-figure revenues in year one of the company. Annual curiosity revenue from corporates is real. Likely temporary, but real. And it’s created a generation of puffed chests. Founders and investors, not prepared for the soon-to-come rude awakening.
As first-check investors, we bet on the human being. We bet on not only the individual’s vision, but all the baggage and wherewithal that comes with it. We bet on the individual’s ability to endure. Because unless we see a mass market of overnight acqui-hires for companies younger than three years, our returns are generated in years 9-15. The long term. And shit will hit the fan.
AI is amazing in so many ways. But it has made it harder to underwrite willpower.
I’m not a religious person. But a line I really like from my friends who are Christian in faith is, “Don’t pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength and courage to overcome a hard life.”
Years ago, a friend of mine told me that famous people live one of two lives. A life to envy. Or a life to respect. A life to envy is one where that individual gets things handed to them on a silver platter. They got everything in life they asked for. Rich kids with rich parents oftentimes. A lot of people would love to have lived that person’s life. A life to respect is one where the individual goes through trials by fire and eventually came out on top. They’re riddled with scars. And while many people would want to be in that person’s shoes today, they wouldn’t want to have lived the life that individual lived.
As investors, we bias towards people who have gone through the latter or is capable of going through the latter.
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.
“Buying junk at a discount is still junk.” – Abe Finkelstein
Abe Finkelstein, Managing Partner at Vintage, has been leading fund, secondary, and growth stage investments focused on fintech, gaming, and SMB software, among others, leading growth stage and secondary investments for Vintage in companies like Monday.com, Minute Media, Payoneer, MoonActive and Honeybook.
Prior to joining Vintage in 2003, Abe was an equity analyst with Goldman Sachs, covering Israel-based technology companies in a wide variety of sectors, including software, telecom equipment, networking, semiconductors, and satellite communications. While at Goldman Sachs, Abe, and the Israel team were highly ranked by both Thomson Extel and Institutional Investor. Prior to Goldman Sachs, Abe was Vice-President at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, where he helped launch and led the firm’s Israel technology shares institutional sales effort. Before joining Piper, he was an Associate at Brown Brothers Harriman, covering the enterprise software and internet sectors. Abe began his career at Josephthal, Lyon, and Ross, joining one of the first research teams focused exclusively on Israel-based companies.
Abe graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania with a BS in Economics and a concentration in Finance.
Vintage Investment Partners is a global venture platform managing ~$4 billion across venture Fund of Funds, Secondary Funds, and Growth-Stage Funds focused on venture in the U.S., Europe, Israel, and Canada. Vintage is invested in many of the world’s leading venture funds and growth-stage tech startups striving to make a lasting impact on the world and has exposure directly and indirectly to over 6,000 technology companies.
[00:00] Intro [03:18] Abe’s first investment [06:19] The definition of quality secondaries in 2003 [09:37] How did Abe know there would be capital to follow? [15:45] Valuation methodology in the 2000s [22:28] Minimum meaningful ownership for secondaries [26:17] Why did founders take Vintage’s call in Fund I? [30:41] The old-school way of tracking deal memos [32:06] Our job is to play the optimist [32:31] The headwinds of raising Vintage Fund I [36:32] Moving Vintage’s physical books to the cloud [39:06] How does Abe assign discounts to secondaries? [42:23] Proactive outreach vs reactive deal flow [46:18] What does Vintage do to stay top of mind? [49:49] What’s changed in the secondaries market since 2000? [55:32] Founder paranoia [57:56] What does Abe want his legacy look like?
“Buying junk at a discount is still junk.” – Abe Finkelstein
“Everything that’s going on in the market today, I actually feel people are overreacting to it because there are these ups and downs. Hopefully this current situation doesn’t get people too freaked out because these are the times you want to be investing in. People just don’t think that way. They see the blood on the streets and they run from it first, instead of going in.” – Abe Finkelstein
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.
