“‘Mutation’ is simply the term for a version of a gene that fewer than 2 percent of the population has. […] Imagine enough letters to fill 13 complete sets of Encyclopaedia Britannica with a single-letter typo that changes the meaning of a crucial entry.” A fascinating line from David Epstein. One that makes you pause and think. I apologize that this is where my mind wanders to every time I read something that stops me cold in my tracks. The world of startups, at least in fundraising, is no different.
Let me elaborate.
While this is rather anecdotal, the average VC I know takes 10 or less first meetings in any given week. As an average of 500 emails land in their inbox every week, that’s a 2% chance of having your cold message land you a meeting. And that’s not even counting the heavy bias towards warm intros. In other words, to get noticed, you have to stray from the norm. A variant. A mutation.
The good news about being a mutated monkey with two left ears and an overbite hosting two dozen fangs is that unlike in nature, you can genetically modify and give birth to a mutated product of your choosing. While I probably could’ve used more floral language, I realize I’m also not writing a rom com, but a documentary capturing the cold realities of an investor’s virtual real estate. That has more eyes trying to peer into it than it has time, space, and most importantly, attention to open doors.
Your appearance on that stake of land is your debutante ball. The question is how will you grace the ballroom floor among a sea of people who have access to the same town tailors, dressmakers, and dance instructors as you do. A name. A subject line. And at most 50 characters to make a first impression.
The short answer is you don’t.
I also understand that in writing a piece on how to stand out in an investor’s inbox, I run the risk of sounding like every other Medium article who’s covered this topic before me. So, instead of sharing the five steps to get every investor to open your email, I’m going to share three examples, starting with some initial frameworks of how and some of my favorite thought leaders think about narratives.
As a compass for the below, I’ll share more about:
For the purpose of this essay, I’ll focus on cold emails, rather than warm intros. But many of the below lessons are transferrable.
The investor product
Blume’s Sajith Pai recently wrote a great piece detailing on what he calls the investor product. And how that is different from the content product — what customers see and hear — and the internal comms product — what your team members see and hear. Even in my own experience, I see founders often conflate at least two. They bucket it into the internal story… and the external story — bundling, ineffectively, the investor and content product.
In short, the investor product is the narrative that you tell your investors. A permutation of your personality and your vector in the market in a sequence you think investors find most compelling. That narrative, while not mutually exclusive, is different from the story you tell your customers. For customers, you are the Yoda to their Luke Skywalker. For investors, you’re the Anakin to the Jedi Order. The future.
Not all pitches are created equal
Just like expository writing differs from persuasive writing which differs from narrative writing, there are different flavors of fundraising pitches as well. Kevin Kwokboils it down to three.
Narrative pitches: What could be. What does the future look like?
Inflection pitches: New unveiled secrets. In Kevin’s words, for investors, “now is the ideal risk-adjusted time to invest.” Why is the present so radically different? Why is the second derivative zero?
Traction pitches: Results and metrics. How does the past paint you in glorious light? Admittedly, people rarely index on the past. So, traction pitches are on decline. It’s akin to, if someone were to ask, “What is your greatest accomplishment?” You say, “It has yet to happen.”
The truth is most early-stage founder pitches are narrative pitches, focused on team and vision. But the most compelling ones for VCs are inflection ones. One of my favorite investor frameworks, put into words by the an investor in the On Deck Angels community, is:
Do I believe this founder can 10x their KPIs within the funding window?
The funding window is defined as usually 12 to 18 months after the round closes. And usually the interim time before a venture-scale company goes out to raise another round. In order to 10x during the next 12 to 18 months, you have to be on either a rising market tide that raises all boats, or more importantly, the beginnings of the hockey stick curve in your product journey. Do you have evidence that your customers just love your product? For instance, for marketplaces, that could be early organic signs as demand converts to supply. In other cases, it could be the engagement rate post-reaching the activation milestone.
What channel does the pitch land in
While the message — the narrative — is important, the channel in which the pitch is received is just as, if not more important. As Reid Hoffmanonce wrote, “the cold and unromantic fact is that a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.”
The truth is that email is a saturated channel.
While Figma’s Naira Hourdajian notes that this applies to any form of communications, not just politics, she put it best, “Essentially, when you’re working in politics, you have your earned channels, owned channels, and your paid channels.”
Owned — Anything you control on your own channels. Your website, blog, your own email, and in a way, your own social channels.
Paid — Anything you put out into the world using capital. For instance, ads.
Earned — Because others are not willing to give it to you and that it is their real estate, you have to earn it. Like press and in this case, others’ email inboxes.
On an adjacent point, the thing is most founders don’t spend enough time and effort on owned and earned channels when it comes to the content product. Both are extremely underleveraged. Many think, especially outside of the context of fundraising, and within go-to-market strategies, think paid is the only way to go. While powerful, it is the channel that carries the most weight post-product-market fit. Not pre-.
In the context of fundraising, I always tell founders I work with to always be fundraising, just like they should always be selling. There’s a saying that investors invest in lines, not dots. But the first time you pop up in someone’s inbox is, by definition, just a dot. Nothing more, nothing less. Rather, you should start your conversations with your future investors before you kickstart your fundraising. Ask for advice. Host events that you invite them to. Interview them on a podcast or a blogpost. Feature them in a TikTok reel. (Clearly, I spend the bulk of my time with consumer startups).
As you might have guessed, sometimes it has to be outside of the inbox. To get their attention, there are two ways you can pick your channel:
Target powerful channels in an innovative way,
Target powerful, but neglected channels,
And, target new and upcoming channels.
As such, I’ll share an example for each.
Powerful channel used in an innovative way: Email
In one of Tim Ferriss’ 5-Bullet Friday newsletters recently, I found out that Arnold Schwarzenegger handwrites all his emails.
Source: Tim Ferriss’ 5-Bullet Friday — Jan 13, 2023
It’s brilliant. Genius, I might say. I don’t know how much intentionality went into why Arnold does so, but here’s why I think it’s brilliant.
If you’re sending it to someone who owns a Gmail, you’ve just given yourself 100% more real estate (albeit ephemeral) in their inbox. If their inbox is set on Gmail’s default view. Additionally, via the attachment name, that’s 10-15 characters more of information you can share at just a glance. Or at the minimum, if they’re reading via the compact view, an extra moniker that most emails do not have. A paper clip. To a reader’s eyes, it draws the same amount of attention as a blue check mark on Twitter or Instagram.
Once they click open the email, instead of plain text, your reader, your investor, sees font that stands out from all the other email text. A textual mutation that leads to curiosity. Something that begs to be read.
Powerful, but neglected channel: Physical mail
When I started in venture, I didn’t have a network, but I knew I needed one. Particularly, with other investors. After all, I didn’t know smack. I quickly realized that email and LinkedIn were completely saturated. One investor I reached out to later told me that he doesn’t check his LinkedIn at all, since he got 200 connection requests a day. So, it begged the question: Where must investors spend time but aren’t oversaturated with information?
Well, the thing is they’re human. So I walked through every step of what a day in the life of an average human being would go through, then guesstimated if there were any similarities with an investor’s schedule. Meal time, time in the bathroom, when they were driving or in an Uber (but I don’t run a podcast they’d listen to). And, like every other human being, they check their physical mail. Or someone close to them, checks them.
I knew they had to check their mail for their bills (a surprising number of investors haven’t gone paperless). But it couldn’t seem sales-y because they or their spouse or assistant would immediately throw it out. That’s when I decided I would write handwritten letters to their offices.
The EA is the one who usually sorts through the stack, and is someone who also doesn’t get the attention he/she deserves. Nevertheless, I believed:
Handwritten letters are going to stand out among a sea of Arial and Times New Roman font.
The envelope had to be in a non-white color to stand out against the other white envelopes. So, I went to Michael’s to buy a bunch of blue and green envelopes. Truth be told, I thought red was too much for me, and often carried a negative connotation.
The EA or office manager has to deem it not spam or marketing, so including a name and return address is actually a huge bonus, AND a note that doesn’t seem market-y on the envelope (i.e. thank you and looking forward to catching up).
At the end of the letter, I’d write I’d love to drop by and meet up with them in the office. Then I’d show up at their office within the week, and say, “I’m here to see ‘Bob.'”
The EA would ask if I had an appointment, and I would say that he should’ve received a letter in earlier in the week that let him know I would be here. Then, the EA would go back and ask if ‘Bob’ was free. If not, I’d wait in the lobby until they were, without overstaying my welcome. If they weren’t in the office, I’d ask to “reschedule” and book a time with them via the EA. Which would then officially get me on their calendars.
New and upcoming channel: Instacart
In a blogpost I wrote in 2021, I recapped how Instacart got into YC:
Garry Tan and Apoorva Mehta have bothshared this story publicly. Apoorva, founder of Instacart, back in 2012, wanted to apply to Y Combinator. Unfortunately, he was applying two months late. So he reached out to all the YC alum he knew to get intros to the YC partners. He just needed one to be interested. But after every single one said no, Garry, then a partner at YC, wrote: “You could submit a late application, but it will be nearly impossible to get you in now.”
For Apoorva, that meant “it was possible.” He sent an application and a video in, but Garry responded with another “no” several days later. But instead of pushing with another email and another application, Apoorva decided to send Garry a 6-pack of beer delivered by Instacart. So that Garry could try out the product firsthand. 21st Amendment’s Back in Black, to be specific. In the end, without any precedent, Instacart was accepted. And the rest is history.
In the above case, Instacart in and of itself was the emerging platform of choice. The application portal and email here were both saturated and had failed to produce results. What I missed in the above story is that the 6-pack arrived cold, which meant that the product worked and could deliver in record time. A perfect example of a product demo, in a way the partners were least expecting it.
In closing
Siddhartha Mukherjeeonce wrote: “We seek constancy in heredity — and find its opposite: variation. Mutants are necessary to maintain the essence of ourselves.”
Variation — being different — is necessary for the survival of our species. That’s what evolution is. That said, what worked yesterday isn’t guaranteed to work tomorrow. ‘Cause that same mutation that enabled the survival of a species has become commonplace. The human race, just like any other species, replicates what works to ensure greater survival.
The same is true for great ideas. A great idea today — even the above three — will be table stakes at some point in the future. Thus, requiring the need for even newer, even more innovative ideas. Hell, if it’s not via my blog, it’ll come from somewhere else. With the rise of generative AI — ChatGPT, Midjourney, Dall-E, you name it, if you’re average, you’ll be replaced. If you don’t have a unique voice, you’ll be replaced. Some algorithm will do a better and faster job than you will. As soon as more people start using the afore-mentioned tactics, the above will no longer be original. As such, I don’t imagine the case studies will age well, but the frameworks will. That said, the only unsaturated market is the market of great. To be great, you must be atypical. You must go where no one has gone before.
For those interested in startup pitches that stand out, specifically how to think about compelling storytelling, I highly recommend two places that inspire much of my thinking on the topic:
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.
“A true friend is one who stabs you in the front.”— Oscar Wilde
Many years ago, in what seemed like another lifetime, I made a girl cry. Nothing to boast about. In fact, even today, I’m quite embarrassed that I did so. In a negotiation where I prioritized one small committee in a club’s priorities above the priorities of other committees, I felt that I was right in every way. I conceived a million reasons why rationally I was right — cost, our future members’ preferences, down to the stable marriage algorithm. I fell prey to pride and ego. And she broke down. Instead of apologizing, I walked away, asserting that the data supported my case.
The next day, I found solace among classmates and friends. They told me I didn’t do anything wrong. That they would’ve done the same thing. That the facts proved I was right. Until that evening, a good friend and someone I’d known since middle school, said, “You’re fucking stupid.”
He told me to drop everything and to go apologize in person right that instant. To hell with data and facts. He said that I forgot the very first principle of any negotiation… that there was a human being on the other side. And I didn’t treat her as one. He was the one person who opened my eyes up to the ego I was blinded by. So I did. In my realization, I felt terrible and even worse for needing someone else to tell me that I had to. But that’s the friend I needed. That’s what I needed to hear.
Something you might have realized if you’re a frequent visitor to this small piece of virtual real estate is that I’m not perfect. Nor do I pretend to be. The above example is evidence of that.
I was reminded of that when I was listening to Jonathan Abramson Venture Unlocked earlier this week. Where they brought up the topic of being founder friendly — a term that indubitably carries a lot of baggage. From the VC side, it’s jargon that’s been thrown around so much over the past decade, it’s lost its luster and meaning. From the founder side, many founders frankly just don’t get what it means. Why? Because no one actually defines it.
Over the years, I’ve seen and heard explicit and implicit definitions, including:
Not firing the CEO (even when they don’t do a good job)
Helping the founder grow as the company and CEO job description grows
Having answers to every question the founders ask
Asking (good) questions
Telling the founders what to do
The thing is, all the above are right and wrong at the same time. It’s situationally dependent. Ok, maybe except the last one. That one’s wrong all the time. Something you realize pretty quickly is that the investor is not in the driver’s seat. At best, we sit shotgun.
So, what does “founder friendly” mean?
Jonathan Abrams and the 8-Bit team says, “Do no harm.”
Fred Wilson says, “Saving your company from yourself may well be founder friendly.”
To YC, it’s being honest, transparent, responsive, and acting in the best interests of the company, shareholders, employees, and founders.
The truth is everyone has a different, but similar definition. Like product-market fit, it’s hard to measure and an amorphous term. It’s obvious in hindsight. But mysterious in foresight. Yet, as a founder, there are still many telltale signs on how helpful an investor actually will be.
Leading indicators to helpfulness
One of the reasons I love working with smaller checkwriters — be it angels or emerging fund managers — is that they often punch above their weight class. They’re insanely responsive. And are often more helpful than their check size. They may not be able to single-handedly fill the round, nor can their check get you to profitability, but they’re there when you need them. In other words, they hit high on the check size-to-helpfulness ratio, which I’ve written about before.
The first meeting
Interestingly enough, the first meeting is quite telling of how helpful investors are — regardless of the decision outcome. It could be in the form of investor intros, strategic advice, hard questions to consider, or key hires to make. In fact, they’ll make you feel like you got back days if not weeks, out of a 30-minute meeting. If you, as the founder, get nothing out of the first meeting, then you likely won’t get much when they are on your cap table. The most helpful investors don’t waste time. Not theirs. But more importantly, not yours either. They know that each time you meet with them is time away from building. And they’ll make that time worthwhile.
As an investor, the golden standard should be to be helpful in every meeting. And I don’t mean ending the conversation with “Let me know how I can be helpful.” That’s reactive.
For one of my good friends, that means that if he takes a meeting with you — whether he chooses to invest or not, he will write a 3-5 page bug report on your product. For some of my other friends, it’s that if they take a meeting, they’ll nine out of ten times set up an intro. Instead of asking “How can I be helpful?”, one should ask “What do you need help on?” or “What are the biggest obstacles that prevent you from reaching your 6-12 month goals?” Then, proactively trying to find some way to help.
That said, the afore-mentioned investors’ bar for taking a meeting is rather high.
Response rate
Another proxy for helpfulness is how fast they reply to your emails. Many of the investors who I know are insanely helpful have a system to respond to founders quickly. Moreover, if the decision is a ‘No’, they don’t shy away from sharing that and why they decided to pass. Of course, the latter is not possible for every inbound pitch. But at the very minimum, are table stakes if you’ve already jumped on an initial live conversation with them.
Here, within 24 hours is epic. 48-72 hours is great. And anything longer becomes a dime a dozen.
Inactive founders sing them high praise
It’s always important to do your homework on your investor. One of such ways is talking to other founders they backed, especially the ones who are no longer founders or no longer pursuing the original idea they were backed on. Active portfolio companies are likely to still give lip service to their investors, especially when they are a large portion of their cap table. So, when you ask, “Was this investor helpful?”, you’re likely to get an overly politically correct answer. Rather, the question I recommend asking is:
“If you were to start a new company, who are the three investors — big or small — on your current cap table that you would kill to have back on?”
Conversely, if you talk to former portfolio founders, they’re likely to be a lot more honest as they don’t have a currently active relationship with the investor. Or if they still do, the investor must have done something right.
Lagging indicators to helpfulness
While not the intended purpose of this blogpost, I can’t help but shed some additional context for investors out there. In my recent conversations with GPs and LPs, I noticed a common thread among the GPs who are capable of raising a fund even in a down market. It’s that the founders they back who went on to raise A, B rounds, or greater, come back to invest in their early believers. The people who made a difference in these founders’ lives.
So, whenever I meet an emerging GP asking for fundraising advice, one of the first questions I ask, outside of these five questions which determine if they’re ready to start a fund, is:
Have any of the founders you backed before committed to your fund?
Goodwill and helpfulness builds flywheels. When your founders go on to win, if you’ve been helpful, they’ll want to pay it back.
Tangentially, it’s why the team at Ludlow Ventures says, “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.” So, getting deal flow from founders you pass on means, either:
They still want something from you; or
You were really helpful that they want to send all their best founder friends to you.
Hopefully, it’s the latter.
In closing
At the end of the day, no one’s perfect. Not the founders. Not the investors. No one. And it’s okay.
In the current world of chaotic down markets, high interest rates, and more, this is the time to build goodwill. This is the time to be truly founder friendly. If you have less liquidity, you can always help in many ways outside of pure capital. After all, capital for founders is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Sometimes it’s just being honest, candid, and transparent with the founder.
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.
In 2016, I jumped into the VC world, knowing no better than what my forefathers and foremothers taught me. Outside of a handful few, many of the people I looked up to and sought for advice had been in the business for less than a decade. In effect, they started their investing career after the GFC (Global Financial Crisis) in 2008. While they still bore more scar tissue than I did, I learned quickly that the one question to ask founders early on was “What is your last round’s valuation?” or “What valuation are you seeking?” For the latter question, the implicit answer we sought out for was their 12-month revenue. And subsequently, their valuation multiple. In Mark Suster‘s words, we were “praying to the God of Valuation.” But really, their exit multiples matter more than the entry or current multiple.
For fund managers and partners, the question was “What is your IRR or TVPI?” or “What’s your AUM?”. Rather, the answer we should be seeking isn’t some function of their portfolio’s valuations, but the quality of the businesses they invest in.
To be fair, I failed to fully appreciate the latter answer until this year.
The odds aren’t bad, but that doesn’t mean they’re great
Jared Heyman wrote a great piece last year on the probability of success for YC startups. After parsing through the data, he found that after a couple years of survival, a startup is just as likely to go through an exit (i.e. acquisition or go public) as it is to fail (i.e. inactive). Additionally, ~88% of startups reach resolution (exit or inactive) around the 12-year mark.
It’s also interesting to note that the average time it takes for a YC company to exit (if they exit) is seven years. In fact, the time horizon has shortened in the past few years from an average timeline of nine years to five. Of course that’s pre-2022, so the time to exit is likely to increase once again to the mean or longer as:
Markets are less liquid. Valuations drop. Rounds are smaller. Buyers are less eager to buy. Founders have less access to liquidity and exit opportunities. As such, the markets will demand more proof from founders of market traction.
Investor sentiment is guarded, echoing Howard Marks. I haven’t seen the newest numbers but at best, I imagine we’ll see more capital go towards existing investments, maintaining overall investment volume. At worst, a decline of capital deployment, outside of ephemerally “hot” industries, like generative AI.
Investors’ key worry is investment losses. Investors up and downstream become more risk averse.
Interest rates are rising to curb inflation, leading to a debt investor’s market rather than an equity investor’s. Founders are likely to turn to expensive debt instruments (and many already have). Higher interest rates also mean greater return expectations from investors.
Jared does note in another piece that “while YC startups may cost 2-3 times as much as their non-YC peers to investors, they’re worth 6-7 times as much in terms of expected investor returns.” It’s great to be an LP in YC, but tough to be choosing YC startups. Of course, at the very end there’s a gentle reminder that VCs (and angels) are defined by the magnitude of their successes rather than the number of their failures (and successes). Just because a portco gets to an exit doesn’t mean it’ll be a fund returner. With shifting markets, this will be as true for YC under Garry’s leadership as for any other fund.
Of course, I don’t mean to pick on YC. They do a tremendous job of picking founders. And it’s true that they have set the golden standard for startup accelerators. It’s just that the above data was easily accessible.
Portfolio consistency
Interestingly enough, Oliver Jung, Airbnb’s former VP International, wrote half a month later that Adinvest’s Fund II made him $200 on every dollar he invested in the fund, largely because of a 1000x Adinvest II made into Adyen.
That’s a phenomenal outcome! To make investors back $200 on every dollar invested is definitely one for the books. The question becomes (and I have no inside scoop on this): How did the rest of the portfolio do? Was Adinvest’s Fund II purely based on luck or is there a consistent model that can be replicated in future funds?
For that question, it begs another. If we took out Adinvest’s investment in Adyen, what is the DPI (distributions to paid-in capital) of the rest of the fund? That will dictate Adinvest’s ability to raise a subsequent fund, at least from the larger, more sophisticated LPs. A great and consistent portfolio may look something a little like this.
Given that the average fund’s returns (with a large enough portfolio i.e. 100 portcos) normalizes to a 3x gross return — venture’s Mendoza line, 3-5x would put you in the ball park of good. High single digits would put you in the great category. And double digits would put you in epic.
And if Adyen really was the sole outlier success, did the GPs have the conviction to double down in subsequent rounds? If so, how did they earn their pro rata?
Sometimes all you need is one investment to push you from a nobody to a somebody, but if you’re intent on building a multi-decade-long career in the space, your founders should see you in the same or better light than those equipped with asymmetric information (i.e. those who read about you in the media).
While many Fund I’s and II’s may not have a reserve ratio, were the GPs and LPs able to continue to invest via SPVs? By doubling down, it’s the difference between a strategy to win and a strategy not to lose. How much of Adinvest’s AUM does their investment in Adyen account for? And being a fund manager means balancing oneself on the tightrope between the two strategies. In doubling down, that investment becomes a larger percent of the capital you manage (AUM). If you lose, you lose much more. If you win, you win a lot more.
Of course, this is true for any fund. I ended up overly picking on the case study of Adinvest to illustrate the point, but I have nothing against the great success Oliver, the other LPs and the team at Adinvest did have. On a broader spectrum, the purpose of having many shots on goal is theoretically so that you will have a few outliers. So your fund can grow based on a consistent strategy.
There are many times when all you have is that one outlier (often still in paper returns, not distributions yet). It happens. I’ve seen it happen. But if that one doesn’t work out, how forthcoming are you with your “disappearing TVPI?” I imagine a lot of investors who are planning to raise in 2023 will come face to face with these questions, having made big bets on hot startups in the last two years. Will you shrug it off? Or will you candidly share the lessons in which you learned?
The above is just something I’ve thought about a lot more as I see more emerging GP fundraising decks, as they boast about their angel portfolio (if they did have one).
In closing
There’s a proverb that goes: A broken clock is still right twice a day. You can be the worst investor out there, but with enough swings at bat, you’ll still be able to hit some outliers.
In the world of investing, you’re guaranteed to be wrong more often than you’re right. But I’ve seen many that do a lot of stuff ‘wrong’ and still have a winning fund. The big question… and the question, sophisticated and institutional LPs are asking is: Is it repeatable?
So, even if you did hit some home runs, is your success repeatable?
One last footnote. In talking with a number of investors who’ve been in the business for more than a decade, I’m starting to realize that selling (i.e. knowing when to sell and how much to sell) is just as important. An art and a science. I’ve written about it before (here and here), but I imagine I’ll revisit the topic again in long form soon. Especially as I see more discourse on the topic and funds close and liquidate in the near future. From great ones like Union Square Ventures to those who need to return some DPI to raise their next fund.
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.
This year I learned a lot. From the fact that most of my readers love to read my blogposts on Wednesday 2PM Pacific to how I could get general partners — some of the smartest people in VC — to be vulnerable and candid to how to set up an SPV from scratch (without the help of any platform). It’s been a rollercoaster. And I loved every second of it.
My blog grew modestly. No hockey-stick curve. And that’s okay. I enjoyed inking each word. To me, that’s what makes this blog worth it.
I’ve written 87,000 words, with over a third fewer posts than last year. I want to say I was busy. And I was. But another equally true reason was that I was scared to disappoint. I wasn’t content publishing half-baked ideas. And it sucks when I know I wanted to write more. How? Because as of today, I have 53 drafts just sitting in my WordPress folder. With 245 total published essays, that’s a sixth of my thoughts I withheld or postponed because I thought: “They’re not good enough.”
Comfort is powerful. And earlier this year I found myself resigning to habitual cycles I had developed in the year prior. A fear manifested into reality. So I made a promise to myself to escape the clutches of complacency.
But while I hesitated on the writing front, I chose to take risk elsewhere. I took big bets. For one-way door decisions, bets I didn’t wait for a 100% conviction on. And just jumped when I got to 70%. As a function, I had many firsts.
It’s the first economic downturn I’m living and working through (2008 and the dot com era don’t really count as I was still in grade school).
For the first-time I broke my streak of writing weekly since the inception of this blog. While I can blame servers and bugs, the reason was simple. I just wasn’t prepared enough.
I set up my first SPV (special purpose vehicle) from scratch. With a s**tload of help, but yes, from incorporating to legal docs to setting up bank accounts, and so on.
I started interviewing LPs in fireside chats — something I never imagined I would end up love doing or be capable of doing.
I hosted my first social experiment-like event paid for and sponsored by investors for investors, rather than my usual audience of thrill seekers. Based on the feedback, I’d say it was a success. Many learnings and an indispensable village helping behind the scenes. A handful of things that could have been better. But a night of surprises. And I learned — something I hope to share more in the future (as I have larger sample sizes) — events, just like books, movies, shows, podcasts, and so on, are stories. And stories have settings, character developments, plots, a climax, and an end where the audience can imagine no other (to steal a line from Robert McKee).
Additionally, I…
Took my first vacation, not touching any work at all, in six years;
Went to my first traditional Vietnamese wedding; hell, travelled to Southeast Asia for the first time;
Successfully made fruit chips en masse;
Realized my favorite photo mode is portrait mode;
Built my first PC;
Put together my first career manifesto — my professional raison d’être.
And it’s still not enough.
But I digress. While I wrote far fewer posts, 2022 was the year I wanted to make things count. As Muhammad Ali once said, “Don’t count the days; make the days count.” The below, while I wish I had a longer list, are the blogposts that counted.
2022’s Most Popular
The below are the essays that I published during 2022, and generated the most views, ranked from most to 5th most:
The Emerging LP Playbook – I never expected this one to take the top spot this year. Borne out of a personal curiosity and an attempt to better understand the black box industry of LP investing, ever since Andrew Gluck put “emerging” and “LP” back-to-back on a Zoom call, I had to learn more about it. The truth is I only knew a handful of known LPs at the time, but I’m happy this piece has expanded the horizon for not only myself, but everyone else out there who’s read this curious piece. It answers just one nexus question: For a first-time LP, where do you start?
99 Pieces of Unsolicited, (Possibly) Ungoogleable Startup Advice – I’m a collector. And have been so for a while. Specifically, a collector of quotes. I have journals dedicated to them. When the pandemic hit, I had a thought, what if I collected 99 soundbites (some albeit my own) about being a founder? All tactical. And each will share an actionable lesson. And I shared them. I didn’t know how long it’d take, but I knew that 99 sounded like a good number.
What Does Signal Mean For An Early-Stage Investor? – The word ‘signal’ has been thrown around quite a bit in the last two years — 2020 and 2021, if you’re a time traveler and reading this in the future. For instance, an investor would look for ‘signal’ before investing in a deal. In the above blogpost, I break down exactly what ‘signal’ means. And I imagine, in whatever time period governed by FOMO (fear of missing out), ‘signal’ will rhyme.
99 Pieces of Unsolicited, (Possibly) Ungoogleable Advice For Investors – Just like the one I wrote for founders, soon after, I thought I’d put a list of 99 soundbites for investors. And as I jumped at the opportunity to work with the brilliant team at On Deck Angels, I was living and breathing everything about investors — from angel investing to fund investing. Of course, you can sense my heavy bias towards to latter.
All-Time Most Popular
The funny, yet in hindsight, unsurprising, thing, is that the below are perfect examples of the power law, collectively generating 90% of the views ever on my blog. The below ranked in view count popularity:
The Emerging LP Playbook – I wrote this piece for myself and other investors looking to be LPs. Unsuspectingly so (at least in foresight), this piece generated a huge amount of excitement not only with my initial intended audience — who, I thought, was a niche audience — but also among many VCs and angels out there. I rarely write in hopes to change people’s minds. I’m not much of a persuasive writer, but rather I hope my words offer oases for people searching for answers in a desolate desert. But of the feedback I’ve gotten, it has surprisingly changed a number of people’s minds about LPs, as well as about different asset classes to invest in.
10 Letters of Thanks to 10 People who Changed my Life – To this day, it still baffles me how this is the most perennially popular essay I’ve written. The SEO keywords I’ve optimized for here are all related to Thanksgiving, yet the fact that search engines bring me new readers every single week without fail is an enigma I’m still unravelling. That said, I am thankful to everyone who’s given me and the 10 people I am deeply thankful for that year the attention and time out of your busy schedule.
How to Pitch VCs Without Ever Having to Send the Pitch Deck – Teach them something new. Many founders who’ve worked with me can attest that that’s been my favorite line to lead with when they ask for fundraising advice. This blogpost and the person behind it (who’ll stay anonymous for now) is the reason for that.
#unfiltered #30 Inspiration and Frustration – The Honest Answers From Some of the Most Resilient People Going through a World of Uncertainty – (Part two of which you can find here.) Interestingly enough, I knew this one would stand the test of time. Something we learn in Econ 101 is that business cycles come in booms and busts. And they oscillate between great times and bad times. The human emotion, our daily lives, and our careers are no exception. Collectively, I queried 42 world-class professionals about their greatest motivators. What keeps them going? I ask them two questions, but the catch is they’re only allowed to answer one of them. These pieces are a gentle reminder that bad times, like good times, never last.
Most Memorable Pieces in 2022
In writing each of the below, I felt the needle move forward. Not for the world or for the people immediately around me. But for me. That I myself took one small essay forward, but a disproportionately giant leap in the way I thought about the world around me. Each is the culmination of not just a few hours of writing, but of many things more. Provocative conversations. Research deep dives. And generous people.
In no particular order, if I were to hide pieces of my 2022 soul and mind in Horcruxes, they would be in the below:
The Emerging LP Playbook – You’ll realize that this blogpost appears in all three lists. The first two are outside of my control. But the reason it appears here is this piece catalyzed a spark that’ll come more into fruition in 2023. A spark that emerged from realizing the massive information asymmetry between LPs and GPs. Hell, even between LPs.
How to Develop Intuition as a Rookie Startup Investor – This dates as far back as 2017, when I first inked the thought in my notebook. The thesis was simple. Intuition — one’s sixth sense was a subconscious function of the mastery of the other five senses. But then, I felt ill-equipped to explicitly describe what other investors were feeling, and over time, what I was feeling as a function of what I was thinking. In it, I share each of the questions I consider and their respective answers that inform each of my senses (sight, hearing, taste, etc.).
How do You Know if You Should Professionalize as an Investor? – I love asking questions. To the point, and I don’t mean this in a tongue-in-cheek way, that often the best way to answer a question is with another question. I’ve gotten the above question many a time this past year, and this piece is a permutation of what helps me get to first-principles thinking when it comes to: Should you raise a fund… or stay an angel?
Five Tactical Lessons After Hosting 100+ Fireside Chats – I love hosting interviews. I really do. Part of it is due to the fact I love asking questions. The other half is… well… the average coffee chat is 30 minutes long. Half of it disappears after exchanging pleasantries. So, the big question is: How do you get more time with people you respect? One answer among many is by giving them a stage. That said, as I was doing my homework to be a better MC, the information out there is either paltry or too generic. So I made a promise to myself that as I do more myself I’ll share all the non-obvious lessons I learn. So that others can do better than me. And I hopefully, get to learn from them as they get better.
When Should You Sell Your Shares As An Investor? – Selling is really an art more than science. Like investing, often obvious in hindsight, but painfully scary in foresight. And to be a great investor, you have to distribute your earnings. And in order to earn, you have to turn something illiquid into something liquid. This piece was one of my first explorations behind what makes selling hard and how some of the best do it.
Quirks That Just Make Sense – Maybe there’s a bit of recency bias here, but this is something a few of my friends have known about me for a while. I just never had a good excuse to talk about it publicly. (Weird that I thought I ever needed an excuse to). But my good buddy Matt brought me out of my shell a few weeks back. And together we put together a piece about the quirks we carry and the origin story of each. Coincidentally enough, just watched Garry Tan’s video yesterday about a similar topic.
In closing
Cheers to a year of life lessons, friendships, skills and experiences acquired that were well worth the ride! And many more to come! If there’s ever any topic you would like me to write about in the future, don’t hesitate to let me know. I have two nominations already.
To peruse one of Kurt Vonnegut‘s lessons, I hope to continue to use your time in a way that you feel is not wasted.
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 often I get to work with someone I deeply respect on the content front. In fact, in the history of this blog, I’ve never done so before. But there are a rarified few in the world that if I was ever given the chance to work with them, I’d do so in a heartbeat. Tom White is one of them. As someone who I had the chance to work briefly with when our time at On Deck overlapped, he is someone I’ve been continually enamored with — both in how he commands the English language and in how intentional and thoughtful he is as an investor.
So when Tom reached out to collaborate on a blogpost for the Stonks blog, it was a no-brainer. And, the below is that product on how founders can own their fundraising process.
David’s note: Tom never ceases to amaze me on his ability to meme anything.
It’s a tale as old as time.
After a good meeting and a great pitch, the VC across the table (or on your screen in this day and age) offers a forced smile and utters: “Thanks again for making the time. Let me circle back internally and we’ll get back to you if we’re interested.”
If you have ever fundraised as a founder — hell, if you’ve ever fundraised, period — you have heard those fatal few words many more times than you care to remember. Though frequently said, the pangs of disappointment and frustration that they impart seldom fade away.
Fear not fellow founders!
To ensure you never hear those dreaded words again, we turned to the one and only David Zhou. A “tenaciously and idiosyncratically curious” writer and investor per LinkedIn, David pens the inimitable, brilliantly-named Cup of Zhou, scouts for a number of VCs, and helps run the On Deck Angel Fellowship.
Your ability to raise capital is directly proportional to your ability to inspire confidence in potential investors.
I’ll get into that, however, first a brief aside.
One of my favorite lines in literature comes from the seventh book of the Harry Potter franchise: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Inscribed on the golden snitch is a simple, but profound phrase: “I open at the close.”
In many ways, that line alone echoes much of the world of entrepreneurship. Whether backcasting from the future as Mike Maples Jr. puts it (i.e. great founders are simply visitors from the future) or breaking down your TAM to your SAM then SOM, the greatest founders — no, storytellers — start from the end. They share the future that they wish to see and distort today’s reality to fit into that predestined mold. Without further ado, my five tips on willing the future you want to see via successful fundraising.
1. Measure Founder-Investor Fit
Before you dive into talking with every investor under the sun, you must first understand there are more investors out there than you possibly have time for. You will never pitch every single one, nor should you. You need to be judicious with your time.
As you raise your first institutional round, you’re seeking out early believers. Julian Weisser — an investor with whom I’m lucky enough to work — calls this belief capital. You’re selling a promise, a vision.
And let’s be honest, at pre-seed there is no amount of traction that will convince any investor with numbers alone.
You see, it’s all about narrative building.
More on that below, but for early investors, it’s about whether they not only believe, but are also willing to fight for the future you collectively desire.
2. Close the First Meeting
I recommend that many founders with whom I work ask a two-part question heavily inspired by my conversation with Hustle Fund’s Eric Bahn for my emerging LP playbook: “Critical feedback is important to me in my journey to grow as a founder and a leader. So I hope you don’t mind if I ask, given what you know about my startup and myself: On a scale of one to ten, how fundable am I?”
To be honest, the number they give is inconsequential. That said, if they give you a ten, get a term sheet on the spot.
The more important question is the following one: “Whether I didn’t share it yet or don’t have it, what would get me to a ten? What would make this startup a no-brainer investment?”
Collect that feedback.
Put it in your FAQs.
Incorporate it into your next pitch.
Test and iterate.
I was listening to Felicis Ventures’ Aydin Senkut on Venture Unlocked recently and he mentioned that he iterated on his fund pitch deck every single time he got a no. And by the time he received his first yes from an investor, he was on the 107th version of the pitch deck.
As such, the answer to the second question should help you preempt and address concerns—explicit or implicit—in future pitches.
I discovered the below courtesy of the amazing Siqi Chen. Per a 2015 Harvard study, most people believe that people make decisions by:
Observing reality
Collecting facts
Forming opinions based on the facts collected
Then, making a rational decision.
But the reality is, people do not. People aren’t rational and investors are no exception.
Like everyone else, investors:
Are presented with facts.
Fit facts into existing opinions.
Make a decision that feels good.
Most of these opinions are not explicit. It’s neither on the website nor laid out in the firm’s thesis.
The good news is that most investors will share the same reservations. If one investor hesitates about something, another will likely do so. The best thing a founder can do is to address it before it comes up.
For example, if an investor tells you that if you have a better pulse on the competitive landscape, you would then be a ten. In the next version of the pitch, you might say “You might be thinking that this space is highly competitive, and you’re right. At a cursory glance, we all look like we tackle the same problem and fight over the same users. But that’s when this space deserves a double take. Company A is best in class for X. Company B is second to none in Y. But we are world-class in Z. And no one is offering a better solution for Z. Not only that, customers are begging for solutions for Z. One in every five posts on Z’s subreddit asks for a solution like ours. But if you look at the responses, no one has a perfect solution for it. In fact, people are duct taping their way across this problem. Not only that, in the past three months, since we shared our product on the subreddit, we’ve had 10k signups to the waitlist with 500 of them paying a deposit to get early access to our product.”
On that note, I don’t think it’s worth trying to change the original investor’s opinion after they share such feedback. Most of the time, you’ve unfortunately lost your window of opportunity. If it takes X amount of information for an investor to form an opinion about you, it takes 2-3X the amount of effort and time — if not more — for him/her to change said opinion and form a new one.
Lastly, per Homebrew’s Hunter Walk: “Never follow your investor’s advice and you might fail. Always follow your investor’s advice and you’ll definitely fail.”
3. Schedule the Second Meeting during the First
Say the vibes are right and you get the impression that the investor really loves your product and/or your problem space and/or you as a person. When you’re raising your first institutional round, it’s either a “Hell yes” or a “No.”
Open up your calendar at the end of the first meeting and schedule your next meeting there and then, but be sure to give the VC enough time to talk with his/her team and also suggest where their firm might want to dive deeper. Give three options for topics to dive into the next meeting. For instance:
The team and future hiring plans
The vision and financial projections
The product, demo, and team’s current focus
From there, have the investor pick one of the above before your next meeting. If they don’t, say something along the lines of: “During this conversation, you seemed to love to hear about the product, so we’d love to dive deeper into the product the next time around unless you prefer one of the other two options.”
Also, start tracking which paths seem to convert investors faster. For example, if 30% of the investors you talk to jump into diligence after hearing the vision, but only 15% convert after the product path, lead with the vision one first next time. “Most of our investors fall in love with us after hearing about the vision, and would love to share more on that at the next meeting.”
The moral of the story is simple: make it easy for your investor to say yes to the next meeting.
4. Realize that ‘No’ is merely a ‘Yes’ in Disguise
If you get the feeling that it may be a no, ask the investor, “What firm/investor do you think I should talk to who might be a better fit for what I’m working on?”
Do not ask for introductions. An introduction will come naturally if an investor is really excited about you. Additionally, even if the investor who passed does introduce you, a natural question will be: “Why didn’t you invest?”
This sets you up for failure because the other investor’s first impression of you will be negative. The only exceptions are if the reason is outside of your control. For instance, they’re raising their next fund since they don’t have any more to deploy out of the current fund, or they’ve recently changed their investment thesis away from what you’re building.
But I digress. What you should do instead is collect a Rolodex of names.
Never ever run out of leads. You never want to be in the position to beg someone who turned you down for money.
When a certain investor gets mentioned more than once — ideally at least three to four times — that’s your cue to reach out to them. “Hey Tom, we haven’t met before, but I’m currently fundraising for David’s Lemonade Stand. And four investors highly recommended I chat with you on the product, given your experience in food-tech and how you helped Sally’s Lemonade Bar grow from 10 to 500 customers.”
5. Use Investor Updates
Send interested investors weekly investor updates during your fundraise and monthly ones after its conclusion. Share important learnings, key metrics, and your fundraise’s progress.
Be sure to induce FOMO in your updates. Not in the sense that your round is closing soon, rather, that you’re at an inflection point right now in both your product and the market. Two example prompts:
Why are you within the next 12-18 months “guaranteed” (I also use this word hesitantly) to 10x against your KPIs?
Is the blocker right now a market risk (which leaves a lot for debate, and most investors will choose to wait for a future round) or an execution risk?
How have you de-risked your biggest risks?
Taking this a step further, you need the courage to “fire” an investor. If an investor doesn’t get back to you after two emails, it could just be that they’re busy. If they don’t get back to you after eight or nine emails, they’re just not interested. My rule of thumb is always three emails each a week apart for each investor. I have seen founders who have done more, but I would not recommend any fewer.
Regardless, whatever number you decide on, the last email ought to try to convert them. For examples:
“Since you haven’t gotten back to me yet about your interest, I assume you’re not interested in investing. As such, this will be our last investor update to you. If we are wrong, please do let us know.”
Interestingly enough I’ve seen more investors start conversations by this last email than by the very first. Remember to treat your fundraise like a sales pipeline; A/B test different copy and see which lands the best.
Concluding Thoughts
Remember, fundraising is a lot like life: it’s simple, but far from easy. It requires grit, determination, and a healthy dose of elbow grease. Despite current market conditions, forge ahead! Follow Jim Valvano’s lead and “Don’t give up. Don’t ever give up!”
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
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.
Last Friday, one of the greatest operators and super-connectors I know, who also moonlights as an angel investor, asked me: How do I know if I should professionalize as an investor?
Undeniably, a great question. But before I share my answer to her question, I thought it’d be best if I first elaborated on what “professionalize” means in this context. It’s a term we have used more than once here at On Deck Angels. And as a result, it has spilled over into the vocabulary I use even outside of venture. But in the context of investing, professionalize is where one would go from an amateur, part-time investor to a full-time investor. Either working at a fund, starting their own syndicate or fund, or as a full-time angel.
The thing is, to be a career startup investor, you have to be lucky. The capital required to have a seat at the poker table is high. While there are many platforms — from Republic to Wefunder to Titan Invest — that are working to democratize access, the truth, for now, still is that to access the best deals, you’re either lucky as a network leader or as a capital allocator. In other words, do you know the best and most entrepreneurial talent? And do you have a frick-ton of money?
And given that some element of luck on top of skill is table stakes, I felt the best response I could give wasn’t in the form of a statement or opinion, but in the form of five questions.
Why do you invest? What compels you to continue investing?
What are two positive adjectives you would use to describe your sibling*? What are two negative adjectives you would use to describe your sibling*?
*Or life partner, or someone you know really really well.
Have you ever laid someone off and regretted it? Why did you regret it? And at point after the event did you notice your regret?
If not… as an investor, have you ever said no to a founder and regretted it? Why did you regret it? And at point after the event did you notice your regret?
Of the five people you hang out with most, what are common traits that at least two of them have? List as many as you can.
If you were to start a fund or syndicate tomorrow, what would you call it?
So before you keep reading, I would recommend pausing. And to pull out a notepad and jot your own answers down to the questions above. It’s a useful exercise I ask myself, and evidently others as well, if you’re looking to professionalize as an investor.
When you’re ready, keep reading beyond the below image, as I’ll share my rationale behind the above questions.
*Author’s Note: Effectively, I was trying to space out the questions from the rationale of why I ask them below as much as I could, so that the below text wouldn’t influence your thinking (if you plan on doing this exercise).
Motivation – Why are you an investor? The underlying motivation matters. Are you in it for money? To pay it forward? To prove someone or some notion wrong? How fleeting is your motivation? Raising a fund is a decade-long relationship. Raising three is two-decades long of a relationship. So, the question is how deep is your motivation. Can it last multiple decades?
Strengths/weaknesses – This question is adapted from Doug Leone’s. People often describe others in comparison to themselves. For example, if I say Joanna is funny, by transitive property, I believe Joanna is funnier than I am. If I say Kai is smart, I believe Kai is smarter than I am. I often find this question to be much more useful in understanding a person than just asking for their strengths and weaknesses. After all, adjectives are, by definition, comparative words.
Standards – This question is a riff on Matt Mochary’s. If your answer to the question is no, then you don’t know your bar for excellence. Why does your bar matter? There’s a saying that A-players hire other A-players because they know just much it takes to win. B-players, on the other hand, know they’re not as good as A-players, but on average, still want to feel superior, so they hire C-players. A-players can stand B-players, but can’t stand C-players. So eventually, the A-players leave your company. Why does this matter for an investor? You need to be able to differentiate between an A-player and a B-player. The difference between a great founder and a good founder is a fine line, and most people miss it. If you want to have a chance at being a top decile investor, you need to know. After all, people often learn more from loss than from gain. For the second part of the question, being a great investor — or to be fair, a great anything — is all about the velocity in which you learn. Speed and direction.
Deal flow – This question is a proxy of where you’re going to the majority of your early deal flow, and likely who and where you’re connected the most with. The follow up would be do you get enough quality deal flow from people with these traits. In other words, if you had the capital, are you confident you could put at least $250K to use every quarter? If not, stay a scout or raise a syndicate instead of a fund. Until you can build up to this.
Legacy – Building a fund is multi-generational. Just three funds would be a 20-year relationship. And the best funds often outlive the founder(s) themselves. So the biggest question here is what kind of legacy are you trying to build? Or are you trying to build one? This legacy, founded upon your values, determines how you plan for succession and who you raise to be your firm’s next leaders.
In closing
Of course, the five questions aren’t an end-all-be-all. There’s still the ability to think through fund strategy and portfolio construction. There’s fund admin. The back office. Tech stack. Picking strategic markets where you have an unfair advantage. That said, if you can answer the above questions well, you’ll have a compelling narrative to either fundraise from LPs or join a larger fund.
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.
Two weeks ago, in an On Deck Angels workshop, one of our community members asked: “What do you recommend to do to increase access to allocation and top-performing deals?” To which I responded briefly with my belief that investors should always try to win their right on the cap table — whether it’s in the current round or the next. And, there are four ways to win that right:
Go early.
Being a valuable asset to the company.
You are never too good to chase the best.
Get to know the lead investor. Specifically, in their mind, be different.
As a footnote to all this, Founder Collective did a study a year or so ago where they found the 30 most valuable companies in the world raised half as much and were worth 4x the 30 most funded companies in the world. So, while hot rounds are great and all, there’s no telling that they’ll be the most valuable companies in ten, even five, years’ time. All that to say, I realize I’m writing this blogpost in a down market — likely only a few quarters of many more before we see the end of this recessionary period. The truth is, there are probably not as many hot rounds as there are before. But they still exist. And as an investor, you want to be ready for when that happens. While you set yourself up to have a prepared mind for getting picked, focus on picking.
To take a deeper dive on getting picked…
Just like it’s important for a founder to find product-market fit, it’s equally as important for an investor to find investor-market fit. Think of your check or your vehicle as a product in and of itself. As an investor, you are either great at picking or great at getting picked or both. For the purpose of responding to the above question, I’ll focus on the latter — getting picked.
It’s a three-sided marketplace where your customers are your LPs, founders, and your co-investors. Of all the above, to be fair, LPs loving you doesn’t necessarily get you better access to deals, so we’ll save that discussion for another day. And while there are many factors to getting picked, it boils down to two things:
Founders love you
Co-investors love you
In both scenarios, you get proprietary access to deals. As Sapphire’s Beezersaid, “‘proprietary deal flow’ is not really a thing.” Proprietary access, on the other hand, is a thing.
Lenny Rachitsky and Yuriy Timen put out a great piece on activation rates recently. In it, there’s one line I particularly like, when they defined the activation metric:
“Your activation milestone (often referred to as your ‘aha moment’) is the earliest point in your onboarding flow that, by showing your product’s value, is predictive of long-term retention.”
The product, your fund or check. Retention, how likely they are to keep you on their speed dial (for a particular topic or function). And there are two distinct qualities of a great activation metric: “highly predictable” and “highly actionable.”
Highly predictable: The founders know exactly what they can get from you. The value you give isn’t vague, like “we invest in the best early-stage founders.” a16z can afford to say that. You can’t.
Highly actionable: Knowing what value founders can get from you, they know the exact types of questions to ask you to best extract that value.
The earlier you are in your investing journey, the more obvious you should make the above.
Taking the product analogy in stride, how do you get to a point where your customers get to your activation milestone? Where they form a new habit around keeping you top of mind?
How do you get founders to love you?
In my mind, there are two ways we can measure if founders love you:
For founders you’ve invested in: If they answer with your name to “If you were to start a new company, who are the first three investors you would bring back to your cap table?”
For founders you haven’t invested in: You get (great) deal flow from founders you passed on.
Tactically, in combination with being predictable and having your value be actionable…
Go early. Be the first check in when they’re still non-obvious. This of course requires a combination of luck and conviction. The latter is more predictable than the first. Be bullish when others are bearish.
Being a valuable asset to the company. Founders have 2 jobs: (a) make money and (b) hire people to make money. As an investor, everything you do is directly or indirectly involved in that. Also, when a founder fundraises, I would ask them what they plan to do with that money (i.e. hire VPs, more engineers, scale to X # of customers), and see if you can be preemptively helpful there.
You are never too good to chase the best. This is something that I picked up from a Pat Grady video some long while back. But to win the best deals, you go to where the founders are, don’t expect them to come to you. That’s how Sarah Guo, Pat’s wife, won a lot of deals that Sequoia wanted to get into.
How do you get co-investors to love you?
The best way to measure this is your co-investors proactively invite you to invest in future deals together.
The best way to get there is to:
Get to know the lead investor. Specifically, in their mind, be different.
Their lead investor might have a large portfolio where they can’t be as helpful to every investment they make. Try to squeeze in the round and be insanely helpful to their/your portfolio. And over time, as you co-invest in more deals, they’ll keep you top of mind for future ones.
For this one, it pays not to be generalist. I don’t mean as a function of industry but as a function of how you add value to your portfolio. Someone who can do everything is less desirable than someone who is really good at just one thing. Say, hiring executives or getting FDA approval or generating PR buzz. Interestingly enough, responsiveness is also a differentiator. I heard an investor say recently that the value of an investor is determined not by what happens during the meeting, but in between meetings. And I completely agree. The cap table doesn’t need another investor. The cap table needs people who will increase the chances of the company’s multi-billion dollar outcome.
The takeaway here is to not be better, but to be different. People can’t tell better, but they can tell different. That’s why the word differentiated is used so much. Have a differentiated approach. Have a diversified portfolio. On the other hand, having a better generalist strategy than a16z or Sequoia is hard to measure. While it may be true in the long run, better is difficult to measure in foresight, but obvious in hindsight. Just like product-market fit. Hard to pinpoint in the windshield, but obvious in the rearview mirror. It’s better to be the in a pool of one than a pool of many. Be the one CEO coach. Be the one who helps founders build robust communities. Or, be something that no one expects. Like Charlie Munger, be the best 30 second mind in the world.
Another reason I left this in the co-investor love section is that while being different does help you stand out to founders, there seems to be a lot more logo chasing from founders. Differentiation, unfortunately, falls short of brand recognition. I genuinely hope that this does change in the next few quarters.
In closing
While the question that inspired this blogpost is meant for hot rounds, the same holds for just being a great investor. One thing I’ve told many applicants to On Deck Angels is that we look for folks who are excited about putting investor on their resume and is willing to put in the legwork to become a great investor. The above is one of many paths to become one.
Arguably the above is how to be a great champion of people. The investor part comes with luck and having an eye for great talent, ideally before others. Betting on the non-obvious before they become obvious.
The best startup investors are disciplined and constantly learning. Some might argue that they may not have the time to entertain hot startups in general. Or at least startups when they are hot.
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.
The past 2 weeks brought me a whirlwind of conversations with emerging managers and LPs, catalyzed by the emerging LP playbook. And of the former, I’ve come across two main themes:
Everyone — I kid you not… everyone — has top-tier VCs as their follow-on and/or their co-investors. What was once upon unique is no longer so.
Eric was right. There’s an overabundance of the word “signal” in venture wonderland these days — to the point the word itself has lost its meaning. By definition, it should mean that is unique and stands above a sea of noise. For many investors, that means either investing in brand-name startups (i.e. SpaceX, Figma, etc.) or investing alongside brand-name investors. The latter, unfortunately, is also a product of the ecosystem as many LPs seek social proof about your investment thesis from others’ who have a proven track record. The former gets a bit sticky. A lot of these logos are either off-fund-thesis or came as a Series B syndicate investment (but the fund itself is investing in pre-seed or seed).
After publishing the emerging LP playbook last week, I've been lucky to chat with quite a few emerging managers raising their Fund I's
And there are 2 common themes I see in their decks:
1. Tier 1 VCs as follow on investors are table stakes 2. There's a lot of logo shopping
To piggyback on the above, the notion of signal is worth elaborating on, likely a vestigial appendage of the past two years.
Let me preface by saying that it takes a lot to get to conviction.
In 2020 and 2021, many investors’ calculus of startup signal boiled down to three things: great investors, great traction, and great team. And in that order. That is first and foremost what I see a lot of professionalizing investors do. I can’t entirely blame them since the ecosystem itself propagates the belief that if a Tier 1 VC jumps in, you’re more likely to get to a great exit. Or at the minimum, get a great mark-up to make your IRRs and TVPIs look better. On paper, of course.
But what I believe a lot of investors are missing is that… venture is a game that’s not about your batting average, but about the magnitude of the home runs you hit. You’ve heard it before, and you’ll continue to hear more of it. Unlike other financial services, VC is driven by the power law. 80% of your returns will be driven by 20% of your bets. That’s the 10,000 foot view. Let’s be honest. Most of us, myself included, don’t take that panoramic view every day or even every week. In fact, I see many emerging managers only take that view when they’re forced to. In other words, when they’re in fundraising mode.
For many professionalizing angels and syndicate leads, that becomes trying to string a narrative from seemingly disparate data points. Or at least, it seems that way.
As Asher Siddiqui told me, “[after] you look at their whole life and career history, and look at their thesis, if the thesis doesn’t make complete and perfect sense, then I don’t think this is a ‘great‘ fund manager. If it fits like a glove, then yes, they could be.”
The best GPs are disciplined even before they start fundraising. They focus on the thesis they want to raise on when they do. That’s not to say they don’t invest off-thesis every so often. But they don’t pitch their off-thesis angel or syndicate investments as part of their thesis-driven track record. But I digress.
In chasing signal for the sake of signal, when you hear of a hot deal every other day, many investors forget to be that belief capital for founders. I’m not saying that an investor should do so for every founder out there. But to pick a few, or even just one. One that they’re willing to take the swing before others do.
The signal is their own conviction in the founder.
The first half
Because of this progression, there’s been a new two-part question I really enjoy asking emerging GPs. The first half:
Which company in your portfolio you think is still underestimated?
Which company in your portfolio didn’t get the investor attention you expected but are still extremely bullish on their growth? And why do you still believe in them? What are other investors missing out on?
It’s not about track record or social proof here. It’s about the ability to recognize exceptional talent and articulate it clearly. Hopefully, a rose growing in concrete.
Well, in terms of the odds, you’re likely to be wrong. But that’s okay. You need to be willing to be wrong to achieve outlier success.
Fund I is often the proof-of-concept fund for the emerging managers I’ve talked to. They start by writing small checks, don’t lead rounds, and don’t fight for ownership targets. They claim to be extremely helpful and hands on. Then again, expectation often differs from reality, especially if they’ve never been so before (where LPs discover through reference checks). And because they’re writing smaller checks now, I’ve seen many implicitly hold off on developing a framework to get to conviction until Fund III. Whereas the best GPs start thinking about it early on.
You can think about it this way. As long as you’re benchmarking on signal via other investors, why should an LP back your thesis when they can back your “signal”?
For individuals and smaller family offices, they’ll still back you. What they’re buying is access, since they can’t afford nor have the relationship to be an LP in the “signals.” Larger LPs have the optionality to do so. And if you’re an emerging GP hoping to grow as a professional manager by having larger and larger funds, you eventually need to raise from large LPs. At least, until the SEC changes their 99 limit. And to do so, from larger LPs, means you need to bet where their existing portfolio has not bet before. Plus do it well.
The second half
If you haven’t already, a great way to build a referenceable track record is to sweat the details. Yes. The details matter. Nate Silver, one of the best poker players of our generation, said earlier this year, “you can’t just get the big things right in poker. You have to get the small things right too. It’s too competitive of a field right now.”
Though he said venture is different, I believe he’s half right. Most investors don’t sweat the small things. But investors should. Today, that’s how you stand out.
It might not have been true a decade ago, but now it is. Just last year, in 2021, there were 730 funds created. To put that number into perspective, on average, that literally means two firms closed every single day last year, including the holidays and weekends!
Capital has become a commodity. In 2021, speed was a differentiator. Clearly, in 2022, it is not. Today, it’s tough being a founder. If you’ve raised in the last two years, you’re considering extending your runway. That means having tough conversations to reduce your workforce, your benefits, or your salaries. If you haven’t raised, it’s a hard market to be raising in now. And so the differentiator today, is in two parts:
Helping founders navigate these tough situations. In other words, being (proactively) helpful.
And helping founders raise their next round. Mac Conwell recently shared a great thread on how powerful a founders’ network is to get funding. The same applies to an investors’ ability to help their portfolio raise capital. How liquid is your network? It’s not about who you know, but how well you know your friends downstream, and how can you get them over the activation energy to invest. Don’t get me wrong. There still needs to be a certain level of hustle from the founders themselves. But a great investor often steps in to reduce as much friction as we can in that process.
Both of which have long been the job description of being a VC. It’s in the small things. Jump on a 2AM call. Help your founders figure out the wording for a reduction-in-force. Fix the sales copy to better close leads.
There are 10-15 character-building moments in a founder’s journey where the moat they build around the business (as opposed to just the product) is not IP or early product traction, but rather from the lessons obtained from scar tissue.
It’s hard to predict looking through the windshield when these moments are, but quite obvious via the rearview mirror. And the best an investor can do is be there as much as he/she can. Albeit hard to do for every company in your portfolio, and that’s the truth. The wealth of information creates a poverty of attention. The larger your portfolio, the harder it is to be truly helpful to every single one. So focus on founders who need you, rather than those who will do great without you. Reputation is built in wartime and realized in peacetime.
So, the second part to the above question is:
What did you do for this company that no other investor or advisor did?
… where I’m looking for answers on how this investor went above the call of duty to help a company they believed in grow.
In closing
In summary,
Which company in your portfolio you think is still underestimated?
What did you do for this company that no other investor or advisor did?
This is by no means original, but heavily inspired by the recent conversations I’ve had, as well as helps me build my own framework for analysis. In parts, this question is a derivation to the check size to helpfulness ratio (CS:H). How helpful are you as an investor? When you say you’re founder-friendly, do you mean it?
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
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.
I’m sure every founder has heard that line at least 50 times every time they’re in fundraising mode. Hell, even outside of it. Pshhh, I’m guilty of saying it myself, while I do try to catch myself when I do. You’d think being helpful is table stakes as an early-stage investor. Surprisingly, being helpful as an investor is actually a huge differentiator.
Most investors are only as helpful as their check size, despite pitching their value-adds a million and one times. Some investors are extremely helpful only within the funding window(s) they are participating in. For instance, a seed investor is largely helpful during the 12-18-month funding window between the seed and the Series A. Others are helpful when they are asked. And a small handful of investors are true champions by being proactively helpful.
One of my favorite stories when I was interviewing LPs for the emerging LP playbook was when Brent invested in a GP who had a track record for being proactively helpful. This GP “was one of [Brent’s] first investors. He would often come into our office, and without being prompted, proceed to write code against our APIs.” Unprompted. Unsolicited, but insanely helpful.
Earlier this week, I was also reading the October investor update from a founder I love, and in it, he was talking about how much he loved the team at Sequoia (who have yet to invest), and shared that he had learned more about product in the last “3 days than [he had] in the last 3 months.”
A big part of the reason I joined the On Deck Angels team last year was to be a part of a community bringing the world’s most helpful investors together. As such, I’ve been lucky enough to be a student to our community on how they’re helpful — whether they choose to invest or not. Some examples include:
Writing a 3-5 page bug report for every founder you take a meeting with. This teaches an investor two things: 1/ to be judicious of one’s time and only take meetings with founders that you are truly likely to invest in, since these take a while to research and write up, and 2/ to always think in a “give first” mentality.
Record a Loom breakdown of why you decided to pass and what would get you over the fence. I’ve shared this before, but one of my favorite VC quotes and has been since the day I learned of it is: “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.”
Being able to admit how you can’t be helpful. As an investor, you don’t have to be good at everything, just really, really good at one thing, or a small handful of things.
Sharing their memos publicly on why they’re excited about a startup. This helps build a startup’s reputation, and also your own brand as a thought leader.
Sharing your deal memos and founder asks with your LPs (if you run a fund or syndicate). For this, admittedly, it’s best to get the founders’ approval, given the confidential nature of certain details.
Make an intro for every pitch meeting you take. Intros are often extremely high leverage. It takes you 1-2 minutes to write something up and send a double-opt-in intro. And oftentimes, can save the founders from at least tens of thousands of dollars worth of decision-making mistakes or costs. Of course, that requires you to have either photographic memory (which I don’t have) or a really good CRM. For the latter I use Airtable, and I track small details like: ideal catch-up frequency, preferred medium of communication, chill factor (yes, some of my intro emails can get a bit wonky depending on the person), and what makes them the best dollar on a founder’s cap table.
Many of the above aren’t necessarily hard to do, but just requires a consistent commitment to do them well. And of all the many ways one can help, they all fall into three buckets:
Introductions
Strategy, decision-making, and tactical advice
Downstream and co-investment capital
The last is the most obvious. The second is easy to understand, but often the hardest to execute on, and often comes from being an active or former operator yourself. Hunter Walk of Homebrew has this line, “Never follow your investor’s advice and you might fail. Always follow your investor’s advice and you’ll definitely fail.” Advice is just as helpful as it is dangerous. Something I’ll likely dive into in a future blogpost.
But for the purpose of this one, I’ll focus on introductions.
Network liquidity
I was recently reading Shawn’s chronicled reflections from his time as a Partner at On Deck — someone I am deeply fortunate to have worked alongside. In it, one line immediately grabbed my attention:
“Network liquidity is table stakes. […] This refers to how successful we are at connecting founders to people that are relevant to their needs and asks. The most important dimensions to consider are accuracy (how relevant was an introduction) and speed (how fast did you deliver).”
In 2022, and I imagine even more so, in the next few decades, it’s not about who you know — ’cause frankly, everyone will know everyone else. Social media, the metaverse, web3, the Zoom-ification of everything, and the rush back to IRL will only make this easier. I don’t believe any investor — or in fact, anyone, period — will have a “proprietary network.” So instead of who you know, it’s about how well you know them, and your ability to leverage that relationship.
We see this especially in the venture markets. In my recent blogpost, Sapphire’s Beezer shared: “We have felt for a number of years now (including pre-COVID) that the concept of ‘proprietary deal flow’ is not really a thing. Proprietary access however is something we think is true, powerful and not simple to achieve (hence why powerful ).”
I wrote quite a relevant essay a few months ago about how to write email forwardables. In order to tap into someone else’s network liquidity, there are two things you must establish:
Your rapport with the person you’re asking it from
Their rapport with the person you want to get to know
Requester and matchmaker rapport
I can’t speak for everyone, but my willingness to make intros depends strongly on both of the above, especially the former. Selfishly speaking, even if I don’t know the person who will receive the intro nearly as well, to put it bluntly, if I know I can look good to that person when I make it, that’s a strong motivator to do so. For that to happen, I need to fall in love with something about you — the person who would like to be introed. It could be you (usually the greatest motivating factor) and your passion. Even better if your passion is contagious. It could be your product. Or your insight. Usually, it’s some permutation of the afore-mentioned.
I meet with 10-15 net new founders per week. 25-30, if it’s accelerator season. Given my job description, almost every single founder asks me for intros. Sometimes, even without context.
Matchmaker and intro recipient rapport
The other side of the equation is the rapport I have with the person you want to get to know. The truth is the world of intros is like any other asymmetric game. The most well-known, busiest, and often hardest-to-reach people are the ones bombarded with the most intro requests. But like any other human being on this planet, they only have 24 hours in a day.
As a matchmaker myself, I have to cognizant not to overwhelm incredibly busy individuals with a flood of intro requests. And it is my job to triage requests. Sometimes, it’s also helping, in the case of fundraising, founders recognize not what they say they want, but to help them figure out what they really need.
In making requests to famous friends
There are times when the busiest people I know are the only people are capable of fulfilling the ask. So, it also comes down to your accumulation of social capital with the intro recipient. I have two columns in my Airtable CRM, labelled:
Why I am useful to them
Is my usefulness a priority to them? (on a scale of 1-5)
With the former, have I given before I have taken? Have I helped them before? Additionally, is the intro request more of a give or a take? A great startup with a strong team and traction for an investor is more of a ‘give.’ It’s deal flow from them. On the flip side, a founder asking for free advice is more of a ‘take.’ In general, ‘takes’ require more social capital than ‘gives.’
With the latter, priorities change. You may be useful in one phase in their life, but no longer so, in another. For example, when an emerging manager is fundraising for their Fund I, I am someone who is extremely top of mind for them, but when they’re not, I slip in importance. But regardless of the phase in their life, if someone is kind and thoughtful AND you’ve helped with a major decision or inflection point in their life, they’ll always be around. That said, I never try to abuse that goodwill. Personally, I hate being in debt and having others be in my debt.
You can also be “useful” in many different ways. For instance, doing interesting things is one way. One of the most famous people I know with millions of followers across his socials is willing to entertain any ask I ask of him under the condition I invite him to every social experiment I host in LA.
In closing
The more relevant an ‘ask’ is to the recipient, the more likely they’ll respond positively. The more top of mind you are and the more social capital you have with someone, the faster they’re likely to respond. We live in a saturated market of attention. Everything in the world is asking for ours — social media, kids, friends, work, portfolio companies, chores, Netflix, and sleep. And by no means all encompassing.
As you scale yourself as an investor, it’s important to think critically about who is in your network and how well you know them. If you’re a syndicate lead with 500 LPs, how many of them are passive capital? How many of them want to actively help your portfolio?
If you’re an investor who’s a Xoogler and wants to leverage the Google network, who do you know will go out of their way to help you? How many of them have you on speed dial? Which vintage were you a part of?
The great Richard Feynman once said, “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” One of the greatest fallacies an investor or even a founder can make is to assume they have a larger leverageable network than they actually do. Only to realize that when you do need to draw on these connections, you’re unable to.
So, if you have the time this weekend or the next, sit down with a critical eye and ask yourself: How liquid is your network?
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.
Before we dive into this blogpost, I’ve been asked by my legal friends to include the below disclaimer. I have a version of this at the bottom of every blogpost, but nevertheless, it doesn’t hurt to reiterate it again.
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Back in the hallowed halls of my elementary school, I had a principal whose presence was always larger than life. He was often the optimist and, with words alone, could figuratively turn water into wine, and any mistake into an opportunity. Ironically, there was a sign that hung above the door to his office that read: Opportunity is nowhere. An odd sign that seemed to be the Hyde to his Jekyll.
I spent a whole year contemplating why. And on the last day of third grade, I finally mustered the courage to ask him.
“Mr. M, why do you have that sign above your door?”
“What sign?”
“The sign that says ‘Opportunity is nowhere.'”
He paused and chuckled, “David, it looks like I bought the wrong sign. It’s supposed to say ‘Opportunity is now here.’ But now that you mention it, you could say the only difference between no opportunities and endless opportunities is just one small space.”
In the venture market, that small space blossomed in late 2020. In a flurry of SPACs, secondary markets, and tech IPOs, exit opportunities for venture-backed companies were flourishing. There were multiple paths to liquidity. Tech employees saw their net worth grow, and more accredited investors were minted by the day. Alumni syndicates grew in membership and deal volume.
With a surplus of capital in the market, the money had to go somewhere. Not to savings accounts. But to goods and services. Crypto and NFTs. Startups. And other capital allocators.
Adjacently, the COVID days saw the (re)emergence of new markets. Ecommerce. Fintech. Remote work. Future of work. Web3 and the metaverse. Just to name a few.
In 2021, VC fundraising activity surpassed $100B in funds raised for the first time. $128.3 billion across 730 funds, to be exact. Carta also saw a massive jump in the number of Fund I’s created last year. More than ever before, there was an abundance in opportunities to invest in venture funds.
Anecdotally, in my work at On Deck Angels and at DECODE, I’ve seen a rise in the number of opportunities to invest into funds as well. Via various other platforms as well:
Revere — where you can discover and evaluate venture fund managers through a unique rating framework. They’ve also recently launched explorevc.com for those curious about who’s in their pipeline;
Allocate — an end-to-end platform that covers everything from discovery to capital calls and keeping track of your portfolio;
Arlan Hamilton famously raised $5M of her fund via Republic, an equity crowdfunding platform. More recently, Cathie Wood announced the opportunity for non-accredited investors to invest in the ARK Venture Fund through Titan.
There was and still is a wealth of noise, but a poverty of “signal” — a word that may have lost its true meaning in these past few years. When signal is everywhere, it is nowhere. So more than ever before, more than opportunities, what the world needs more of are frameworks. Frameworks on how to differentiate for yourself signal from noise.
There is a wealth of content and discourse in the broader world for investors, which include advice on personal finance, investing in stocks, option trading, and of course, quite a bit, in the world of startup investing. But surprisingly little in the realm of investing in venture funds. The only ones I could find were OpenLP and SuperLP, which if you know me I had to ask both of their authors for their latest insights here as well.
As we were wrapping up our conversation on a sweltering late summer day, Martin Tobias, founding partner at Incisive Ventures, told me:
“Somebody should write a book like Jason Calacanis’ Angels, but for LPs.”
And he’s completely right. While that is a larger endeavor altogether, hopefully, this blogpost serves as a preamble for a greater conversation.
Who is the emerging LP?
An LP, or a limited partner, in the context of this essay, is someone who invests indirectly, rather than directly into startups. While investors in syndicates and SPVs are also counted as LPs, for the purpose of this piece, I’ll focus on people who invest in funds.
If you’re an emerging LP, you’re most likely writing checks into Fund I’s. Maybe Fund II’s, if you’re lucky, can write larger checks ($250-500K+), you have something a GP wants, or some permutation of the above.
Effectively, this blogpost is dedicated to the investor looking to invest in fund managers who have yet to prove their institutional track record. And just like investing into a pre-seed founder, searching for product-market fit, the checks you are writing are… belief capital.
If it’s belief capital, assuming the GP has the underlying mechanics down (portfolio construction, fund strategy, etc.), it’s all about people. And if it’s all about people (I’m overgeneralizing), how you win as an LP is determined by your ability to differentiate the top decile from the top quartile. Part of that requires some level of intuition. But I am ill-equipped to speak on LP intuition, as opposed to VC intuition. So, I had to ask folks with more miles on their odometer.
Asher Siddiqui shared it best in our conversation from the perspective of an emerging fund manager:
“Here’s the problem that I have. Imagine you’re an emerging fund manager and you think you’re hot shit. How long do you think it takes before you figure out if you are?
“The average deployment period is 2-3 years. You launch Fund I in Year 1 and launch Fund II between Year 2 and 3. You close the second fund around Year 4. By Year 7-8, you now have some DPI from Fund I, early DPI from Fund II, and are now writing your first checks from Fund III.
“The truth is no one knows if you’re a great fund manager until you’re eight to ten years in. That means if you’re meeting a great manager, you’re meeting them when they’re already at Fund III, or when they’re raising Fund IV.”
Similarly, the truth is as an emerging LP, you probably don’t have the opportunity to invest in “hot shit.” Why?
Top-tier funds are oversubscribed, and have a waitlist to even get the chance to invest.
And if you could, due to the size of their funds, you need to be able to write checks on the magnitude of 7-figures and up.
Rather the buffet you have before you is the opportunity to support the best before they’re the best. So instead of looking for lagging indicators, like TVPI, DPI, and IRR, the conversations that sparked this blogpost is intended to look for leading, predictive indicators. But as you might guess, there is no one right answer in foresight. But I do hope the below serve as tools in your toolkit as you grow your arsenal of frameworks for investing in GPs.
As a quick note, wanted to share some quick definitions I wish I knew at one point in my life:
TVPI: Total-value-to-paid-in capital, aka paper returns
DPI: Distributions-to-paid-in capital, aka the actual money you get back, or Chris Douvos calls it: “the moolah in the coolah”
IRR: Internal rate of return, aka how fast your money appreciates per year
Net IRR: your IRR after fees, carry, expenses are accounted for, and what LPs care about more than gross IRR
GP: General partner of a VC firm, aka the head honcho at a firm
Finding the best LPs
The world of fund investing is, for lack of better words, opaque. There’s no public Rolodex of limited partners. If you stick around the venture world long enough, there are familiar names that regularly pop up in fund pitch decks or during VC happy hour. And outside of the big institutions who write $5M+ checks that you might find on ad hoc expeditions into the world of the internet, the two best places I’ve found so far for information on LPs is Sapphire Partners’ OpenLP.com. And scouring AngelList’s syndicates and PCN (Private Capital Network) for their LP networks, neither of which are public either.
At the same time, most individual LPs don’t go “shopping” for deals. They invest opportunistically into people they know and trust or alongside people they trust. In a way, this blogpost is also designed to help the individual LPs below shop for deals. By sharing the fact they LP publicly, my sell to them was that maybe this blogpost will the earliest semblances of fund deal flow to them.
Just as a fund manager brings smaller LPs on for very specific reasons, an LP should have a similar rationale to why they are investing in a GP. It’s a two-way street.
Methodology and a table of contents
I’m going to preface by saying: This isn’t an academic research paper. So as such, I may not have followed all the best practices in doing academic research. Nevertheless, I promise you won’t be disappointed. The below found its genesis scratching a personal itch that grew into:
How can I best support emerging GPs?
A first step into demystifying the black box of LP investing
Help individual LPs build thought leadership and discoverability, aka deal flow
And, building an investing playbook for pre-product-market fit funds
To each individual, I asked just four questions:
Apart from TVPI and IRR, what are leading indicators that differentiate the great GPs from the good GPs? In other words, the top decile from the top quartile?
In fairness, I iterated on the wording of this question the most because a few LPs I asked early on only had one answer: track record. And track record — in other words, TVPI and IRR, especially DPI, are lagging indicators.
Any red flags about emerging GPs that new LPs should be aware of?
What common pieces of advice should emerging LPs ignore, if any?
This was one that either completely hit or completely missed. The latter due to the fact, that there isn’t much advice, period, that is shared between LPs who don’t already know each other. One of the main reasons I believe this blogpost should exist.
Anything else you think first-time LPs should be aware of?
Some shared over text. Others over email. And a handful of others across calls and coffee.
As such, I’ve segmented this blogpost into five main sections:
In the words of my friend and colleague Gautam, “A big part of direct early-stage investing is more than just financial return. The same holds true as an LP, especially as an emerging LP. Be very clear about why you’re an LP. An investor who invested in the same fund as I did called his LP commitment the most expensive newsletter subscription he’s ever been a part of.”
Why you should be an LP
“The most important question to answer is why do you want to be an LP? To me, there are three reasons:
You want to build a career in this space – potentially a fund of funds, or manage someone’s family office.
You’re not the best at picking individually good startup deals to invest in, and you want to be strategic. For example, if David has the best deal flow in web3*, and I don’t, I want to invest in David.
This manager also has access to top deals – top deals that would otherwise be impossible for you to get into. If you invest in the fund, you also get access to the fund’s pro rata rights.”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise *Author’s Note: I don’t have the best deal flow in web3, but am flattered to be the example.
“I’m also a startup investor myself. My goal is still to uncover the best investments out there. So, there are 5 reasons as to why I invest in funds:
Investing in outliers: I invest in funds who have access to opportunities I may have missed myself. I don’t want to miss the next Gong.
Knowledge and network expansion: I want to expand my knowledge and network of what and who is out there. To become a better fund manager and uncover what’s happening out there in the market, I read other GP’s investor updates. I learn from what they learn.
Expanding my deal flow: I invest in others’ funds to get to invest in the companies they’ve invested in, and earning my right to, by being as valuable as an LP as possible.
Learning: I’m able to learn about areas that I’m very interested in. For example, I’ve spend the past year trying to learn more about web3, so I invested in web3 funds. I read the GPs’ investor updates and have effectively built a braintrust of GPs who are experts in web3.
Regional coverage: I LP into funds in emerging markets, namely, India, Southeast Asia, and Europe. I want to back someone who’s just starting with a Fund I, in a region I don’t have coverage on.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
Why you should NOT be an LP
“Venture isn’t a winning strategy for retail investors. Many investors cite that new funds outperform the S&P 500 or Russell 2000, but the truth is most venture funds have a low probability of beating the NASDAQ. Those that say otherwise are ignorant. Venture, as an asset class, is worse than the best public market alternative ($QQQ) unless you are getting the best outcomes. You need to be in the quartile, by looking for the top decile. Only then can you beat the public markets.
“If you don’t fully understand what that game is – one you’re not going to get your capital back for 10-12 years, then stick to public markets and small checks angel investing to satisfy startup investing curiosity. People are often insular to what they see and believe, especially on Twitter. Everyone is talking their own book. Do your homework.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“Adjust expectations. People think that they’re going to always make 10x on their money, but I’m reminded of a story from early in my career.
“In the aftermath of the dotcom bubble, a time during which a looooottt of people made a lot of money, a big endowment that had one of the top venture portfolios looked at their relationships in their totality and found that only three of their managers exceeded a TVPI of greater than 2.5x for the whole of their relationship (across all the funds). And if you look at VC as a whole, returns have only very rarely met the lofty expectations that most people have. We’re looking back at an extraordinary time, but I think that when people look back, especially at a landscape littered with dilettante funds, that we’ll say that as the TVPI matured into DPI (the ‘moolah in da coolah’) times were pretty good, maybe even great, but not all the trees grew to the sky like some thought they would.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“My biggest piece of advice for this audience is to actually not invest in venture. Most of the entrepreneurial network over-indexes investments to venture capital or start-ups. But our career is probably already over-indexed to this high risk asset class. I encourage entrepreneurs who start to invest to look at real estate, stocks, private equity, or private debt/BDCs. You can actually buy private debt on the public markets, called BDCs – business development corporations – that are loans out of companies and pay 10-15% yield. Or mid-market private equity generates ~20% IRR’s with far higher confidence than a venture fund. Asset allocation across these different profiles are key.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
What Makes a Phenomenal GP (As Opposed to just a Good One)
For the purpose of this section, I’m going to depart from the usual metrics – like a 3x net multiple, or a 25%+ IRR for funds longer than 5 years. Why? Since (a) if those metrics exist, these funds are no longer non-obvious, and the likelihood of you having access to these funds as an emerging LP is slim (and fund performance speaks for itself), or (b) if they don’t exist, you’re going to rely on qualitative measures — just as you would investing in most early-stage startups pre-PMF.
Consistent, clear, and preemptive communication
“Most managers are not that great when it comes to transparency around fund operations. Things like: What are your latest investments? What’s the thesis behind some of those investments? How are they performing over time?
“Some of these things get answered, if I’m lucky, on a quarterly basis, but often on an annual basis or less. So if you find a team that’s consistent about sharing progress on a monthly or at the very least on a quarterly basis and are really responsive to answering your emails and any phone calls, that’s a good sign behind a team that’s working very hard to serve the interest of its LPs and treating the job like a fiduciary.
“I’ll put a little bit of side note here. This kind of behavior is great with founders, too. When founders are really great about communications, it correlates very well to their performance over time.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“The six funds that I’ve invested in so far (listed here if that’s helpful) have all been communicative, stayed true to their thesis, and given me opportunities to learn and help to the extent that I had hoped for.”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
“Sometimes things don’t perfectly line up — a GP might discover new opportunities or areas of interest as they start investing in a fund. Or increased competition. If strategy changes have occurred, ideally the GP would have been flagging this to their LPs over the course of the two years but for a new prospective LP being able to speak to the changes is important.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
The best have a unique perspective
“As an LP who also invests directly into startups, we seek GPs who have something unique – some kind of insight. It’s not always about having the highest net return. These days, there’s not enough GPs who have a unique angle on the market. It could be how they diligence deals, how they set their investment strategy, or what top investments look like.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“The funds we have known that are top decile have a point of view, this can be expressed as being thesis driven, but doesn’t have to be. It does though provide a reason for why they invest in what they do and why an entrepreneur picks them.
“They have also, in our experience, have had multiple fund returners within one fund. Not always, if an exit is large enough with respect to the size of the fund, it is possible to have a top decile fund with just one fund returner. The power law is alive and well in the top decile funds we’ve seen. This means swinging for the fences with respect to a fund’s investments as well as supporting this with a portfolio allocation and management strategy that enables a significant exit to provide for strong returns.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“Every investor claims to have a value. There are very few cases where investors pitch otherwise. Sector specific funds may have a real value add for very early stage startups.
Uniqueness is not about investing into a vertical or type of technology, but about their ability to measure the size of an idea. Great managers know how to identify big ideas that others aren’t seeing. Even more true if you run a big fund; you must be investing in even bigger outcomes.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
Is this strategy repeatable?
“Differentiating between ‘top decile’ and ‘top quartile’ is really just going to be luck, for the most part. If you’re simply measuring and assessing ‘good GPs’ from the great ones, by track record, here would be my top few:
“What % of the portfolio comes from the top 1, 2 or 3? If you can deliver a top-quartile return WITHOUT your one winner / ‘lucky bet’, that’s really good.
What % of companies successfully got funded from investment to the next round?
Seed —> Series A should be >35%
Series A —> Series B should be >50%
Series B —> Series C should be >50%
Series C —> Series D+ should be >60%”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
“For GPs with young track records, we look at what the contributing companies are. Who are the fund returners? And can they replicate the same strategy? When diligencing GPs, we also talk to the founders they invest in. Essentially, whether there is founder/GP fit.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“I look for someone who’s very consistent. They have the integrity to stick to their word. They’re not deal-chasing, deploying all their capital in less than two years, and trying to raise their next fund too quickly. Typically, you’re signing up for multiple funds. If the deployment window is very small, the GP makes frequent capital calls, which means you’re committing more capital in less time.”
— Sam Huleatt, On Deck
“TVPI and IRR tend to be lagging indicators, not leading ones (for many reasons — including irrelevance of these metrics earlier than 5 years, changing motivations, engagement, and so on for investors, and shift in fund size/strategy, noting the Maples Dictum that your fund size IS your strategy).
“For me, the thing that tilts the odds in favor of a manager having the potential to be ‘great’ is that they are leveraging some sort of ecosystem. That can be an ecosystem built on years of success (Sequoia) or ‘prepared mind’ like Accel back in the day, or deep entrenchment in a mafia (Founders Fund). Additionally, some people build fertile ecosystems like First Round or True by investing time and attention in targeted and intentional ways. I try to look for people that are entrenched in some kind of robust ecosystem and match the moment when their upward-sloping line of experience as an investor intersects the (generally) downward sloping line of hunger. For more specifics on my thought process, see the most recent (five years old LOL) post on Super LP.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“Over the long run of course, it’s DPI, but it’s about consistency of returns, which typically is a byproduct of them understanding where their definable edges (finding product/market fit), and ruthlessly exploiting those edges through building repeatable processes on sourcing, decision making, team building, etc.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“This portfolio can’t be a one-hit wonder. Is there enough gold in the middle after you take the top two and the bottom two investments out?
“There’s a Rome in everyone’s future. You go up and then you go down. There are many funds that generated outsized alpha in the last decade but are not what they used to be.
“If you’re leveraging a network, is that alumni network today the same as it was yesterday. Did most of the smart, driven people leave? Are you borrowing or are you using that network? Were you there at the right vintage?
“Also, bet on people who do what they said they would do. Where did the returns come from? If the top returns came from their 20% discretionary funds, and not their 80% core fund, is that something worth betting on again as an LP? I would rather back a 3x return from an on-thesis fund than someone who gave me a 6x who came from off-thesis. The latter is because it came from sheer dumb luck. The question is, what do they do with that dumb luck? Do they pivot and learn, or continue to go rogue / play the roulette?
“Think about why LPs give money to GPs. Anyone can go into Vegas and play the roulette. The best GPs can do something I cannot do and they do it repeatedly.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Access > proprietary deal flow
“We have felt for a number of years now (including pre-COVID) that the concept of ‘proprietary deal flow’ is not really a thing. Proprietary access however is something we think is true, powerful and not simple to achieve (hence why powerful ).”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“I look for emerging managers who have a highly differentiated platform offering or differentiated deal flow. In addition, for someone who has won before, like winning great deals, they’re likely to win again.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
“For an emerging GP, it’s all about access. Do I have the confidence that the best founders will seek out this GP?
How I evaluate access for a solo GP is different from how I evaluated a platform. For platforms, their external brand plays a big role. What are other founders saying about them? I talk to founders they’ve backed because ultimately, founders are their customers.
For solo GPs, I evaluate the GP on their personal brand, and his or her own insight on how they are thinking about the fund as a product. Here, I think of it as more of a bet on the founder of the firm, and not a fund bet.”
— Gautam Shewakramani, Inuka Capital
“GPs also need to be able to quantify that unique access. I’m an LP in a fund that puts on a regular conference and runs a community of 30,000 [redacted job title]. Their thesis was that they’re going to fund the best ideas that come out of their [redacted] community.
“The same is true for Packy McCormick. His thesis is: ‘I help startups tell their stories. I have all these readers who are VCs and founders, and they’re going to invite me into their deal.’ So, the quantitative thing is how big is his mailing list and how fast is it growing.
“It’s the ability to quantify things that you as the GP think are proprietary about your particular access to this market segment. It’s more than just how many LinkedIn friends you have or how many Twitter followers you have; it’s specific to your thesis.
“For my thesis, I get referred deals because I’m an LP in 17 funds. I invest in deals that are too early for these other funds, and I can get them follow-on financing because I know directly the LPs in the follow-on funds. And the fact that I’m an LP in 17 funds gives credibility to that thesis.
“One of my theses is that I’m a really good pre-seed investor because my companies get a higher percentage of follow-on financing than your average VC. Mine is 72%. Techstars is 30%. I’m two and a half times better than Techstars at getting follow-on financing.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
“I’m an LP in 17 venture capital funds, and it’s very clear what separates the best from the good. Deal flow.
“I also think we are entering a new era where you’ll see specialized, smaller funds that will generate great performance because of domain expertise and proximity to the nucleus of innovation. I get really excited about this group, and think some of these <$50M funds could generate 5x+ returns.
“For this group, I look for two things:
The team climbing the hill: Why is this team special in being able to attract great deal flow? Examples could be knowledge expertise, distribution, prior experience, geographic coverage, but a compelling edge is critical.
The hill that team is climbing: Ultimately, macro matters a lot. We like to attribute performance to skill, but timing, sector, and luck play a large part of success. The worst manager in crypto in 2015 probably did pretty well. The worst fintech manager in 2010 probably crushed it. I think about what will be the area in 2030 that everyone wishes they had exposure to today.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
They don’t have to ask “How can I help?”
“Most investors are not helpful. I started a company, raised some VC money, then some from angels. And I realized that our most helpful investors were angels. I came to understand that there are two kinds of helpful investors:
Reactively helpful
Proactively helpful
“For the former, you would have a problem, reach out to your investor, and they would really help you. For the latter, it’s Alex. Alex was one of our first investors. He would often come into our office, and without being prompted, proceed to write code against our APIs. And I thought, if I were to be a VC one day, I wanted to be just like him — very hands on. I knew he would be a real value-add investor.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures *Alex is a fictitious name of a real person.
“It boils down to three questions that are all interrelated:
Does this fund manager have a brand?
Does he/she have access? Do founders need them more than the manager needs the founders?
And does he/she have something unique to provide to founders?”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise
“At the pre-seed level, where I invest, a great fund manager is someone who gets a startup to a ‘real’ round of funding. I think it’s like fording a river: a good fund attracts founders to their boat, then ferries them across to the other side. For this service, they are rewarded with allocation in a round that’s underpriced once they reach the shore.
“Great funds are ones that have a sustained, repeatable process for attracting founders and a reliable methodology to get them across. This can look like focusing on a geography, focusing on a sector, focusing on an underserved founder market, acting as a scout for a larger fund who likes your deals, or some combination of the above.
“The returns from pre-seed are really about getting early and cheaply enough to have made the risk worth it.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Are they hungry?
“I work with some good fund managers, but why are they not great? Why are they only in the top quartile, and not the top decile? They have all the ingredients of being great. They have amazing pedigree, and they went to the right high school, the right college, and worked at all the top startups in their vintage. But… they’re not hungry. They haven’t had enough adversity in their life.
“I have seen prospective LPs only look at a GP’s career history, and not their life history. You need that extra data point, that context. To take a holistic view of the unique set of experiences of a human being, and not just the professional. You look at their thesis, and their history; you look at it from birth to today; you look at their whole life and career history, and look at their thesis. If the thesis doesn’t make complete and perfect sense, then I don’t think this is a ‘great‘ fund manager. If it fits like a glove, then yes, they could be.
“I don’t believe in luck. I believe you create your own luck. How do you create your own luck? You create chaos, which creates opportunities — you then leverage your past experience and your drive to capitalize on that opportunity….”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
The devil is in the details of their portfolio construction model
“They need to have thought about deployment (schedules) and fund size. One of the quotes we both like is ‘Your fund size is your strategy.’ A fund of $10 million should have a very different strategy than a $50 million or $100 million fund.”
— Sam Huleatt, On Deck
“To us, the difference between good and very good is portfolio management. How do they think about reserves to follow on? Do they look to increase allocation into the winners?
“There’s a big difference between managing a $5 million fund and a $20-30 million one and $500 million one. How you look at portfolio management and allocation is different. Everyone tells you they can give you a 5x return, but I only need 3x DPI! Even the best firms out there struggle to return 3x on certain funds.
“Your size is your strategy. We take into account the geography you invest into. In Israel, we don’t have decacorns. And because the exits are lower, the fund size should also be lower.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
Mixed references are not as bad as you think
“I’ve backed a lot of funds across the private markets, in both private equity and venture capital, and great investors may have divisive personalities. You want to back special talents, and they may rub people the wrong way. That said, there is a difference between a prickly personality and a bad actor not treating founders right, and not being ethical in their dealings.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
Does the GP have investor-market fit?
“Success builds upon success in venture. I’m never going to attract the best talent in the neobank or fintech space. They don’t know who I am and I don’t have true domain expertise. But if you’re doing something in retail or in hardware, I can really help and you likely know what Tide Cleaners is. Folks in retail find a way to get in front of me, and likewise, I can meaningfully help these companies. Product market fit applies to VC’s, too. And we don’t talk about this enough, but also LP’s.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
The best have long time horizons
“Luck aside, I index greatly on energy, fire, thoughtfulness, and passion. Some founders or operators raise a fund after an exit because they don’t know what to do next and have money in the bank. LPs need to discern as best as possible how committed these people are to the job of investing. How much does the GP resonate with the founders they’re backing?
“GPs who are only building, but don’t understand roughly what they’re building towards tend not to resonate with me. GPs who have founder friendliness talking points, but few examples of hard conversations with founders don’t resonate with me. I get concerned when GPs don’t appear to have an understanding of what kind of bet they’re actually making. The great GPs have long-run perspectives and are willing to adapt. Startups have to execute miracles to achieve great financial outcomes. I want to see GPs have a rough mathematical understanding of their bets based on their assumptions and stories. What’s a reasonable amount of capital to startups to their milestones, knowing your home runs are going to go much further than your initial projections? What does SaaS multiples going down from 10-15x to around 8x mean? Was the GP banking on elevated multiples persisting for the math to work?”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“I want to invest in people who are going to build multiple funds, so the long-term commitment to the space is critical.
“Every fund thinks they’re solving a unique problem – most are not. A happy outcome is backing a GP that you believe in, so I’d prioritize character over potential returns. At the end of the day, you’re getting into a decade-long relationship, so you’d better like the GP as a person, not just the asset class.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Luck is a skill
“The thing is everyone’s smart, and between the top decile and quartile, luck is a big differentiator.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“The difference between top quartile and top decile is one of luck. I believe that it is impossible to predict ex ante.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“Outlier performance is a combination of luck and skill (luck is needed for massive outlier funds), but the best fund managers require less luck to consistently outperform because they have well constructed operating frameworks.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“In my early days in venture, I spoke with several investors on the Midas list. And every single one of them attributed their success to luck and timing. They still view themselves as learning and actively track their anti portfolio to see what they missed. They’re humble, and still suffer from imposter syndrome. When I ask them these two questions:
Which were the startups that you thought were going to be winners?
What startups put you on the Midas list?
“There will be some overlap, but more often than not, it’ll be a different set of names. Investing in GPs is a bit like startup investing. It’s a bit of a roulette wheel. What you’re doing is improving the odds. Any LP or GP who says otherwise is full of shit.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
The best change the status quo
“I believe great GPs aren’t just impacting the success of their portfolio companies and their LPs, but are changing entire systems that are historically pretty broken in the VC ecosystem. The vast majority of LPs, VCs and funded founders have tended to be pretty homogenous in terms of the identities they hold and approaches they take to building & funding companies. By breaking through those biases and pattern matching, not only will a new kind of emerging fund manager see better returns, but they’ll also dismantle a lot of the systemic inequities that have prevailed. TL;DR: Good managers see healthy returns, great managers see those returns and leave things better than they found them. (I wrote a bit about some of those inequitable systems here if you’d like to link to it)”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
GP Red Flags
Logo and trend shopping
“There is a concept of just logo shopping. A lot of decks are loaded up with a bunch of logos of great companies that the GPs have invested in the past.
“There are people who say they’re seed investors were able to get a slice of allocation of some hot company at the Series C or Series D for a $5,000 or $10,000 check. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that as an investor. But the way that it’s framed often looks like that they were seed investors in these hot companies as well.
“So, there’s some of that window dressing. I think that is a red flag. It just is on the edges of honesty that I’ve never really liked.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“When GPs claim to invest in a deal, one red flag is when they were only an angel in a syndicate, and the founders don’t even know the investor by name. We also look at deal attribution for GPs from bigger funds. How involved were they in winning deals at their last fund? So, we do backchannel checks.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“I’m wary of trend followers. People who follow trends without having anything unique to add to founders building in the space.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Not playing the long game
“Another [red flag] is when GPs change the terms when fundraising. As a GP gets more interest, we’ve seen some GPs change the terms – from 2% fees to 2.5 or 3%. It raises some concerns that they are opportunists which might be viewed as a sign that they weren’t committed to building a long, durable fund.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“There is never a full alignment between LPs and GP. There are many potential conflicts when it comes to VC management. You don’t want to invest in people who will not hesitate to screw you. Don’t invest in people you don’t trust. There’s a thin line between greediness and discipline. We don’t invest in investors who are too opportunistic. Discipline and strategy consistency (with an amount of flexibility) is important.
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
“Too many GPs today are obviously dilettantes. The average fund lasts twice as long as the average American marriage, so it’s a long-term commitment to your partners. I get the sense that a lot of new GPs are becoming VCs in the same way a lot of college kids end up going to law school: it just seemed like the next obvious thing to do/the path of least resistance.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“This is personal for each LP. I believe the GP’s job is to maximize returns for their LPs. So, there’s a tradeoff between GPs playing the long game and having a fiduciary responsibility to return money in the short run. So, a red flag for me is when the GPs don’t play the long game.
“There’s this weird nobility in venture, especially in the pre-seed. Sajith Pai wrote a great piece on this. Your first investor is almost like a priest. As the first check into a company, you should be a good priest. Is this person someone who will be a strong supporter of the founder, which could come at odds with short-term financial return? I won’t get immediate distributions. But at the same time, over a fund life, this could generate better financial returns across a portfolio of founders or in the form of access to better deals driven by reputation or founder friendliness.”
— Gautam Shewakramani, Inuka Capital
“People say they’re going to deploy over the next 2.5 years. But guess what everyone did in 2021. They deployed their entire fund. So LPs are asking, ‘What are you doing? We had all of this scheduled out, but you deployed so quickly, and so now we’re out of money. We can’t do your re-ups for next year, or we can’t back new managers right now.’ It’s been a real issue that has kept so much money on the sidelines.
“Saying you’re going to do something, then not doing it is a huge red flag. Do what you say you’re going to do. This is a relationship game. If you’re breaking trust, you’re playing the short game instead of the long game.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
Small funds, big reserves
“I’m wary of small funds with big reserves. For example, a $50 million fund with 50% reserves. What it means is you’re getting less shots on goals. For Fund I’s, it’s all about shots on goals.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
They lack honesty and self-awareness
“A big one is a lack of openness of what didn’t go right. Some GPs exhibit a lot of arrogance. They claim they’re great at everything. That’s not possible, and definitely not true. Everyone has flaws, but the inability to share them is a red flag for me.
“Good GPs are also very self aware of what they are and what they aren’t. These GPs manage their time well. They find partners to build a team that has complementary skill sets to their own. When I ask: Why are you not winning deals?, they have a great answer. If they can’t answer that, they probably have work to do understanding their own pitch. Moreover, the best GPs are consistent with their stories while open and willing to evolve.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“For funds I declined to invest in, it came down to the person. They often take credit than share credit. I doubted their skills and ability to follow through. A lot of projects were often started but never finished.“
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
“Managers that don’t appreciate that this is a journey, not a sprint. It’s the same as assessing a startup founder. We look for behavioral cues: approachability, willingness to accept feedback, and ability to go through pivots.
“At Revere, we share our ratings for GPs with our GPs. Say I give someone a four out of five on team, and they come back and insist on five out of five across the board. How receptive the GP is to constructive feedback (and address it) is a very telling indicator.“
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
“Usually GPs are really good at (typically) 2 or at most 3 of the following 6 things, in order to be top-decile:
Portfolio construction & management
Access to deals / networking
Ability to win deals
Company selection / financial analysis / assessing PMF and future value accretion
Active management to “add value” to those companies
Exits
“… And maybe fundraising / cost of capital.
“But if they aren’t aware of what they’re good at, that’s troubling. Once they know what they do to excel (and what they won’t) they usually become very good at focusing on what matters.
“Here are some examples:
Potential GP: ‘I am really good at all 6 GP characteristics above!’ Me: ‘Don’t call me, I’ll call you.’
Potential GP: ‘I am really good being a board member, I’m the best. I can make any shit company successful once I’m involved. I did this for three eCommerce companies in the 1980s, and I really think I can ‘turn around’ and exit eCommerce, adtech, fintech, digital health, AI / ML, beauty and fashion, etc. They’re all the same.’ Me: ‘Ummm…’
Potential GP: ‘I am great at deal sourcing from XXX network, and I specialize in AI. But vertical-wise, I see a lot of stuff, so I do a lot of stuff.’ Me: ‘Cool.’
“I also like to see more focused funds. A lack of ability to zero in on a particular thesis (e.g. B2B SaaS with certain characteristics) is at least a yellow flag, though if the GP’s core competencies support a generalized approach that’s fine.”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
The GPs are too founder-friendly
“Emerging GPs tend to be too founder-friendly. A great VC is like a personal trainer, not a cheerleader.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
There’s no follow-on strategy
“Another red flag is not having a follow-on strategy. If you’re a small fund, you are funding companies that will never get to profitability with the money you gave them. So they all have to raise additional financing. If you don’t have reserves in your fund, you need to prove that you know other funds or have an SPV or angel network that can fund your companies. If you don’t have an answer for how you’re going to be able to fund the companies in the next round or at least introduce them, that’s a flag.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
The follow-on SPVs take management fees
“They’re charging excessive fees on SPVs to LPs. Many LPs who invest in small emerging managers are in part doing so because they want the co-investment opportunities. And those co-investment opportunities should be at fairly favorable terms. The most favorable terms I’ve seen are zero and ten. I’m not saying everyone has to do it at that, but I have seen VCs try to do it at three and thirty – at premium terms relative to the fund. I think it’s a flag on the emerging manager if he/she is proposing to charge management fees on SPVs at all.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
They lack communication skills
“GPs sometimes don’t follow up with what the LP asked for. The follow up is very generic. For example, if the LP wants to co invest in XYZ sector, can you send names in the portfolio that might be interesting to them?”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“Bad communicators who only answer with curt and short responses is a red flag.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
They don’t know the numbers or the rules of the game
“Plenty, but to extract one, we’ve found that managers that don’t know the numbers (i.e. what enterprise value within your portfolio will you need to get to a 3x+) is a huge red flag and leads to poor portfolio construction and decision-making. Saying you are going to return a 5X+ easily is not respecting how difficult it is, and probably comes with a lack of understanding of basic fund math.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“Managers that don’t understand basic portfolio construction and fund modeling. You would be amazed how many don’t even have a spreadsheet that tracks current investments.”
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
“Emerging GPs tend to overestimate the value of prior experience and underestimate the value of investing skills like portfolio construction and discipline (not just on things like price, but also on things like security selection — for instance, not understanding the problems with SAFEs).”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“If they are carrying companies at valuations that seem out of whack, or indefensible (or if they can’t really articulate their valuation policy) that’s no bueno. That is ALWAYS a signal that the GP is not going to be aligned with me… I’ve known some very strong investors who have played this game and it’s a real problem for me personally.”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
They play the AUM and management fee game
“I think fund size is a real issue. The law of funds is really interesting. If you get a million-dollar allocation early on into a unicorn and it’s a smaller fund, you can return the fund multiple times over. If you do that with a $400 million fund, it’s harder to make those numbers work.
“So as an investor, you can play one of three types of games:
You can spit out rapid funds.
You can raise massive funds.
Or you can make massive carry.
“The amount of funds and management fees that have been raised recently are out of control. If you can think about taking 2% management fees on a $500 million fund – and obviously you got costs and expenses – you’re bringing home an annual income of $10 million. And that’s just one fund, and you do another and another. So, are you trying to create value or play the AUM game? And that is a red flag for me. I like small, steady, disciplined managers who are deeply passionate about early-stage and a certain sector. That typically means they won’t scale to a $1B fund.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
No investing experience
“Just like the only way to get good at wine is to drink a lot of wine. The only way to get good at investing is to see a lot of deals. A red flag would be a GP with no investing experience.”
— Lo Toney, Plexo Capital
Common Advice To Ignore
While far les prominent than investors advising founders on how they should run their business or startup investing advice at broad, there’s a small handful of commonly shared pieces of advice that new LPs often get. Certain pieces of advice might serve larger LPs who work with a different set of parameters than you do. The important part is understanding the why.
Having artificial timelines
“LPs also shouldn’t give artificial timelines. Most family offices and individuals don’t have deployment schedules. A big endowment, like Harvard, does.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
The same is true for LPs as it is for GPs: Chasing logos
“Just because you spun out of a big firm doesn’t mean you’re going to do well as a new firm. These emerging managers are going to look good on paper, but they might not necessarily know what it’s like living in a chaotic environment. It’s not the same environment they grew up in when they were at a16z, or had another great name behind them. Different resources, different support, so different mentality. Connection with founders is incredibly important and you want to understand how that applies in a different environment.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“I don’t know if this is advice that is shared, but many LPs over-index things like logos, GP commits, and early fund performance (which means very little within the first 3 years).”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“A big one is around geographic and pedigree bias. There is a trope that’s formed that if you’re a founder of GP that’s based in the San Francisco Bay Area — maybe went to Stanford or Harvard or MIT, that will position you into the very best networks to be successful.
“I’m not saying that just because you possess those characteristics that you can’t be successful. In fact, there are plenty that are. But there are also are a lot of really talented people outside of those networks too.
“I think a lot about this Warren Buffett rule: ‘To make a lot of money, you have to be both contrarian and right.’ Look a bit more widely in your funnel and invest in managers who don’t look like yourself and come from non-traditional networks and backgrounds. They’re identifying founders who may be working on some pretty amazing stuff that’s being overlooked.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
Diversification for the sake of diversification
“Many emerging LPs are told to look for differentiation, but some things are differentiated in how bad (or mediocre) they are. Hedge fund managers say they’re seeking alpha, but sometimes you find it and it has a negative sign in front of it. What really matters is sustainable competitive advantage. How do you demonstrate and articulate your SCA? What is your unfair advantage in an extremely noisy market (and it’s gotta be more than just: ‘we’re part of the SF cool kid crowd/look at our AngelList track record of $50k checks’).”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
Should you bet on emerging GPs?
“‘Stay away from Fund I/II.’ This is the wrong advice. Don’t underestimate new GPs. Being a new GP is like being a founder; it’s a long-term commitment. And two, stay away from GPs who don’t have resilience and are not hungry to win.”
— Cindy Bi, CapitalX
Do ownership targets matter?
“There’s a lot of surface level ‘buyer beware.’ Everyone talks about ownership targets. ‘Are you hitting your ownership targets?’ For large funds, that 15-20% ownership matters. You want the proceeds of the outcome to meaningfully impact the fund. Ownership is less important for a first or second time fund, which are smaller funds where a single great outcome, even at low ownership, can return the fund.“
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
Using fund-of-funds to get into emerging funds
“I would encourage a lot of emerging LPs to not go into fund-of-funds. As an emerging manager, I want fund-of-funds to invest in my fund. But as an LP, you get double-feed. If you’re going to invest into venture funds, invest directly in the manager yourself.
“What the fund-of-funds will tell you is that they can get you into funds you can’t get into. I’m also starting to see fund-of-funds for emerging managers, which I think is a great thing. For incredibly large LPs, I think it makes sense. They get access to someone else who’s going to do all the diligence on emerging managers. But that’s not for an emerging LP whose check size is $250K to a million dollar LP commitment. Fund-of-funds are for people with a billion dollars who are already invested in Sequoia and are writing $5-10 million checks.
“Typically you would pay one and ten for fund-of-funds. Then that fund-of-funds pays two and twenty. So you’re three and thirty behind as a fund-of-funds LP.
“For emerging LPs, it’s a good exercise to invest directly in emerging managers because it’ll help with your direct investment practices as well. If you invest in fund-of-funds, you’re never going to have those co-investment opportunities because you never build a relationship with the manager.“
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Additional Tactical Tips
The below are tips that everyone were kind enough to share, but didn’t fit into the above categories. Nevertheless, I find them to be powerful in expanding how you think about being an LP.
You’re never too good to reach out.
“I will say about a third of my LP investments were into fund managers I never worked with before. I hear of these new GPs from talking with my network. If I like what they do, I’ll reach out via Twitter.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
“For every fund I’ve been in, I reached out to them, not the other way around. Every time I invest in a fund that’s either because I know the GP personally, or I know someone who knows the GP.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
See if the GP has flexibility on the minimum check size
“One thing that can be helpful to know for first-time LPs: GPs often have some flexibility on their minimum check size. I’m a pretty small check (particularly since I’ve been living on a founder salary!), but I can bring other things to the table to help the GPs I invest in (e.g. I highlighted Janine Sickmeyer from Overlooked Ventures in my Forbes column, I’m an advisor to Zecca Lehn from Responsibly Ventures, I send them deal flow from my AuthenTech community of founders). I’ve had luck with reaching out and saying ‘I really believe in what you’re doing. Please let me know if you get enough large checks and have room for some smaller LP investments.’ They’ll usually need to get enough big investments first since there are SEC limits on how many LPs they can have, and then they can let in some smaller, value-add LPs.”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
There are multiple ways to do reference checks
“There’s a two-part reference call check that I love that I learned from Scott Cook, who is the founder of Intuit. You ask, ‘I want you to tell me about David. Rate him from 1 to 10. 10 being absolutely perfect, and 1 being horrific.’ And you can basically ignore everything that is said. Most people say 8 or 9. You know they have their answer prepared.
“But then the second question is, ‘What will get David to a 10?’ And that’s where you hear the truth. That’s where you can pay attention.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“Investing into a fund is much like investing in startups. Why does this person have an unfair advantage over everyone else? I talk to the founding GP. I read VC Guide – think Yelp reviews for investors by founders. And if I think the team has an unfair advantage, I invest.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
“Ask to talk to other current LPs – you can learn a lot about how you will be treated once the fund has your money.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
“Being an LP is a ground game. It requires talking to founders and co-investors, and you won’t get much from surface-level reference checking.
“There’s no specific number that I shoot for. I once heard an LP claim to have completed 80 reference checks for one commitment. To me, that seemed like they were doing diligence for the sake of doing diligence. You could have gotten to the same answer well before 80. I reached close to 20 checks in diligence on a fund once, but I often need far less than that. The more important thing is you’re answering the questions you have that pop up in your diligence, that you only do whatever references that you need to get to a yes or no.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
“We are all operating in the business of emotions and trust. It’s best to build trust by word of mouth or references. I’ve never invested in a fund without talking to another manager or entrepreneur in the portfolio. This is across the stack. Top $100B asset managers do 20 back references on $100M venture capitalists. $100M venture capitalists do 20 back references on $10M start-ups. And $10M start-ups do back references on employees. Together, with the bond of trust, this system creates an impact on the world.
“In practice, for example, I don’t have a lot of domain expertise in web 3, but I have plenty of friends who do. So before I invested in [name redacted], I called four people and they all told me this manager was one of the top five.
“This is the under-pinning of asset allocation, but unfortunately this also leads to systematic issues. In fact, I would say this referral network is part of the issue of neglected founders, industries, and geographies not being able to get funded. It’s a huge issue in our country that 2% of women get all VC dollars. That’s horrendous and that means that >50% of our population only gets 2% of funding. That isn’t right. We need more capital to flow to underrepresented or neglected founders or industries or managers. These new managers may not have the network to build traction, but I’m loving all the new amazing, specialized emerging managers doing great work with new strategies popping up.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
“Do reference calls. Talk to some founders they’ve invested in. Talk to startups in their anti-portfolio. And talk to some of the founders that didn’t work out. For the latter, how did they manage that? What do the founders think of them? If you only talk to the winners in their portfolio, they look like cheerleaders who got lucky and got into some great companies.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Follow-on investors aren’t as big of a differentiator as you might think.
“Top-tier follow-on investors in the past 48 months are no longer a differentiator. Existing managers all talk about mark-ups. Most managers that aren’t incompetent have markups and brand name follow-on investors over the last three years.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
Get granular with a fund’s follow-on investors
“A lot of LPs act like they care about which funds are making investments alongside emerging managers. But who those follow-on investors and co-investors are will mean different things to different people based on the following factors.
Which partner at that established fund is actually leading the deal? Is it someone with a track record or a more junior partner?
Which fund are they investing from? Is it their core fund, or a satellite one they’re experimenting with?
“You ultimately need to get to know the people behind every investment decision.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
March 30th is more important than you think
“Ask when you will get your K-1s and insist that it is before March 30th, otherwise you will be stuck extending every year and that’s just a pain.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Don’t rush into investment decisions
“We don’t rush into investment decisions. It takes us time to reach conviction. Unlike early stage VC, in a fund-of-funds, you expect returns from all your investments. Conviction is required to reach trust. We might not rush into the first vintage, but based on how well we get to know the fund manager, might jump into the second vintage.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
“There are also a lot of venture funds out there, take your time and meet with a range of GPs before you invest to get a feel for what the investment opportunities are and what feels right for you for your LP program.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“Yes, meet at least 20-30 managers before you make an investment, or use a partner. Like anything, at first you will like almost everything, but it takes reps to truly start to build pattern recognition, and manager investing is a probability based exercise; meeting just a few won’t provide enough data points to have a good sense of what meaningful differentiation looks like (i.e.. meaningful differentiation increases the probability of consistent success, much like counting cards in blackjack. It doesn’t guarantee a payout, but you want someone that has their own version of ‘counting cards’.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“Emerging LPs shouldn’t be taking any advice or making any decisions until they’ve met with at least 100 investment firms (and as many different types of firms as they can).
“The reality is that LPs don’t help each other as much as they should. There’s this cooperation versus competition dynamic, this friendly competitiveness, and LPs will be more helpful in less access-constrained deals. That’s something you need to understand as a new LP.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
TVPI hides good portfolio construction
“When I do portfolio diligence, I don’t just look at the multiples, but I look at how well the portfolio companies are doing. I take the top performer and bottom performer out and look at how performance stacks up in the middle. How have they constructed their portfolio? Do the GPs know how to invest in good businesses?
“I’m not just bothered by my TVPI. I also try to look at the companies and the revenue they’re bringing in. Some of a fund’s portfolio companies that haven’t raised a subsequent round, which may not look as good in TVPI, but they may not have needed to raise any subsequent capital to scale further. The point is to assess the quality of the underlying portfolio of ‘businesses’ — so factor that in and look at likely exit opportunities for those companies.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Don’t invest in ESG for the sake of ESG
“Avoid ‘ESG’ if they reduce financial returns, are comprised of unaudited made-up metrics that won’t get reported (e.g. ‘we love the environment, and will only invest in ‘green’ companies’ but the LPA doesn’t provide mention of reportable, audited environmental goals or KPIs, or define what ‘green’ means).”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
Past performance is not indicative of future performance
“It takes three funds worth of track record to make it meaningful. But even then, it’s even more complicated. Your strategy and risk-to-return profile for a $5 million Fund I will look meaningfully different than yours for a $150 million Fund III. I wouldn’t recommend relying on these blunt instruments for the emerging manager category. So the advice here is that LPs cannot rely on past performance of earlier funds if the latest fund’s strategy has shifted.”
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
Have an LP thesis
“LPs should have a portfolio construction model. What percent are you investing in generalist funds? What percent in thesis-driven ones? And also, what stages? Pre-seed? Seed? A- and B-funds? Multi-stage?
“You should take the total amount you want to put into funds and separate it with a portfolio construction model that makes sense for your risk tolerance.
“Is your portfolio allocation driven by financial returns or certain goals you have? A lot of LPs might want to invest for non-financial reasons – could be diversity, geographic coverage, verticals, or stage. They might want to support female founders, or ESG. Just like I encourage angels to have a thesis, LPs should have one too. Why am I doing this?”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Why are you helpful as an LP?
“As an LP, you also have to think of your unique value-add. If you have a brand, your name helps with credibility of the fund and helps the GP reach more LPs. On the other hand, you have to think about what kind of LPs a GP would offer their pro rata rights to? For an SPV strategy, those are LPs who:
Backed and believed in the GP from Day 1.
Has written big checks, and/or
Can help the fund’s portfolio companies.”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise
“We did have several of those established, persistent performers in the PE/VC portfolio in my prior role though, and that’s because those GPs look for more than just money. They may be looking for someone who’s strategic to their portfolio, but more so they’re looking for kindred spirits. Show why you’re also a convicted investor, like them, because they’re really just looking for true believers.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
Don’t put your eggs in one basket.
“Putting money into an early-stage fund is a very, very high-risk alternative asset category. Every normal family office puts maybe 10 to 15% of their total net worth behind this asset category. Don’t concentrate behind a single manager. Spread it across five, possibly ten, managers who have truly varied networks.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“Invest in a larger number of fund managers than you might think is appropriate. Focus on smaller, tightly managed micro-VCs (I’m assuming that the LP can’t get into the Sequoia / Founders Fund / Benchmark types). Really dig into their strategy, their edge, and their pipeline. And, spend time with them and learn the trade, get into their co-investment program and be ready to execute!”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
“Does it make sense to have 17 funds all in web3? Or 17 funds in fintech? Or even 8 in web3 and 9 in fintech? My own fund is counter-cyclical, and I think an LP needs to build a portfolio of top managers across the economy. Healthcare, IoT, fintech, web 3, and other differentiated strategies can comprise an excellent portfolio.
“If an entrepreneur is building in climate tech, there are 10 amazing funds out there who really know climate tech. If you’re building in web3, there are several funds that are so close to the nucleus of innovation and that’s what it matters. But if you’re building in hard industries, we’re trying to become one of the ten. A portfolio that consists of a basket of these top ten funds makes a lot of sense if you believe in investing in venture.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
“LPs can get very excited about tech and venture. They still need to remember this is a high-risk asset class. They should have clarity of what their expectations are. Venture used to traditionally be 5% of private equity. This is funny money – play money. It’s less so now, but still is. LPs do it because it has the potential to provide outsized, risk adjusted, returns.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Patience is a virtue
“It may take seven to ten years (or longer) to see any real return, so be patient.”
— Cindy Bi, CapitalX
“The reason I chose a lot of managers is also so I can start tracking data. I won’t do re-ups right away because I want to see how they’ll perform over a couple decades or even over 6 years.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
In closing
The above is by no means all-encompassing as you refine your craft as an LP. Nevertheless, if you’re looking to dive deeper into the art of investing in non-obvious capital allocators, I hope this blogpost serves as a launchpad for your career. Make new mistakes rather than old ones. The world is better off learning from and supporting each other.
If you learned something from the above, I urge you to reach out to any of the above legends and share your appreciation with them. And if you employ any of their tactics, let them know how empowering it was.
Trust me, it’ll go a long way.
*I’ve made light edits to the above quotes for clarity and since my hand can only take so many notes per second.
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.
