I know I just wrote a blogpost on how LPs assess if GPs can win deals. But after a few recent conversations with LPs in fund of funds, as well as emerging LPs, I thought it would be interesting to draw the parallel of not only proxies of how GPs win deals, but also proxies of how LPs win deals. And as such, coming back with a part two. Maybe a part one and a half. You get the point.
The greatest indicator for the ability to win deals as a VC is to see what the largest check (and greatest ownership target) a world-class founder will take from you. (That said, if you are only capable of winning deals based on price, you might want to consider another career. You should have other reasons a brilliant founder will pick you.) And even better if they give you a board seat.
The greatest indicator for the ability to win deals as an LP is to see what the smallest check a world-class GP will take from you. And even better if they give you a seat on the LPAC.
In the world where capital is more or less a commodity, the more capital one can provide (with some loose constraints on maximums), the better. But if someone who has no to little trouble raising is willing to open doors in a potentially over-subscribed fund for you, that’s something special.
An LP I was chatting with recently loves asking the question, “How big of a check size would you like me to write?” And to him, the answer “As much as you can.” Or “I’ll take any number.” is a bad answer. According to him, the best GPs know exactly how much they’re expecting from LPs, and sometimes as a function of how helpful they can be, especially in a Fund I or II. But always as a function of portfolio construction. Your fund size is after all your strategy, as the Mike Maples adage goes. While I don’t know if I completely agree with this approach, I did find this approach intriguing, and at least worth a double take.
I’m forgetting the attribution here. The curse of forgetting to write things down when I hear them. But I was listening to a podcast, or maybe it was a conversation, where they used the analogy that being a VC is like watching your child on the playground. You let your child do whatever they want to. Go down the slides. Climb the monkey bars. Sit on the swings. And so on. You let them chart their own narratives. But your job as the parent is once you see your kid doing something dangerous, that’s when you step in. When they’re about to jump off a 2-story slide. Or swing upside-down. But otherwise your kid knows best on how to have fun. In the founders’ case, they know how to build an amazing product for an audience who’s dying for it.
Excluding the fact that you’re a good friend or family that go way back, you likely have something of great strategic value to that GP — be it:
Network to other LPs
Operational expertise and value to portfolio companies (to a point where you being an LP will help the GP win deals with founders)
Operational expertise to the GP and the investment team
Investment expertise to help check the GP’s blindside
Access to downstream capital
Deal flow, or
Simply, mentorship
At the same time, ONSET Ventures once found that “if you had a full-time mentor who was not part of the company’s management team, and who had actually run both a start-up and a larger business, the success rate increased from less than 25% to over 80%.” (You can find the case study here. As an FYI, the afore-mentioned link leads to a download of the HBS case study.)
That’s the role of the board. The LPAC. Of the advisory board. For a founder or emerging GP, the full-time availability of said board members or LPAC members is vital.
A proxy of a mentor’s availability is pre-existing relationships between founder/emerging funder and said investor or advisor. Another is simply the responsiveness of the investor or advisor. Do they take less than 12 hours to reply? Or 3-5 business days? It’s for that latter reason Sequoia’s Pat Gradyonce lost out on an investment deal to his life partner, Sarah Guo. Being responsive goes a long way.
In sum, for LPs in fund of fund managers, small things go a long way.
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.
Ok, before y’all rise up in arms, hear me out. And if by the end of this blogpost, you still want to bring the pitchforks and torches, so be it.
Generally, I get it. Who else is investing isn’t usually a great question. Because for most investors who ask this question, it means they’re outsourcing their conviction.
POV: you're at a tech week event full of contrarian investors who back founders at the earliest stage in frontier industries pic.twitter.com/k7p1cVNHjs
In fact, I wrote a quick LinkedIn (and tweet) post about it the day before yesterday. Which admittedly got a lot more attention than I expected. And if you have the time, it’s worth seeing the discussion on that post that ensued.
So, potentially hot take, I believe investors should ask the question. Who else is investing? It’s part of the diligence process. That said, when they ask that question is key. There’s a vast ocean between the shores of asking that question before you reach conviction and after.
If you pop the question before you reach conviction, well, we’ve seen the follies of that. Most evidenced by the manic rush of 2020 and 2021 into “hot deals” largely led by names that grew to popularity around the dinner table.
If you pop it after, it’s diligence. Where the availability of names shouldn’t convince you to bat or lack thereof to otherwise. But that you now have additional opportunities to reference check and cross-diligence the same opportunity. And it extends to the LP side as well. Jamie Rhode who’s now at Screendoor, said on a Superclusters episode that one of her greatest lessons as an LP was committing to a fund where there was a bunch of soft commits but far less in hard commits, and ended up overexposing Verdis (where she was at) to a single asset and taking a much higher ownership as an LP into a single fund.
Truth is, LPs pay GPs for their opinion. Not anyone else’s. And while given long feedback loops, no one really knows what’s right and what’s wrong except over a decade later and only in hindsight, you have to really believe it, and be able to back it up.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
A few years ago, in one of my favorite coffee shops on 7th Street in San Francisco, over a vanilla cold brew, a then 25-year old founder told me that he had recently taken his then-first vacation in five years. Took a full week off. Didn’t touch work at all. And just enjoyed it with his fiancée. But contrary to what one would expect, his body language that seemed to indicate the exact opposite of having a good time. Two hands cupped over his face, as he slowly dragged them both downwards in exasperation. Followed by many sighs.
He shared that in the time he was gone, the website crashed and the team had trouble bringing it back online. And when they finally did bring it back online, they were waiting for his approval to move forward. As such, didn’t bring it back online until he came back. With another large sigh, he went on to say that he’d never take another vacation ever again.
Running your own business is tough. Really tough. I get it. If you’re the founder, it’s your baby. And sometimes, it’s really hard letting go on what may seem like key decisions. Eventually, that becomes a slippery slope where I see too many founders needing to control every decision that goes on in the company. And even if you hired extremely well, you’ve capped your team’s potential by not letting them execute to their fullest capacity.
In the above dilemma, as you might know, it’s not a to-vacation-or-not-to-vacation problem. It’s a you-need-to-give-your-teammates agency problem. And it might seem obvious to you and me, to any third party observer. But it wasn’t to him. He was so frustrated that he was focused on the one new thing he did and believed that one new thing had a causal effect to a problem that was looming over his team’s head for a long time.
It is true that we are products of our scar tissue, but quite often, in an attempt to not be in the same situation again, people overcorrect. They take then run with the seemingly most extreme “solution.”
And in the times scar tissue start to form, start from first principles. Is taking a vacation really the biggest offender? Do great CEOs just not take time off? Is there something else that I’m not willing to admit about how the results played out?
What am I assuming to be true that may not have to be true? What are the raw facts, stripped of opinions and speculation?
Why was my team incapable of making that decision? Was it something that I told them before or did before that has since prevented them from making calls? What do I spend most of my day doing? Can I outsource some of my tasks? Some of my decisions? How would I do that? And only then, can I ask myself and others: what can I do from now on so that history doesn’t repeat?
Seeking and redefining excellence
And once you’re at the root of the problem, find others you admire who run organizations you admire.
Excellence is an interesting concept. One of the few words out there where its definition changes over the course of your life.
It’s one of the few words where it is not only different for every person, but that even within each person, every time you see something excellent, it sets a new bar and stretches that definition. Defined by only the most excellent thing you’ve seen.
The truth is that most great lessons happen to err on the side of examples. So to have people who define that word for you again and again are the “Sensei-s” you want in your life.
So spend time with others. Notice how they approach problems. And stretch your definition of excellence.
For the 25-year old founder who hadn’t worked any other job in his life, and only his own, there’s immense value in learning from others and building expertise at high-growth institutions. Or with people who you deeply respect.
Asking for the lesson
Tim Ferriss, on a recent episode with Noah Kagan, said, “Life punishes the vague wish and rewards the specific ask.” And I frickin’ love that line.
Be specific. No picking brains. You’re not a zombie or a vulture or a crow.
Not 30-minute coffee chats. Those quickly become recipes of asking for too much time with an amorphous ask. To a busy person, that 30-minute ask sounds like a recipe for losing 50 minutes to an hour of your life you can never get back. Including travel to and from. Time, as the only unreplenishable commodity, is precious. As Howard Lindzon said on the Superclusters podcast, when we’re young, we’re time-millionaires, but over time, we get poorer and poorer. We then become time-thousand-aires as we age. And eventually, we run out of temporal capital.
It is in times of need and struggle, that we often have the most prescient and specific ask to make of potential mentors.
“When in X situation, and after having Y results, my gut seems to tell me to do Z, but given that you’ve experienced these situations before or have likely seen these situations unfold, am I directionally accurate?”
In closing
There’s a lot of this hustle porn in the Bay Area. Loud claims of not taking any vacations or sleeping only three hours per night. Moreover media perpetuates and lionizes this way of living.
It’s not true. Science shows we do much better with eight hours of sleep. It shows that every so often, we need to take time to unwind, so that we can come back to be more efficient and inspired than before. You can clock in the hours, but that doesn’t mean you are producing quality in a one-to-one capacity.
And I worry that like the founder that took his vacation for the first time, then overcorrected, we live in a society where we’ve forgotten that we’re human. That we need breaks. That we need sleep. And that we can’t do most things alone, including building ambitious ideas and maturing as professionals.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Would the founders in your portfolio let you in on the cap table if you weren’t an investor? If you had no money? If they could only borrow your brain for two hours every three months, and that’s it?
The uncomfortable truth is that most founders won’t.
But to find the founder who will take that deal is the person you want to be focusing on. They’re the archetype of founder you want to win — that you put your whole heart into perfecting your craft for that founder.
Play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. Where do you have home field advantage?
Why does this matter?
All cards on the table, it won’t matter if you plan to stay a boutique VC firm or angel whose check size for an investment never goes past $250K. Even better if you don’t have any pro rata. But if you plan to institutionalize your firm — and I don’t mean to say this is the only way to institutionalize — you need to hire. To hire, you need enough management fees to support a team of that size. And to get enough management fees, most of the time, that requires you to scale your fund size.
Whereas in Fund I and maybe II, you played the participating investor. Squeezing in great deals. And everyone’s your friend. Founders love you. Your co-investors love you. With larger funds, you may end up scaling your check size. If you don’t, you start diversifying your portfolio more and more. And most large LPs prefer concentrated portfolios. Why?
They often do the diversification work in their own model. They pick their own verticals and stages they want exposure to. The product they want to buy is not to be their portfolio for them, but that it is just one asset in a larger portfolio. A lot of LPs also fear diversified portfolios in managers because at some point, managers will be investing in the same underlying asset. No LP wants to invest in 10 funds and have four of them all be investors in Stripe. If that’s the case, they might as well invest directly in Stripe via co-investment.
But at the end of the day, if your checks are bigger (along with ownership targets), it’s hard to always be 100% friendly with other investors since they have their own mandates. And at some point, the founder is forced to pick: you or any of those other interested investors.
And for you to win that deal, you must have something enduring that founders want outside of capital.
Examples
Of course, there are different ways to prove that you can win deals to your prospective LPs. The list below is by no means all-encompassing, but may help in giving you an idea of how people who have walked the path before you have done so.
Being chosen as the independent board member in other companies you didn’t invest in (Kudos to Ben Choi for sharing this one in our episode)
Even better if super pro rata (rarely happens though, especially after Series A)
(Co-)Leading rounds (met an emerging GP last year who syndicated the whole $2M round)
Repeat founders (with previous exits >$100M) let you invest in oversubscribed rounds with a check larger than $250K
Founders letting you invest on previous round’s terms (or highly preferential treatment)
Incubating the company
Evidence or repeatable ability for you to pre-empt rounds before founders go out to fundraise
Some combination of the above
In closing
Unintentionally, this blogpost is the unofficial part two of my first one on the topic of sourcing, picking, and winning. Part one was on sourcing. This one is on winning. No guarantees on picking, but who knows? I may end up writing something.
For the uninitiated, this was said by both Ben Choi and Samir Kaji on the Superclusters podcast. That to be a great investor, you need to be great in at least two of three things: sourcing, picking, and/or winning. If you only have great deal flow, but don’t know how to pick the right companies that come your way or have the best founders pick you, then you don’t have an advantage. If you’re really good at winning deals, but no one comes to you or you pick the wrong deals to win, then you also don’t have anything. You need at least two. Of course, ideally three.
But as you institutionalize, the third may come in the form of another team member or as you build out the platform.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Jeff is a partner at Renaissance Venture Capital an innovative venture capital fund of funds. Jeff’s diverse background in venture capital and technology and his experience working in various start-up ventures uniquely position him to advise startups. In addition, Jeff is quite active in the Michigan start-up community, volunteering his time to mentor young entrepreneurs, judge pitch competitions, and guest lecture student classes and organizations. Through Jeff’s work on the Fund, his volunteer efforts, and his role as the chair of the Michigan Venture Capital Association’s board of directors, his passion for fostering a productive environment for venture capital investment in the State of Michigan is evident.
Martin Tobias is the Managing Partner and Founder of Incisive Ventures, an early-stage venture capital firm focused on investing in the first institutional round of technology companies that reduce friction at scale.
Martin was previously at Accenture and Microsoft and is a former Venture Partner at Ignition Partners. Martin is a 3X venture-funded CEO rising over $500M as CEO with two IPOs who has also invested in hundreds of companies and is a limited partner in over a dozen VC funds. Martin was an early investor in Google, Docusign, OpenSea, and over a dozen Unicorns.
Martin is the father of 3 daughters, a cyclist, surfer, poker player, and life hacker. Martin tinkers with motorcycles on the weekends. He writes about Venture Capital on Incisive Ventures blog and Twitter.
[00:00] Introducing Jeff Rinvelt and Martin Tobias [04:14] What was Jeff’s pitch to their LPs for Renaissance Capital? [06:30] Why did Jeff pivot from being a founder to an LP? [08:10] Renaissance Capital’s portfolio construction model [13:00] Jeff’s involvement in non-profits [15:56] How did Martin become an angel investor? [18:03] The big lesson from being an LP in SV Angel’s Fund I and II [20:10] Why is Martin starting a fund now? [26:07] A lesson on variable check sizes [28:53] What is Martin’s value add to founders? [33:29] What stood out about Martin’s deck and email when it arrived in Jeff’s inbox? [35:43] The 2 biggest worries Martin had in sharing his deck with Jeff [36:47] What does Jeff think about generalists? [40:49] What held Jeff back from making an investment in Incisive Ventures? [42:37] What kinds of conversations does Martin usually have with LPs? [47:05] One of the greatest professional lessons Jeff picked up as a manager [49:07] Martin’s greatest lesson from his days as a CEO [51:57] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [54:33] Like, comment and share if you enjoyed the episode
“One of the things a lot of investors don’t do is go back and be honest about where they got fucking lucky and where they had a thesis that they could potentially replicate in future investments.”
In the process of catching up with a number of fund managers this week, I was reminded of two things:
That I still have an outstanding blogpost on intuition and discipline sitting on my desk, having gone through more revisions than I would like
That Fund I’s mostly start by drawing trendlines in your previous portfolio’s winners.
Now it’s not my job to call anyone out, but many of those I caught up with this week, told me in confidence (no longer in confidence now that I’m writing about it) that their best investments were simply due to being in the right place at the right time. That they were lucky. Others invested often off-thesis to accommodate for a brilliant founder that looked and sounded like nothing they had seen before. Then retroactively, went back to LPs in a subsequent fundraise armed with the knowledge to account for their previous outlier.
Chris Paik once wrote, ““Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.”
Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence
Josh Wolfe said last year, “We believe before others understand.” And sometimes the investor themselves may not fully grasp what makes someone special other than that person is special.
Other times the company in which you initially bet on may not look like the company that earns you the most capital. As Mike Maples Jr. once said, “90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.
Of course, many LPs don’t want to hear that. They want to hear that you know exactly what you’re doing. That you can predict the future. But you can’t. In many ways, VCs invest in what stays the same. Not what changes. Human nature. Great hires. Network effects. Talent pools. Intellectual curiosity. Rigor. It’s a long list.
An amazing VC once told me. The job of a VC is to:
Have a wide enough aperture so enough light can come in
But have a fast enough trigger finger to catch the light, the reflections, the shadows just at the right time so that you get a good enough shot.
The rest is all done in the editing room, where you massage the photo with your expertise and experience to help it stand out.
I love that line. But simply put, the job of a VC is to:
Cast a wide enough net so that you can see as many great companies as you can,
Have the ability and awareness to know a great company when you see it.
After all, as an investor, you don’t have to invest in every great company, but every company you invest in must be great. Big anti-portfolios don’t mean much in this world if you can still get great returns.
All that to say, the job of an angel is to increase the surface area for luck to stick. And once enough do, a thesis blossoms.
A thesis, at the end of the day, is retroactive. And the best thing a fund manager can do is that the thesis the fund ends on is as close as possible to the initial. As LPs, it is our job to bet on the future of the thesis and the discipline of the fund manager. Both are equally as important. If things do change, a fund manager must preemptively communicate strategy drift and do so in the best interest of their investors.
It’s not ideal in many cases. For individual LPs and smaller family offices, strategy drift matters less. For large institutional LPs, it matters more. Because the latter don’t want you to be investing in the same underlying asset as other funds they’re invested into are.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
I wrote a blogpost last year, where I went a level deeper into my NTY thesis. In short, in what situations and in front of what kind of ideas do I ask founders: Why now? Why this? And why you?
But let’s go a step deeper. As I’m writing another blogpost slated to come out next year, I’ve had the chance to sit down with some amazing multi-cycle investors. And a common thread across all those conversations has been that they chose to be the first check in companies that would be big, if true.
Which got me thinking…
If ‘big if true’ is for the preposterous ideas out there, then possible ideas would be ‘big when true.’ And plausible ideas would be ‘big AND true.’
Let’s break it down.
Big AND true
Not too long ago, the amazing Chris Douvosshared with me that the prerequisite to being “right and alone”, where fortune and glory lie, is to be “wrong and alone.”
Imagine a two-by-two matrix. On one axis, right and wrong. On the other axis, alone and in the crowd. You obviously don’t want to be wrong and in the crowd. But you do want to be in the right and alone quadrant. Because that’s where fortune and glory are at. Most people think that to get there, you must first start in the right and in the crowd quadrant. But it’s important to note, that once you’re in the crowd, and you get the dopamine hits of validation, it’s really hard to stray away from the crowd. So really, the only way to get to fortune and glory is to be wrong and alone. To be willing to go against the grain.
Unfortunately, for big AND true, you’re in the crowd. And while you can usually make money on the margins, it’s hard to be world-defining. ‘Cause you’re too late.
The thing to be wary of here if it is any investor’s strategy to deploy capital here is to not be the last money in. Hype and compounding are dangerous. And for many companies that exist here, they have a short half life. If you’re the last one holding the bag, that’s it.
Big WHEN true
You know that saying, “It’s a matter of when, not if…” it’s just as true in the innovation space. There are some things in life that are bound to happen. Recessions. Hype cycles. Rain. First snowfall. Summer heat. Progress. Maturity. When one’s baby teeth fall out. Wrinkles. Gray hair. Some with more predictability than others.
These ideas are defined as those with early commercial traction, likely with a niche audience or only your 1000 true fans. And that’s okay. Usually happens to be some of the toughest pre-seed and seed rounds to raise. There’s clearly traction, but no clear sense of rocket ship growth.
Timing matters. Is the larger market ready to adopt the beliefs and culture and habits of the few?
For some investors, it’s why they target quality of life improvements to the wealthy made ready for the masses. Living a wealthy lifestyle is, after all, aspirational for many. On the flip side, if you have a niche audience and are looking to expand, are there underlying beliefs and traits that the broader market has but has instead applied those beliefs and habits in other parts of their life?
Big IF true
Sam Altman put out a blogpost just yesterday, titled “What I Wish Someone Had Told Me.” And out of the 17 lessons he shares, one in particular resonated the most with me:
“It is easier for a team to do a hard thing that really matters than to do an easy thing that doesn’t really matter; audacious ideas motivate people.”
While the stories of Airbnb or Coinbase or Canva seem to suggest that these are nigh impossible ideas to raise on, anecdotally, I seem to find that the most transcendent companies with CEOs who are able to acquire world-class talent to their companies have less trouble fundraising than the ‘big when true’ ideas. But more difficulty raising than the ‘big and true’ ideas.
That said, instead of many smaller checks, you just need to find one big believer. In other words, the Garry Tan for your Coinbase or the Fred Wilson for your Twitter. One way to look at it, though not the only way, is what Paul Grahamputs as the “reasonable domain expert proposing something that sounds wrong.” Crazy, but reasonable. Simply, why you?
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Courtney Russell McCrea enjoys over 30 years of venture capital and private equity investment experience including 13 years of fund investing and 18 years of direct principal investing.
Courtney is Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Recast Capital, a 100% women-owned platform investing in and supporting emerging managers in venture, with a focus on diverse partnerships.
Prior to co-founding Recast, Courtney was a Managing Director of Weathergage Capital, a boutique fund of funds that provided its clients with access to premier venture capital, growth equity and micro-VC partnerships. Venture fund commitments included both brand name funds and emerging managers. In addition to fund investment responsibilities, Courtney led the direct co investing program at Weathergage. During her 10 year tenure at Weathergage, Courtney made commitments to 100 funds and seven direct co-investments.
Prior to Weathergage, Courtney was a General Partner with Weston Presidio, a leading diversified private equity firm based in San Francisco. After 7 years at Weston Presidio, she left in 2004 and founded Silver Partners, a private equity advisory firm where she evaluated secondary and co-investment opportunities and advised consumer growth businesses. Courtney was also a Director at Sterling Stamos, where she managed investments in buyout funds, venture capital funds and hedge funds.
Earlier in her career, Courtney made equity co-investments as an Assistant Vice President at PPM America. She also spent 5 years at GE Capital where she worked on private equity, senior and subordinated debt investing.
Courtney has an M.B.A., with honors, from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management and a B.A. in Economics from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. She is a member of the Kauffman Fellows Class 3.
Courtney is a member of the NVCA Forward Board of Directors and the Alzheimer’s Association Northern California and Nevada Board of Directors.
[00:00] Intro [02:37] What of Courtney’s past helped her co-found Recast Capital [04:02] Three reasons to invest in emerging managers [05:17] What does “institutional quality of emerging managers” mean? [06:52] How to diligence emerging managers [10:30] How to do reference checks on GPs [14:40] How has being a Kauffman fellow helped Courtney build Recast’s Enablement and Accelerate programs [19:51] How do alumni GP stay active in Recast Capital’s community [20:59] Zoom vs. in-person education for GPs [23:00] What kind of managers do Recast Capital invest in versus who ends up joining the Enablement Program versus who joins the Accelerate program [28:33] Why are the Enablement Program and Accelerate program free [30:25] Spinouts from larger funds [32:12] What are emerging manager red flags? [34:03] Should emerging managers have answers to questions on succession planning? [36:00] Challenging the 1% GP commit: How much should different archetypes of GPs commit to their own fund? [40:52] Lessons from arguments between GPs [46:30] Getting Courtney to say yes [47:46] Courtney may make some enemies with this statement! [48:54] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [51:30] Legal disclaimer
Earlier this week, I was listening to a fascinatingly thoughtful conversation between Tim Ferriss and Kindred’s Steve Jang, where Tim said one line that stood out in particular: “I’ve been paying a lot of attention, but I’ll be honest, I don’t know how to pay proper attention.”
And well, it got me thinking. About the difference between knowing what to look at and knowing how to look at it.
One of my favorite TED talks is by Will Guidara (quite honestly I think it deserves more views on YouTube than it has). Will is probably best known for co-founding one of New York’s hottest fine dining restaurants, Eleven Madison Park, and for writing the book, Unreasonable Hospitality. And in it, he talks about how just listening to the conversations that are happening at the tables and delivering these small, unexpected pockets of joy can create experiences that transcend money and time.
In the afore-mentioned talk, he talks about how there are four diners at Eleven Madison Park. That they went to all the top restaurants in NYC. Le Bernardin. Per se. And so on. And Eleven Madison Park was the last on their to-do list. But the only regret they had was that they never got to try a New York hot dog. Of course, upon hearing that, Will storms out the door to buy a $2 dog, brings it back to the kitchen and convinces the chef to serve it over the aged duck that took years to perfect. And when he finally delivered the next course on the menu as the hot dog he just bought, the four guests went bonkers. That despite on the multiple courses and the brilliant food, that their favorite dish was the NYC hot dog.
That it was because Will paid proper attention to his guests that he was able to deliver a truly unforgettable experience.
The truth is how to pay proper attention to anything that deserves our attention is the million-dollar question.
Paying proper attention
There’s the famous selective attention test, where viewers are asked to count the number of times the ball is being passed between the players, only to fail to realize that there is gorilla that walks across the screen. We’re told to pay attention to the ball passes, but only by paying proper attention to the purpose of why the test is being administered, do we catch what is hiding in plain sight.
Similarly, Raymond Joseph Teller (or better known for being half of the dynamic magic duo Penn & Teller) did a fascinating talk a decade and a half ago about the illusion of expectation. That magic in all of its novel facets feeds off of the expectations of its onlookers. When one tries to pay attention to the coins that are “magically” jumping from one hand to the next, you might fail to catch the sleight of hand in between. But only after he reveals his secrets is the simple magic act all the more impressive. In other words, in the second half, he teaches you how to pay proper attention.
If you have eight minutes in your day, would highly recommend watching the below video.
I can’t speak for every topic, industry, relationship, and so on out there, but at least for the cottage industry of venture capital, why I choose to write an angel or an LP check is similar. I don’t really look for what will change. ‘Cause damn, it’s so hard to predict what will change and how things will change. If I knew, and if one day, I know, please invest in my public markets fund, which will be the best performing fund of all time. But I don’t. We, as pundits sitting around the table, might draw predictions. But even the smartest of us (not sure why I say us, ’cause not sure if I can put myself in that category yet) would be lying if we knew what would happen in foresight.
Instead, I look at what doesn’t change.
What doesn’t change?
The great Charlie Munger passed away last week at the age of 99. And without question, a great loss to the world we live in today. Just half a year prior, he and Warren Buffett were hosting their 2023 annual meeting. And just two weeks prior, he was still doing CNBC interviews. And one of my favorite lines from that May annual meeting was:
“Well, it’s so simple to spend less than you earn, and invest shrewdly, and avoid toxic people and toxic activities, and try and keep learning all your life, et cetera, et cetera, and do a lot of deferred gratification because you prefer life that way. And if you do all those things, you are almost certain to succeed. If you don’t, you’re going to need a lot of luck. And you don’t want to need a lot of luck. You want to go into a game where you’re very likely to win without having any unusual luck.”
In reducing the requirement to need luck, one of the most effective ways to find what is constant in life. That despite changing times and technologies, these stay true. Or as Morgan Housel and Naval Ravikantput it, If you lived your life 1000 times, what would be true in 999 of them? In investing jargon, pattern recognition. Across my investments and more, where have I seen outperformance? What characteristics do they all share? What about human nature won’t change?
In fairness, pattern recognition gets a bad rap. And for a lot of investors, that’s because they choose to only invest in their comfort zone, and what they know best. Their former colleagues. Their Stanford GSB classmates. People who look like them, think like them, act like them. But recognizing thematic threads stretch across all facets of our life. We learn that not brushing our teeth well can lead to cavities. We learn that after stubbing our toe on the kitchen counter numerous times, we take a wider turn before turning into the kitchen. And we learn that eating piping hot foods kills your tastebuds for the next few days.
The venture corollary
In venture, we’re always taught to look at the team, product, and market. And that all are important. But if you tell a new grad or an ex-founder or an emerging angel to do just that. To them, that means nothing. They wouldn’t know how to judge. They have no benchmarks, nor do they know what’s right versus wrong. Now I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but I do believe previous blogposts like this and this are quite comprehensive for how I pay proper attention as an investor.
Emerging LPs are not immune to the lack of perspective as well. My hope and my goal is for how to be just as important if not more than the what. And for the why to be just as or more important than the how. It’s because of that, I write essays like this and this. And of course, it’s why I started Superclusters because I, too, am looking for how to pay proper attention to the next generation of venture investors. (Stay tuned for the coming Monday for episode four where we unpack the bull and bear case of early distributions in a 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!
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.
Soooooooo… (I know, what a great word to start a blogpost) I started this essay, with some familiarity on one subject. Little did I know I was going to learn about an entirely different industry, and be endlessly fascinated about that.
The analogy that kicked off this essay is that re-upping on a portfolio company is very much like re-signing a current player on a sports team. That was it. Simple as it was supposed to sound. The goal of any analogy was to frame a new or nuanced concept, in this case, the science of re-upping, under an umbrella of knowledge we were already familiar with.
But, I soon learned of the complexity behind re-upping players’ contracts, as one might assume. And while I will claim no authority over the knowledge and calculations that go into contracts in the sports arena, I want to thank Brian Anderson and everyone else who’s got more miles on their odometer in the world of professional sports for lending me their brains. Thank you!
As well as Arkady Kulik, Dave McClure, and all the LPs and GPs for their patience and willingness to go through all the revisions of this blogpost!
While this was a team effort here, many of this blogpost’s contributors chose to stay off the record.
The year was 1997.
Nomar Garciaparra was an instantaneous star, after batting an amazing .306/.342/.534. For the uninitiated, those are phenomenal stats. On top of batting 30 home runs and 11 triples – the latter of which was a cut above the rest of the league, it won him Rookie of the Year. And those numbers only trended upwards in the years after, especially in 1999 and 2000. Garciaparra became the hope for so many fans to end the curse of the Bambino – a curse that started when the Red Sox traded the legendary Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1918.
Then 2001 hit. A wrist injury. An injured Achilles tendon. And the fact he needed to miss “significant time” earned him a prime spot to be traded. Garciaparra was still a phenomenal hitter when he was on, but there was one other variable that led to the Garciaparra trade. To Theo Epstein, above all else, that was his “fatal flaw.”
Someone that endlessly draws my fascination is Theo Epstein. Someone that comes from the world of baseball. A sport that venture draws a lot of inspiration, at least in analogy, like one of my fav sayings, Venture is one of the only types of investments where it’s not about the batting average but about the magnitude of the home runs you hit.
If you don’t follow baseball, Theo Epstein is the youngest general manager in the history of major league baseball at 26. But better known for ending the Curse of the Bambino, an 86-year curse that led the Red Sox down a championship drought that started when the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees. Theo as soon as he became general manager traded Nomar Garciaparra, a 5-time All-star shortstop, to the Cubs, and won key contracts with both third baseman Bill Mueller and pitcher Curt Schilling. All key decisions that led the Red Sox to eventually win the World Series 3 years later.
And when Theo left the Red Sox to join the Chicago Cubs, he also ended another curse – The Curse of the Billy Goat, ending with Theo leading them to a win in the 2016 World Series. You see, in baseball, they measure everything. From fly ball rates to hits per nine innings to pitches per plate appearance. Literally everything on the field.
But what made Theo different was that he looked at things off the field. It’s why he chose to bet on younger players than rely on the current all-stars. It’s why he measures how a teammate can help a team win in the dugout. And, it’s why he traded Nomar, a 5-time All Star, as soon as he joined, because Nomar’s “fatal flaw” was despite his prowess, held deep resentment to his own team, the Sox, when they tried to trade him just the year prior for Alex Rodriguez but failed to.
So, when Danny Meyer, best known for his success with Shake Shack, asked Theo what Danny called a “stupid question”, after the Cubs lost to the Dodgers in the playoffs, and right after Houston was hit by a massive hurricane, “Theo, who are you rooting for? The Dodgers so you can say you lost to the winning team, or Houston (Astros), because you want something good to happen to a city that was recently ravaged by a hurricane.”
Theo said, “Neither. But I’m rooting for the Dodgers because if they win, they’ll do whatever every championship team does and not work on the things they need to work on during the off season. And the good news is that we have to play them 8 times in the next season.”
You see, everyone in VC largely has access to the same data. The same Pitchbook and Crunchbase stat sheet. The same cap table. And the same financials. But as Howard Marks once said in response how you gain a knowledge advantage:
“You have to either:
Somehow do a better job of massaging the current data, which is challenging; or you have to
Be better at making qualitative judgments; or you have to
Be better at figuring out what the future holds.”
For the purpose of this blogpost, we’re going to focus on the first one of the three.
What is value?
To begin, we have to first define a term that’ll be booking its frequent flier miles for the rest of this piece – expected value.
Some defined it as the expectation of future worth. Others, a prediction of future utility. Investopedia defines it as the long-term average value of a variable. Merriam-Webster has the most rudimentary definition:
The sum of the values of a random variable with each value multiplied by its probability of occurrence
On the other hand, venture is an industry where the beta is arguably one of the highest. The risk associated with outperformance is massive as well. And the greatest returns, in following the power law, are unpredictable.
We’re often blessed with hindsight bias, but every early-stage investor in foresight struggles with predicting outlier performance. Any investor that says otherwise is either deluding you or themselves or both. At the same time, that’s what makes modeling exercises so difficult in venture, unlike our friends in hedge funds and private equity. Even the best severely underestimate the outcomes of their best performers. For instance, Bessemer thought the best possible outcome for Shopify was $400M with only a 3% chance of occurring.
Similarly, who would have thought that jumping in a stranger’s car or home, or live streaming gameplay would become as big as they are today. As Strauss Zelnick recently said, “The biggest hits are by their nature, unexpected, which means you can’t organize around them with AI.” Take the word AI out, and the sentence is equally as profound replaced with the word “model.” And it is equally echoed by others. Chris Paik at Pace has made it his mission to “invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.”
But I digress.
Value itself is a huge topic – a juggernaut of a topic – and I, in no illusion, find myself explaining it in a short blogpost, but that of which I plan to spend the next couple of months, if not years, digging deeper into, including a couple more blogposts that are in the blast furnace right now. But for the purpose of this one, I’ll triangulate on one subset of it – future value as a function of probability and market benchmarks.
In other words, doubling down. Or re-upping.
For the world of startups, the best way to explain that is through a formula:
E(v) = (probability of outcome) X (outcome)
E(v) = (graduation rate) X (valuation step up from last round) X (dilution)
For the sake of this blogpost and model, let’s call E(v), appreciation value. So, let’s break down each of the variables.
Graduation rates
What percent of your companies graduate to the next round? I shared general benchmarks in this blogpost, but the truth is it’s a bit more nuanced. Each vertical, each sub-vertical, each vintage – they all look different. Additionally, Sapphire’s Beezer recently said that it’s normal to expect a 20-30% loss ratio in the first five years of your fund. Not all your companies will make it, but that’s the game we play.
On a similar note, institutional LPs often plan to build a multi-fund, multi-decade relationship with their GPs. If they invest in a Fund I, they also expect to be there by Fund III.
Valuation step ups
How much greater is the next round’s valuation in comparison to the one in which you invested? Twice as high? Thrice? By definition, if you double down on the same company, rather than allocate to a net new company, you’re decreasing your TVPI. And as valuations grow, the cost of doubling down may be too much for your portfolio construction model to handle, especially if you’re a smaller sub-$100M fund.
It’s for the same reason that in the world of professional sports, there are salary caps. In fact, most leagues have them. And only the teams who:
Have a real chance at the championship title.
Have a lot in their coffers. This comes down to the composition of the ownership group, and their willingness to pay that tax.
And/or have a city who’s willing to pay the premium.
… can pay the luxury tax. Not to be too much of a homer, but the Golden State Warriors have a phenomenal team and are well-positioned to win again (at least at the time of this blogpost going out). So the Warriors can afford to pay the luxury tax, but smaller teams or teams focused on rebuilding can’t.
The Bulls didn’t re-sign the legendary Michael Jordan because they needed to rebuild. Indianapolis didn’t extend Peyton Manning’s contract ‘cause they didn’t have the team that would support Peyton’s talents. So, they needed to rebuild with a new cast of players.
Similarly, Sequoia and a16z might be able to afford to pay the “luxury tax” when betting on the world’s greatest AI talent and for them to acquire the best generative AI talent. Those who have a real chance to grow to $100M ARR, given adoption rates, retention rates, and customer demand. But as a smaller fund or a fund that has a new cast of GPs (where the old guard retired)… can you?
Dilution
If a star player is prone to injury or can only play 60 minutes of a game (rather than 90 minutes), a team needs to re-evaluate the value of said player, no matter how talented they are. How much of a player’s health, motivation, and/or collaborativeness – harkening back to the anecdote of Nomar Garciaparra at the beginning – will affect their ability to perform in the coming season?
Take, for instance, the durability of a player. If there ‘s a 60% chance of a player getting injured if he/she plays longer than 60 minutes in a game and a 50% of tearing their ACL, while they may your highest scorer this season, they’re not very durable. If that player missed 25% of practices and 30% of games, they just don’t have it in them to see the season through. And you can also benchmark that player against the rest of the team. How’s that compared with the team’s average?
Of course, there’s a parallel here to also say, every decision you make should be relative to industry and portfolio benchmarks.
How great of a percentage are you getting diluted with the next round if you don’t maintain your ownership? This is the true value of your stake in the company as the company grows.
How does one use the appreciation value equation?
E(v) = (graduation rate) X (valuation step up from last round) X (dilution)
If the expected value is greater than one, the company is probably not worth re-upping. And that probably means the company is overhyped, or that that market is seeing extremely deflated loss ratios. In other words, more companies than should be, are graduating to the next stage; when in reality, the market is either a winner-take-all or a few-take-all market. If it is less than or equal to one, then it’s ripe to double down on. In other words, the company may be undervalued.
And to understand the above equation or for it to be actually useful (outside of an abstract concept), you need market data. Specifically, around valuation step ups as a function of industry and vertical.
If you happen to have internal data across decades and hundreds of companies, then it’s worth plugging in your own dataset as well. It’s the closest you can get to the efficient market frontier.
But if you lack a large enough sample size, I’d recommend the below model constructed from data pulled from Carta, Pitchbook, and Preqin and came from the minds of Arkady Kulik and Dave McClure.
The model
The purpose of this model is to help your team filter what portfolio companies are worth diving deeper into and which ones you may not have to (because they didn’t pass the litmus test) BEFORE you evaluate additional growth metrics.
It is also important to note that the data we’ve used is bucketed by industry. And in doing so, assumptions were made in broad strokes. For example, deep tech is broad by design but includes niche-er markets that have their own fair share of pricing nuances in battery or longevity biotech or energy or AI/ML. Or B2B which include subsectors in cybersecurity or infrastructure or PLG growth.
Take for instance…
Energy
Energy sector appreciation values and follow-on recommendations
The energy sector sees a large drop in appreciation value at the seed stage, where all three factors contribute to such an output. Valuation step-up is just 1.71X, graduation rates are less than 50% and dilution is 38% on average.
Second phase where re-upping might be a good idea is Series B. Main drivers as to such a decision are that dilution hovers around 35% and about 50% of companies graduate from Series A to Series B. Mark ups are less significant where we generally see only an increase in valuation at about 2.5X, which sits around the middle of the pack.
Biotech
Biotech sector appreciation values and follow-on recommendations
The biotech sector sees a large drop in appreciation value at the Seed stage. This time, whereas dilution seems to match the pace of the rest of the pack (at an average of 25%), the two other factors shine greater in making a follow-on decision. Valuation step up are rather low, sitting at 1.5X. And less than 50% graduate to the next stage.
In the late 2023 market, one might also consider re-upping at the Series C round. Main driver is the unexpectedly low step-up function of 1.5X, which matches the slow pace of deployment for growth and late stage VCs. On the flip side, a dilution of 17% and graduation rate of 60% are quite the norm at this stage.
In closing
All in all, the same exercise is useful in evaluating two scenarios – either as an LP or as a GP:
Is your entry point a good entry point?
Between two stages, where should you deploy more capital?
For the former, too often, emerging GPs take the stance of the earlier, the better. Almost as if it’s a biblical line. It’s not. Or at least not always, as a blanket statement. The point of the above exercise is also to evaluate, what is the average value of a company if you were to jump in at the pre-seed? Do enough graduate and at a high enough price for it to make sense? While earlier may be true for many industries, it isn’t true for all, and the model above can serve as your litmus test for it. You may be better off entering at a stage with a higher scoring entry point.
For the latter, this is where the discussion of follow on strategies and if you should have reserves come into play. If you’re a seed stage firm, say for biotech, using the above example, by the A, your asset might have appreciated too much for you to double down. In that case, as a fund manager, you may not need to deploy reserves into the current market. Or you may not need as large of a reserve pool as you might suspect. It’s for this reason that many fund managers often underallocate because they overestimate how much in reserves they need.
If you’re curious to play around with the model yourself, ping Arkady at ak@rpv.global, and you can mention you found out about it through here. 😉
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
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.
