“We overcomplicate almost nothing as LPs. And this is a criticism of myself. And I think we oversimplify almost everything. Because by definition, we’re the customer of the end product. […] LPs watch the movie, but don’t read the book.” – Ben Choi
We’re doing a three-part series with some of our fan favorites over the last three seasons on the LP perspective of succession-planning and VC firm-building.
Lisa Cawley is the Managing Director of Screendoor, a highly respected LP of GPs, investing in firm-builders by firm-builders, with a unique model for partnering with allocators to access the emerging manager ecosystem.
Ben Choi manages over $3B investments with many of the world’s premier venture capital firms as well as directly in early stage startups. He brings to Next Legacy a distinguished track record spanning over two decades founding and investing in early-stage technology businesses.
Jaclyn Freeman Hester is a Partner at Foundry. Jaclyn helped launch Foundry’s partner fund strategy, building the portfolio to nearly 50 managers. Bringing her unique GP + LP perspective, Jaclyn has become a go-to sounding board for emerging VCs.
[00:00] Intro [02:00] Questions Ben asks GPs to see if they’re thinking long-term [06:50] Questions Jaclyn asks GPs to assess long-term thinking [09:45] What does leverage look like for a GP? [20:13] The role of AI internally at a firm [21:06] Advice to people looking to take junior VC roles [25:33] Questions Lisa asks GPs to assess long-term thinking [29:19] When does a fund turn into a firm? [31:26] Lisa: What do LPs often oversimplify vs overcomplicate about firm-building? [35:31] Ben’s answer to oversimplification vs overcomplication [41:00] What do emerging and established GPs oversimplify and overcomplicate? [45:06] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [46:07] If you can’t wait for Part 3 of this conversation, leave us a like or comment!
“How do you get the most out of the least amount of people? […] I don’t think getting more bodies solves it. I think getting high leverage from a smaller set of resources is better.” – Jaclyn Freeman Hester
“If I hire someone, I don’t really want to hire right out of school. I want to hire someone with a little bit of professional experience. And I want someone who’s been yelled at. […] I don’t want to have to triple check work. I want to be able to build trust. Going and getting that professional experience somewhere, even if it’s at a startup or venture firm. Having someone have oversight on you and [push] you to do excellent work and [help] you understand why it matters… High quality output can help you gain so much trust.” – Jaclyn Freeman Hester
“What’s your right to win? Why are you going to be a founder and talent magnet? Why does the world need you as a firm? Why does the world need you as a VC? And how do you define success?” – Lisa Cawley
“We overcomplicate almost nothing as LPs [about the firm building process]. And this is a criticism of myself. And I think we oversimplify almost everything. Because by definition, we’re the customer of the end product.” – Ben Choi
“LPs watch the movie, but don’t read the book.” – Ben Choi
“Ultimately, Job #1 as an emerging GP is to be a great investor. We want you to be a great investor that lasts the test of time. But if you’re a mediocre investor that lasts the test of time or a great investor that doesn’t last the test of time, we prefer the second.” – Ben Choi
“There’s this amazing, amazing commercial that Michael Phelps did, […] and the tagline behind it was ‘It’s what you do in the dark that puts you in the light.’” – Lisa Cawley
We’re doing a three-part series with some of our fan favorites over the last three seasons on the LP perspective of succession-planning and VC firm-building.
Lisa Cawley is the Managing Director of Screendoor, a highly respected LP of GPs, investing in firm-builders by firm-builders, with a unique model for partnering with allocators to access the emerging manager ecosystem.
Ben Choi manages over $3B investments with many of the world’s premier venture capital firms as well as directly in early stage startups. He brings to Next Legacy a distinguished track record spanning over two decades founding and investing in early-stage technology businesses.
Jaclyn Freeman Hester is a Partner at Foundry. Jaclyn helped launch Foundry’s partner fund strategy, building the portfolio to nearly 50 managers. Bringing her unique GP + LP perspective, Jaclyn has become a go-to sounding board for emerging VCs.
[00:00] Intro [02:03] The job that goes unseen by others at a VC firm [09:01] The psychology of curiosity [11:12] The story of Charlie Munger and Robert Cialdini [14:17] Lisa’s perspective on the intangibles of firm-building [17:41] Heidi Roizen and why glassblowing builds relationships [21:09] The people you surround yourself with [23:06] Jaclyn’s perspective on the intangibles [26:23] Examples of how to communicate strategy drift [27:34] Ben’s perspective on the intangibles [33:19] The metric many LPs don’t use but should use to evaluate GPs [36:16] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [37:17] If you enjoyed Part 1, and want to see Part 2 and 3 sooner, leave a like or a comment!
“The job and the role that goes most unseen by LPs and everybody outside of the firm is the role of the culture keeper.” – Ben Choi
“You can map out what your ideal process is, but it’s actually the depth of discussion that the internal team has with one another. […] You have to define what your vision for the firm is years out, in order to make sure that you’re setting those people up for success and that they have a runway and a growth path and that they feel empowered and they feel like they’re learning and they’re contributing as part of the brand. And so much of what happens there, it does tie back to culture […] There’s this amazing, amazing commercial that Michael Phelps did, […] and the tagline behind it was ‘It’s what you do in the dark that puts you in the light.’” – Lisa Cawley
“At the end of the day, the job is to take a pile of money from your LPs and give them a bigger pile. And giving them back a really big pile is the legacy thing. […] And consistently insane returns are hard. That, to me, are the firms that go down in history.” – Jaclyn Freeman Hester
“In venture, LPs are looking for GPs with loaded dice.” – Ben Choi
I went shoe shopping with my partner the past two weekends, and I’ll be the first to plead ignorance to the difference between the B and D suffix for shoe sizes. And even after two weekends, I’m still learning.
I’ve never looked much into shoes. Having spent much of my early life bathed in chlorine (so much that at one point, my hair was brown with blond tips. FYI, for those I’ve never met in person before, I sport naturally black hair.), I’ve spent more time choosing the right $300-400 swimsuit than what I’d wear on my two lower appendages the other eight hours of the day. All that to say, I’m ill-equipped to speak the language of sneakerheads and running shoe geeks.
But just as I’m still learning how shoe geeks around the world understand the finer nuances of heel to toe drop impacting ankle versus knee strain, most founders who haven’t spent the time understanding the nuances of VCs think all money is green. In fact, just last month, I spoke with a founder I randomly met at an event who said, “Money is money.”
And he’s not completely wrong. There is some truth to it. At the end of the day, as investors, we sell money. Moreover, most investors who promise to be helpful are not. As well-intentioned as they are at the time of investment, most fall short of being truly helpful. There are multiple studies that show that founders believe a huge majority of their investors are not helpful.
That said, one of my investor buddies said something quite interesting to me earlier this week. Many founders see investors as saviors not partners. A source of capital to save them when they’re near the gates of hell, but not while they’re building their stairway to heaven. All that to say, as someone who’s been an operator, now a “VC”, but also someone who invests in other VCs, here are some of the nuances I’ve really come to appreciate over the years that I overlooked when I first stepped into the world of entrepreneurship.
Consensus and conviction-driven decision making
Some firms are consensus-driven. Others are conviction-driven. The former requires majority or unanimous buy-in. The latter doesn’t. Neither is universally better than the other, but knowing how decisions are made is extremely helpful. Not only to know who else you need to convince on the team, but also to know how the firm will help you post-investment.
The former is usually a firm where carry is split equally among all partners, so all partners are theoretically incented to see every portfolio company succeed. So as a founder, if you want to rely on the expertise and network of the collective partnership, these are the firms you should pursue. The latter, the conviction-driven ones, are most helpful if you really want one specific partner’s experience. They’ll be the person who takes the board seat. Opportunistically, they may ask for 1-2 junior team members to also have board observer seats. The downside is when and if this partner leaves the firm, there may be a gaping hole in governance as well as interest in the continued success of your company. But otherwise, this will be the partner you will have on speed dial.
I shared a presentation I made recently on LinkedIn. Of which, I share that three kinds of friends in the world. When shit hits the fan at 3AM in the morning…
There’s the friend you call. They see the call. And they go back to sleep.
There’s the friend you call. They see the call. And begrudgingly pick up.
And there’s the friend you call. And as they’re picking up the phone, they’ve got their pants on already and are running out the door with their keys.
Conviction-driven firms, where the partner that pounds the table for you will likely be on you board, or even if not, they’re going to be the third friend. At consensus-driven firms, and I’m clearly being reductive here, you’re more likely — not always — to have the reluctant one or sleepers.
Then it comes down to how the team is compensated. Not something most founders can find out or ask out, but how carry is distributed for each fund matters.
Disagreeableness
I’ve realized a lot of the best investors are quite disagreeable. They have their opinions and are quite vocal about them.
A lot of them quite often score incredibly low on investor review sites. Of course, some just score low on NPS purely because their assholes. But I want to caveat. Assholes are often disagreeable, but not all disagreeable people are assholes.
But it takes a lot of courage to have a contrarian viewpoint that one can back up. You don’t have to agree with it. But it matters. More often than not, these folks will also have negative references. For an LP evaluating VCs, that’s ok. Negative is always better than neutral references. The latter means you’re easily forgettable.
Regardless of whether you agree with these investors or not (equally, if not more true, in great founders), they make you stop and think. And that pause to think makes you a more well-rounded professional, and makes your own opinions more robust when you choose to adopt or not adopt said piece of advice.
There’s a great Steve Jobs line, which I think is quite applicable here. “Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
Great investors are troublemakers. In a good way.
P.S. To the three verified troublemakers I know who are reading this blogpost, can’t wait for your debut.
Small talk
Small talk was definitely one of those things I was rather dismissive of earlier in my career. Who da hell cares about the weather? Or what you did over the weekend?
But over the years, I realize some of the best investors are remarkably good at this. Not in the sense that they know how to ask great weather questions, but they learn how to build rapport early and quickly. And even better, they get a founder comfortable, honest, and candid about where they are at.
No one’s perfect. Every investor gets that. Most founders often pretend that they are. But a great investor is great at helping a founder realize they don’t have to be, and also get to understand a founder from a personal level. Not jumping straight into the pitch. Or give me your metrics. Or how much are you raising at how high of a valuation?
Radical candor
Borrowing this phrase from the amazing Kim Scott, the best investors are upfront with expectations. They don’t waste your time. Some even go as far as to share what their incentives are. And the harsh reality that they may be wrong many times before they’re right. They don’t beat around the bush. They don’t delay the inevitable. They’re great at ripping bandages off quickly, so they can prioritize their focus on other matters that require more attention. They have tough conversations early and synchronously. The last thing one can ever say about them is that they aren’t thoughtful. It seems remarkably simple, but most cannot do just that.
To be fair, it’s sometimes easier said than done. Even for myself, and I would not even dare to put myself in the category of great, I’ve been berated, gaslit, and shamed (haha!) for giving and attempting to give honest feedback to founders and investors. In fact, I was introed to a fund manager recently for the purpose of giving feedback. When I realized a couple red flags about her fund (namely her raising a $100M fund with no track record), I asked if she wanted feedback. To which, she replied with something to the effect that she only takes feedback from people who invest and that I didn’t deserve to give her feedback.
So I can see why some managers are averse to giving any.
Raising junior talent
I was reminded of this in my recent episode with Rick Zullo. And I noticed Rick is really good at giving credit and lifting up his team. In a soon-to-be-released episode, Eric Bahn from Hustle Fund does the same. I’ve asked him to speak at events before and he’s often referred one of his junior team members to the event. Not as a “I don’t want to do this, so someone else should”, but as a “I believe XX person will be a great future leader of this firm, and I believe others need to hear her insights.” And he’s been right every time.
Building an institutional firm takes more than one person. It takes a village. To build a legacy also requires more than one generation. I often see great investors taking less credit and giving a lot more to their team. Those often hidden from the limelight.
Discipline
Every great investor I know does something consistently every day. They set ground rules and while it’s less so for others, they hold themselves accountable to do so. Whether it’s a cup of coffee brewed from home every morning, or going to the gym on a daily basis or quality time with family or calling their significant other at a set time every day, I have yet to meet an investor who can’t keep to a promise they made to themselves consistently.
Venture capital is a long game, and it’s very possible for these multi-decade games, to be lucky at least once. Good investors, at some point, hit a unicorn. Great investors can discover many before others do. But any more than twice requires extreme discipline and the ability to say no to things that are good to make room for the great. And it’s so much harder than one might think.
And the simplest proxy to an investor’s ability to do so is their ability to fulfill promises to themselves when no one else is looking.
In closing
At the end of the day, not all shoes are the same. Just like not all VCs are. But if all you need is to get from Point A to Point B, and you don’t care for what kind of support you get along the way, VCs, like shoes, may all be the same.
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.
Rick Zullo is the Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Equal Ventures. which invests into the future of four verticals: climate, insurance, retail, and supply chain, and boasts a portfolio including the likes of Threeflow, Leap, Smarthop, Ghost, Starday, David Energy, Leap, Odyssey, Vquip or Texture, just to name a few — many of which Rick serves on the board of.
Prior to co-founding Equal Ventures, Rick was an investor at Lightbank, an early-stage venture fund based in Chicago, where he led investments in companies like Riskmatch (acquired by Vertafore), Vettery (acquired by Adecco), Neumob (acquired by CloudFlare), Expel and Catalytic amongst others. Prior to Lightbank, Rick worked with investment firms Foundation Capital, Bowery Capital, and Lightview Capital, investing in technology companies across the capital spectrum from seed-stage to buy-out and began his career as a strategy consultant at Deloitte Consulting.
Rick received an MBA with Honors from Columbia Business School and graduated from the University of Richmond where he studied Economics and Leadership Studies.
[00:00] Intro [00:42] Rick’s book and how Rick thinks about his habit of writing [05:45] How Rick became a VC [11:36] The speed Rick listens to audiobooks [12:38] How Sendbird closed their first customer [14:20] Is networking a feature or a bug in VC? [17:59] Rick’s three hat framework [26:07] Growing up with a stutter and weak knees [35:58] Going from getting a job in VC to starting a firm [46:42] What motivated Rick despite how hard it was to raise Fund I [57:16] What makes EMC different from other emerging manager communities? [1:04:03] How does Rick help people become vulnerable at EMC? [1:15:25] What’s broken with venture [1:18:50] Rick’s hot take on funds of funds [1:22:04] “Seed stage is the worst stage to be investing into” [1:27:54] Asymmetric insight and asymmetric value add [1:33:00] How to pick board members as a founder when VC currently has high turnover [1:39:54] What should people know about Rick that he isn’t already known for? [1:42:55] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:43:55] If you enjoyed this GP episode, do let me know in the comments or in DMs!
“Everyone in venture is networking and not working.” – Rick Zullo
“When I played football once upon a time, our coach [was] screaming at us, ‘Three hats on the ball! Three hats on the ball!’ The runner wasn’t down until we had three helmets tackling them.” – Rick Zullo, on staffing at a VC firm
“Historically, if you look at the last 10 years of data, it would suggest that multiple [of the premium of a late stage valuation to seed stage valuation] should cover around 20-25 times. […] In 2021, that number hit 42 times. […] Last year, that number was around eight.” – Rick Zullo (circa 2024)
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed. […] What is the long term effect of too much information? One of the effects is the need to be first, not even to be true anymore. So whatever responsibility you all have… to tell the truth, not just to be first.” — Denzel Washington
Since I’ve first started this blog, I’ve always had a bias towards sharing evergreen content. Lessons that can be applied to any era. Of course, not all my thoughts withstood, nor will withstand the test of time, but the goal was to be intentional with what I was putting out there. The bias was also due to the fact that I didn’t think I was best in class in being first to news updates (although opportunistically I could be).
And while not SEO-optimized, I find peace in delivering content that is hopefully as useful today as it will be tomorrow. In that regard, this blog will forever stay a blog, as opposed to any semblance of the traditional definition of media, which at the end of the day is the acquisition and monetization of attention. The latter of which I don’t plan to do for this blog, ever.
That said, the consumption of information is often just as if not more important than the production of information. In the words of my friend, one’s information diet. And if you’ve been around this blog long enough, you’ll be no stranger to that term. Of which about 50% of my information intake is ephemeral and 50% evergreen. But for the purpose of this blogpost, this one is less about me, but about the information diet of friends and colleagues. Where do many of the VCs and LPs I respect consume their evergreen content?
So I went around and asked the simple question:
Do you have 1-2 examples of evergreen content you love revisiting or stays in your mind rent-free?
In other words, what do you read when you need to get to the bottom of things, not just to stay on top of things?
By nature of being friends with everyone I asked, and to reduce the noise in the below list, I’ve excluded every mention of a specific blog whose first word is a synonym to ‘mug’ and a specific podcast whose name is inspired by astrophysical concepts. I asked about 20 VCs and LPs each. Whose fund sizes ranged from 7-figures to 10-figures. Whose tenures in investing ranged from five years to thirty years. Geographically, all except two I asked reside in North America, but many also invest into geographies external to the star-spangled banner and the home of the maple leaf.
There was no particular reason as to why I sampled as such, other than an availability bias. All of whom I could text or ping pretty quickly and get a response. After all, I incubated the idea for this post earlier this week. Also, by default, all recommendations were kept anonymous.
But without further ado, I’ve compartmentalized the below content into:
The amazing Jamie shared the below bullets as to why Annie Duke’s book is just that good, and Jamie’s words were too good not to include:
Embrace Uncertainty: I can make more rational and less emotionally driven decisions
Resulting: People judge the quality of a decision based on its outcome rather than on the decision-making process. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN VC!!!! Annie argues that a good decision can lead to a bad outcome and vice versa, so it’s crucial to focus on the process rather than just the results.
Probabilistic Thinking: Think in probabilities rather than absolutes. By estimating the likelihood of different outcomes, individuals can make more informed decisions. This approach helps in managing risks and setting realistic expectations.
Learning from Feedback: Learning from both wins and losses is crucial, instead of attributing success solely to skill or failure to bad luck, understand what contributed to the outcome
Decision Groups: Forming decision groups where members can share insights and challenge each other’s thinking- this can help identify biases and improve the quality of decisions, I would say a key part of what happens at Screendoor
Importance of process: Developing and following a structured approach, individuals can make better decisions even in the face of uncertainty.
Additionally, one LP shared their more comprehensive list of content they revisit often. One that’s well-worth bookmarking.
I don’t know about you, but I know what I’m doing this weekend.
Big thanks to all the LPs and VCs I reached out to for recommendations, including Jamie Rhode, Eric Bahn, John Rikhtegar, and everyone else who shared their thoughts on short notice before we had a chance to get the compliance’s blessing.
P.S. John had probably the most unique pieces of evergreen content he regularly revisited. While I won’t spoil which, you can probably guess based on which of the above seem like recommendations off the beaten path.
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.
One of my favorite Pat Grady lessons is the one he shares about his wife, Sarah Guo. The short of it is that while Pat was just enjoying his weekend down the wine country, Sarah had used that same car ride over to make several phone calls and several messages over the weekend. A time that most VCs take off for themselves, their family, or their hobbies. But Sarah took to get to know the founders, the team, key executives and everyone who was at the company.
For a deal that Sequoia, a16z, and Benchmark were also fighting over, the firm that won the deal was Greylock. And it was because of Sarah. She had spent so much time with said founders that they couldn’t imagine working with any other partner except for her.
Similarly, rumor has it that Mark Zuckerberg was able to buy Instagram also because of a flurry of conversations over Easter weekend in 2012, when no one else was expecting to be working. And while one can argue the ethics behind how the deal went down (i.e. the intensity of communication, threats or that Zuck was driven by paranoia), the fact stands that Facebook acquired that 13-person company with no revenue at a time when Twitter had offered supposedly $500M to acquire the photo-sharing company, and that Sequoia had also offered to mark the company at half a billion. But when literally anyone else could have won the deal, Facebook did.
I wrote about responsiveness being a telltale sign of excellence earlier this month. So this one is more or less an expansion of that.
I’ve always appreciated the ability in others who are able to make things happen. The hustle. Time doesn’t wait for you to wake up. From my buddy Andrew flying across the nation to close a candidate to Blake Robbins who cold emailed Nadeshot three times per week and bought him tickets to the Cavs NBA Finals game to win the chance to fund 100 Thieves. I hear about these stories every so often, from simple things, like flying to meet a founder and not expecting the founder to fly to the Bay, to more wilder stories to a lawyer cold emailing his way to Elon to get an exec position at SpaceX or sending fan mail to a music artist to put a song into outer space. And I can’t help but feel an immense amount of respect (also often inspired to take action myself).
The truth is most people don’t. Not because they physically can’t send an email on the weekend or jump on a phone call at 10PM. But because they won’t.
As an LP, one of the wavelengths I measure emerging GPs on is their ability to win deals. Too often these GPs brag about their networks and operating experiences. More often than not, not differentiated. I kid you not. Like 99% of the time. But in an age, where every GP has a podcast or a newsletter. Or a community. Hell, every GP knows someone who knows an Elon or a Bill Gates or a Jensen Huang (or they know them themselves).
Admittedly, they all start looking the same. But every so often, I meet a GP or a founder who can’t boast a crazy network or crazy set of prior exits. And the only thing they can boast is their hustle. And they are able to show for it. Those are the folks who I think will change the world.
I will admit, hustle is hard as hell to share in a pitch deck. In many ways, I advise GPs and founders to not include it because there is almost no way that a deck is the best platter to share one’s hustle. Then again, the people who are the greatest hustlers don’t need me to tell them that.
They know. And as the Nike slogan goes, they “just do it.”
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Felipe Valencia is one of the co-founders of Veronorte, a venture capital investment firm based out of Colombia. In the first decade, Veronorte focused on managing Corporate Venture Programs for some of the largest Corporations in Latam.
These days, they’re diving into a Fund of Funds investment strategy in the Venture Capital space. For the last 12 years, Veronorte has invested in over 25 startups across the U.S., India, Europe, Mexico, and Colombia, and in more than 12 Venture Capital funds, primarily in the U.S.
With over 20 years of experience under his belt, Felipe has dabbled in various fields like robotics, the internet, international trade, and infrastructure project management.
Felipe graduated summa cum laude with a Mechanical Engineering degree from EAFIT University. He also holds a Master’s in Web Communication from the European Institute of Design in Rome and an MBA from the University of Chicago, where he focused on entrepreneurship and finance.
Felipe’s journey has taken him all over the world: He worked for AVG – Robotics in Los Angeles, did research and development in Mechatronics at Siemens in Germany, and was the Commercial and Strategic Director of Indexcol in Colombia. He also served as the Commercial Attaché at the Colombian Embassy in China and led the Proexport office there. Most recently, he was involved in business development at Pierson Capital in Beijing and managed infrastructure projects in Mexico.
[00:00] Intro [02:54] Felipe’s teenage years under a life of terror [10:01] How Medellin has changed over the years [13:12] Tales from Felipe’s travels across 10 cities in 4 continents [17:53] How did Felipe made his foray into VC? [22:46] How did Felipe meet his co-founding partner Camilo? [26:31] How Felipe pitched a VC fund without a track record [39:16] How did Felipe and Camilo think about compensation in Fund I? [47:40] How did Veronorte transition from a VC fund to a fund of funds? [55:14] The Monte Carlo simulation of fund of funds strategies [1:03:04] How much better does a venture fund need to do than public markets? [1:05:46] How did Veronorte get into top tier established funds? [1:12:00] What coffee brand did Felipe bring on his visits to the US? [1:13:38] How did Veronorte close Latam family offices in their fund of funds? [1:17:04] How does Veronorte communicate with their LPs? [1:23:58] The difference between an emerging firm and a frontier firm [1:28:55] Portfolio construction at Veronorte [1:34:50] What podcasts does Felipe listen to? [1:38:19] Felipe’s advice for the wanderlust [1:43:39] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:44:39] If you enjoyed this episode, albeit longer, please do leave a like and share it with one friend who’d enjoy this episode!
“Diversification is a good way to control dispersion of returns.” – Felipe Valencia
“Every time they go to a meeting, they go with a present.” – Felipe Valencia, on building relationships
“This is an access class, not an asset class. And to show access, you need to bring these established firms. It’s not that we will invest in any shiny name, and we have passed on amazing firms that have an amazing brand because they don’t fit in our strategy.” – Felipe Valencia
In 1968, NASA tasked the late George Land to create a test that would help NASA hire more creative geniuses. Does genius and creativity come from nature or nurture? As such his job was to create a test so simple that even children could take it. And he found that for children ages 4-5, out of 1,600 children, 98% of them qualified to be a genius. Divergent thinkers. Then, he waited five years to assess these same children. To which he found, only 30% qualified. Then another five years later, only 12% of the same children were what he counted to be geniuses.
It begged the question: What percent of adults are geniuses?
Of course, the lesson from all of this is the fallacy of modern-day education. And the same is true for the adult world between convergent thinkers and divergent thinkers. I believe in the world of venture at least, we have terminology that’s little less palatable (at least for me, although on occasion I’m guilty of using them myself): insiders and outsiders.
My friend Anne sent me this piece by Auren Hoffman recently on insiders and outsiders. An incredibly well-written piece, and quite thought-provoking. I’ve largely thought about how outsiders can become insiders, but silly me, less about the value of staying an outsider or an insider aiming to become an outsider. Moreover, that to be successful as an insider, there’s actually a rather predictable path to become one. Or at least to help your children become one. Go to Harvard. Play insider sports, like gold, or horse-riding, or sailing. And son. But in Auren’s words, to be successful as an outsider, well, “being [an outsider] is MUCH higher beta. They could end up changing the world for the better. They also could blow it up. Or just never be accepted and live less happy.”
And while I may not agree with everything that Auren proposes, a lot of it makes sense. In fact, 11 words definitely caught my eye. “Outsiders take things from insiders. Insiders inherit things from other insiders.” And as such, insiders play the status quo; outsiders change the status quo.
It’s interesting. Every generation of VC, there’s a changing of the guard. Many of the new regime are outsiders. People who think different. People who exhibit a level of creativity that is uncommon in VCs. Either in the form of business models or how they provide value. How they build brand. Or simply how their brain works. People that in bringing a fresh perspective were able to find the next great companies unlike any other.
Interestingly enough, in my buddy and Superclusters guestJaap’s recent study of 2,092 North American and European VC funds, he found that these are the folks who are more likely to hit fundraise targets than any other GP persona. Aka 45% success rate. And perform highest at 2.4X net TVPI, but only average on DPI and IRR.
My guess here is that these outsiders, in being artisanal about their craft and — well, at least with respect to the VC industry at large, divergent thinkers — find their tribe rather quickly because LPs quick self-select themselves in or out of a relationship with them. They’re the round pegs in the square holes, to borrow a Steve Jobs moniker. So when most others look square, the few round holes instantly identify with these round pegs. And more often than not, they’re new to the asset management game, so have lower fund targets and a more precise strategy. Downside to that is they’re still learning the ropes of exit strategies and fund management. Which also explains the high volatility in returns.
And while there’s much higher beta in being an outsider, there’s plenty of research to suggest that there is also greater alpha. But it’s going to be unfair. The deck is rigged against you. There’s a great Marcus Aurelius line. “Mental toughness is knowing life isn’t fair and still playing to win.”
The outsiders who win exhibit exactly that mental fortitude against stacked odds. Besides, there’s joy in doing things differently.
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.
Ben Ehrlich is the founder and General Partner of First Momentum Capital, where he helps seed a new generation of venture capital firms. He is also the Director of Strategy at the Long Term Stock Exhange. Previously Ben worked across the venture ecosystem supporting companies in the Canadian Technology Accelerator, OutCast Communications and Cribspot (YC 15). In his free time Ben takes his Irish setter doodle hiking and enjoys watching the University of Michigan football team (mostly) win.
[00:00] Intro [03:43] The origins of the Out of the Crisis podcast [06:54] Ben’s advice for rookie podcasters [08:35] How did Ben first meet Eric Ries? [11:46] The play-by-play for Ben’s interview with LTSE [13:36] What do decisions and conversations look like at LTSE? [16:23] Building trust among team members [18:29] How does Ben build trust with GPs? [25:14] How did First Momentum Capital start? [30:42] What was the pitch to close First Momentum’s first fund? [33:54] How does Ben underwrite Fund I managers? [36:42] How does Ben measure a GP’s future deal flow (as opposed to today’s)? [45:40] What does a “No” from Ben look like? [57:50] Thoughts on fund governance [1:05:57] What is the role of serendipity in Ben’s life? [1:08:17] Commisso Bakery in Toronto [1:10:35] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:11:35] If you enjoyed the episode, I’d appreciate it if you could share it with one friend!
“Make sure to pay the government, doctors, and podcast producers on time.” – Ben Ehrlich
“If you want to build trust with someone [on your team], if they screw up, you have to be okay with them screwing up because you put them in the situation.” – Ben Ehrlich
“We’re looking for concentrated, non-correlated bets.” – Ben Ehrlich
My friend invited me to a demo day earlier this week. Albeit, it was a bunch of summer interns presenting their project they’d been working on for the last two months. The few investors and I who sat on the judging panel were all admittedly quite surprised by the quality of pitches and products from students and hell, even within two months. In fact, these 10-11 interns have gotten much further in product development and customer discovery than most founders I’ve seen across the span of a year. Whether sampling bias or not, the latter is probably about 50%+ of what I see these days. And you’d think that AI would have sped up the product development cycle.
But I digress.
Simply put, I was impressed. So, in efforts to simulate actual pitches at demo days, I asked a team who had presented five features they’d been working on and gotten each to a working prototype. “If you had to kill three of the five features, which three would you kill?”
To which, the “CEO” replied: “To be honest, all five are quite important. But if we had to kill a feature, it’d be the AI chatbot, but the rest of the four go hand-in-hand.”
I pushed for a more discerning answer, but was met with a paraphrased version of the last answer. And of course, it left a little more to be desired. What I was looking for was something of more prescriptive specificity. For instance, “we’d focus on usage metrics, particularly with respect to retention cohorts and actions per session across all the features. And depending on what features seem to perform better than others, our plan is to focus 70% of engineering resources on the top feature, 20% on the second most popular feature, and 10% focused on either a permutation of the other three or spending time with our customers to see where they’re the most frustrated.” It may not need to be the “right” answer, but having a thought-out answer is helpful.
After all, the original question boils down to the fact that most founders fail from indigestion not from starvation. Charles Hudson wrote this great piece last month, aptly named “The Last $250K.” In short, one of the most common behavioral changes he’s observed is when founders are down to their last $250K. And, three things stand out in particular:
“The most important things to work on become incredibly clear.”
“The data needed to validate the company’s hypothesis becomes much clearer.”
“There are things that the company was doing that they stop doing because those things don’t really matter given the gravity of the situation.”
It’s a quick read. And I highly recommend it. Much of which I personally agree with. Not sure if that’s usually the $250K mark, but my personal sample size is far smaller than Charles’. Constraints are the breeding grounds of creativity.
What’s really interesting is that my first reaction to that blogpost was just like how the last 4-6 months of runway leads to deep focus, how do the last 4-6 months affect fund managers? And it’s not too far off.
Deployment speed slows. The simple reason is that they no longer feel the fire under their belly to deploy. Either because they’re close to their target portfolio size or they need to elongate the time horizon while they’re actively raising their next fund.
The quality bar for what gets funded goes up. Since your deal flow pipeline is likely not contracting, there’s a flight to quality. And quality more often than not, translates to traction, logos/brands, and founder’s prior experiences. While there are always outliers, I see many GPs take less risky bets that they would’ve otherwise.
GPs are actively planning for the next fund’s strategy. And actively synthesizing lessons learned. Or at least, with respect with how they pitch LPs. And if they’re an emerging manager, or a fund without clear wins in their last fund, the most important things also become painfully clear. They often focus on the 20% that drove 80% of fund returns.
GPs are spending a lot more time on portfolio support. Not only because graduation rates become a lot more important (for fund returns and narratives for prospective LPs), but also because references matter in diligence. And well, if you’re fundraising for your next fund, you can be damn well sure that a sophisticated LP is going to do anywhere between 10-50 reference checks. On-list and off-list. 20-30% of which with your portfolio companies.
Thematically, focus. While there are other constraints that help improve a founder or a fund manager’s level of focus, limited runway (or capital to deploy) is a natural forcing function. The best ones I’ve seen often impose artificial constraints early on, before things get rough. Rules and codes of conduct. Things they promise themselves and the team never do. Aligning compensation behind performance. In other words, operational discipline.
Naturally, it should be to no surprise that investors of any kind spend a lot of time on organizational discipline before they choose to invest.
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.
