Posts

Posted on

To Court or Not to Court (Big LPs)

volkswagon, mini, big, van

I’ve had multiple conversations with emerging managers currently fundraising over the past few weeks, and the common theme, outside of the usual no’s, seems to be that larger LPs are saying, “If you were raising a larger fund, we would invest.”

And so there’s this catch 22 in the market right now. In one Fund I GP’s words, “either raise a larger fund and be told by the large checks that they don’t do Fund I’s. Or do a smaller fund, and be told by the high quality LPs that they’re too small.”

As a note, for the uninitiated, most large, seasoned LPs usually don’t want their check to be more than 10% of the fund. Why? Too much exposure in a single asset. And the need to diversify. Every year, there are really 20 great companies that are made. Or on the higher end, as Allocate’s Samir Kaji recently wrote, “30-50 companies drive the majority of returns.” Your goal as an LP, is to get as much exposure to those as possible. And they rarely all come out of just 1-2 funds.

If LPs are open to taking up more than 10% of the fund, they usually come with rather aggressive terms. For instance, investing into the GP stake, as opposed the to the LP. That’s a conversation for another day though.

As such, I’ve seen many a manager play both angles. They call it the “toggle.” If we raise a target of $10M fund, we’ll only do pre-seed. We’ll also have no reserves. If we raise a $25M fund, we’ll have 20% reserves and more seed checks. But if we’re able to close a $50M fund, we’ll have 33% reserves and do 50% pre-seed and 50% seed. The deltas between some fund managers’ targets and caps have grown as wide as the Grand Canyon. I was chatting with a Fund I GP yesterday who had a $10M target with $40M cap. Still relatively reasonable. Another GP raising their Fund I two weeks ago told me he had a $15M target and $70M cap. Far less reasonable. In fact, I might even say, a $15M fund and a $70M fund are two completely different strategies.

So begs the question, as a Fund I or II GP, is it worth raising a larger fund to possibly close large LPs or staying disciplined in your pre-product-market fit fund?

Spoiler alert… I don’t have the silver bullet. So if you’re looking for one, this blogpost isn’t worth your time.

But if you’re not, here’s how I’ve been thinking about it.

The short answer is really, whoever’s willing to give you money. Not the most sophisticated answer, but if you know large LPs well and they’re willing to invest in you, go bigger. Otherwise, you need to consider a more grassroots approach.

If you have a strong, portable, relevant track record that’s either returned good distributions already OR that has persisted for at least 6-7 years, larger LPs may be more open to investing in you. If not, you may need to play the numbers game with smaller LPs, that are liquidity-constrained as of now. And for that, you either take smaller checks, or prove you are the best option for their $250K LP check, that it somehow outcompetes the S&P, 3-year treasury bonds (because of interest rates), real estate and so on.

Also, remember that LPs are always nice in meeting #1. I’ve heard of very few instances where they’re not. A lot are just in exploratory mode. No pressure to commit. You will also need a great barometer of what nice looks like and what kindness looks like. Otherwise, you will waste a lot of time.

What does that mean? It is easier for a large LP to tell you “I will invest if your fund was bigger” than to tell you “No.” It’s the equivalent of VCs telling founders, “You’re too early for me.” And the same as recruiters and hiring managers telling job candidates “We have a highly competitive pool, and while we loved meeting you and you’re great…” There might be some truth to it, but a lot of smokes and mirrors, and a fear to offend people. I get it. We’re all people.

Just don’t lie to yourself.

Taking the hard road, which will be true for the vast majority of managers raising now, is to keep the fund size small and disciplined. Aim for a minimum viable fund. And deploy.

The minimum viable fund

Simply put, what is the minimum you need to execute your strategy? To set yourself up to raise a larger fund 1-2 funds from now?

What assumptions are you trying to prove?

What does your ideal Fund III look like? And What does fund-market fit look like to you? Be as detailed as you can. It could be that you’re getting four high quality deals per quarter. And that you have $30-40M to deploy per senior partner. That you’re leading rounds for target post-money valuations between $10-20M. That you have early DPI from Fund I by then. And so on.

Then work backwards. If that’s what Fund III looks like, what does Fund II look like? What does Fund I look like? As you’re backcasting, to borrow a Mike Maples Jr. term, each fund when you work backwards in time is focused on testing 1-2 key assumptions that you and LPs need to get conviction on. Assumptions that require data.

I’ll give an example of one kind of assumption. Your ability to win allocation.

If Fund III is where you lead pre-seed and seed rounds and have strong ownership targets, then Fund II is where you have to test if founders and other downstream investors will let you take pro rata for more than one round. And, if you can win or negotiate for that pro rata. It all comes down to, will a founder pick you over another awesome, possibly brand-name VC? And if so, why?

Some LPs prefer co-investment opportunities. And while it is helpful for them to go direct, part of the reason for it, is even if your fund can’t execute on the pro rata, just the ability to negotiate that is powerful for the day you need to lead. And if that’s Fund II, Fund I may be, can you win allocation in hot rounds and/or can you discover non-obvious companies before they become obvious?

Let’s say your Fund I is focused on the latter. You’re probably investing on $5-10M post-money valuations, and you’re going to try to maintain 5% ownership till the A-round. That’s $250-500K checks. $250K would be your base check, trying to get at least 30 shots on goal. That’s a $9-10M minimum viable fund, hoping for more than a 2% outlier rate in the generalist market, or north of a 10% outlier rate in bio, hard sciences, healthcare, or deep tech space.

Any less than 30 companies, you’re going for the hyper-concentrated portfolio and it’s a lot more about ownership and the greater the pressure, you need to pick well. But the goal is to get to a 3x net minimum for your fund by the time you get to a Fund III.

I heard from LPs with more miles on their odometer that once upon a time, it was normal for GPs to give undeployed capital back to their LPs. Circa 2002-2005 vintage funds. Where GPs don’t execute on 50% of their capital calls. But we don’t live in that era anymore. For better or worse.

Some LPs don’t even want their capital back early because then they need to pay taxes AND find another asset that compounds at the same or better rate your fund currently is. Say 25% IRR or CAGR. That’s hard. Because minus the inflated marks of the last 5 years, 25% is a hard benchmark to hit for the vast majority of funds.

So sometimes to be the best fiduciary, that means raising a small fund today (easier to return too) to set you best up for tomorrow.

The questions to ask

If you are in the midst of conversation and trying to court a large LP, do ask the following:

  1. Have you invested in an emerging manager in the last two years? — If not, you’re unlikely to be their first. If you’re not seeing demonstrable progress from intro to partnership meeting to diligence within three meetings, move on. If they did so, 20 years ago, doesn’t count. That means investing in emerging managers is not top of mind for them.
  2. What is your minimum check size? And how often, if ever do you deviate from it? If so, why was the last time you did so? — Multiply this number by 10. If it’s greater than your fund size, you might find more success elsewhere.
  3. What is the typical process look like? — Find out what their process is and see if you’re progressing forward. If not, very clear they may not be interested.
  4. (If the person you are talking to does seem to really like you) What are the questions you’re being asking in your investment committee? — Figure out the bottlenecks as soon as you can. And determine if that’s something you can solve for in the near future or not. If it’s track record, you realistically can’t.
  5. What is the thing you hated most in the last few years? — Understand their red flags early on in the process. And cross your fingers, it’s not something that’s relevant to you or your fund. If it is, move on.

Of course, the above, while useful pre-qualifying questions, are mentioned in broad strokes. Your mileage may vary. Have there been examples of large LPs betting on small funds? Yes. But far and few in between. But don’t expect you will change many minds.

In closing

Fundraising is all about momentum and time you’re in market. You can theoretically spend six months trying to close one large LP, but your time might be better spent closing smaller checks in the beginning from people who believe in you and strong referenceable names. And if you so choose, come back to the large LP in the second half of your fundraise.

Photo by Alexei Maridashvili on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

The Cure to the Loneliness Epidemic

lonely, alone

This past weekend, in my endless doom-scrolling, I stumbled across one of Olivia Moore’s amazing threads.

The most provocative part was when she posed the question: If you need an app to make friends, is that a negative signal?

The solution, in her words, “the long term winner here is likely to be… interest-graph social networks.” Furthermore, “platforms that give people an ‘excuse’ to gather, either IRL or digitally” are immensely powerful. Where friendship is a byproduct of usage but not the main or sole purpose of being on these platforms.

I agree that dual-purposed social networks and platforms are a wonderful solution, but, and I may be biased, I don’t think it’s the only solution.

As a former power user of networking or friend apps like Shapr and Lunchclub (yes, I used an app to make friends), I’ve made some great friends via both of those platforms. But at the same time, I was an early user for both. Both had yet to be widely adopted at the time.

For Lunchclub, I was using it at a time when everything was in-person, and you only had the option to meet people on Fridays at 2PM or 5PM at either Sightglass Coffee on 7th Street or Caffe Centro in South Park in SF. The latter unfortunately closed recently. And that was it. There were no other options. I had often joked with friends that as you were meeting your friend match that week at Sightglass, you would be sitting next to the person you would match with next week AND the person sitting five feet over would be who you matched with last week. It was a tight community, even if it was an unintentionally designed community. A group of hackers, early adopters, investors, and people just doing cool things.

Then, as Lunchclub pursued scale, quality declined. And as Olivia shares in her thread above, bad actors ruined the experience altogether. The same was true for Shapr. For Clubhouse. Just to name a few.

But dating apps nailed it. They’ve reached widespread adoption. Olivia postulates it’s because they offer data points and filters that you can’t find anywhere else. For instance, who’s single. She’s right. But there’s another reason. These apps promote interest in others. Or amplifying inherent motivation to be on said apps.

Let me elaborate.

Be interesting and interested

I’ve written about the above line before. Here. And here. And likely a few other places that’s escaping my memory at the time of writing this piece.

The thing is most platforms promote being interesting. The heavy profile customizations. The ability to share your own thoughts. Platforms that incentivize you to go from a consumer to a creator. A lot of it is about me. Look at me. Look at how cool I am. How cool my life is. The strive for perfection.

How can I ever be like the person I’m following? My life is nowhere near as awesome as her/his is. Most social platforms prop users up as a point of comparison.

All that to say, there are a lot of apps that help you be interesting, but not enough that help you be interested. The latter takes work. There’s a line that Mark Suster recently shared on a podcast, and I love it! Citing the late Zig Ziglar (which by the way, is an awesome name), Mark shared, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

I want to underscore that line one more time.

“People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

It’s why I love my buddy Rishi’s recent piece on how to build and maintain meaningful relationships.

Source: Rishi Taparia’s Building Relationships Through Research

In Rishi’s essay, he shares that there are three levels to doing your homework — each deeper than the last — and show that you care:

  1. Level 1 – The Basics: LinkedIn, Common Connections, Google, and Company Website
  2. Level 2 – Digging in: Social Media
  3. Level 3 – Going Deep: Podcasts, Writing, YouTube et. al

The purpose isn’t to be all-encompassing, but to show that you care for the human sitting across from you. It’s the intention that matters.

The late David Rockefeller built prolific Rolodexes to show that he cared. In fact, it’s cited that his handwritten notes on others stood five feet tall and accounted for 100,000 people. Alan Fleischmann once wrote in reference to David Rockefeller that, “If you were so fortunate to be a fly on the wall for any of his countless meetings and interactions, you would hear him inquire about the smallest details of his guest’s life, from a child’s ballet recital to a parent’s recent health concern. Rockefeller’s interactions were said to be ‘transformational, never transactional.'”

And it’s also the small things that matter.

In closing

The reason why I think Lunchclub was so popular in the beginning is in two parts:

  1. The platform reduced the friction — the back-and-forths — of scheduling. They gave you two times, and you either made it or you didn’t.
  2. The platform’s early users were innately curious individuals. When I was invited on the platform, my friend pitched it as, “I’ve learned so much from the people I met.” And my friend was and is already one of the foremost subject-matter experts in her field. The same was true when I began using the platform. People spent more time asking questions than talking about themselves. In fact, in many conversations, it’d be a battle of who can delay talking about themselves more than the other.

People were simply interested. There was no agenda. And no agenda was the best agenda. No one was trying to peddle anything to you. No one was trying to ask you for money or intros. People were the ends in and of themselves, and not a means to an end.

All in all, while there are incredible platforms that help you build friendships through interest and hobby alignment, I do believe there is room for a friend app for the curious. Or at least to help you be a really good friend.

So if you’re building something there, ring me up. That said, no matter how great technology is, with AI and all, every great relationship still needs that human touch. AI and platforms and apps might be able to get you 90% of the way there. But if you don’t complete that last 10% trek, 90% is still incomplete. For those of you reading who are American football fans, running the ball 90 yards from one endzone is still an incomplete. It’s still not a touchdown. You need to run the full 100.

If there’s anything to take away from this blogpost, it’s to be both interesting AND interested. Emphasis on the latter.

And in case you’re curious as to how I approach caring, these might be helpful starting points:

Photo by Lukas Rychvalsky on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

Why No One’s Marking Down Their Portfolio

In one of the recent All-In podcast episodes, Bill Gurley shared that both VCs and LPs aren’t marking down their portfolios. For GPs, inflated numbers helps you raise the next fund. For LPs, they’re given their “bonus on paper marks. So, they don’t have an incentive to dial around to their GPs and say, ‘Get their marks right.’ ‘Cause it’s actually going to reflect poorly on them if they were to roll those up.”

The last few years, enterprise value has been largely based on multiple expansion. The truth is we’re not going to see much of it in the incoming years. Even AI that’s exploding right now will see a contraction of their multiples in due time.

Companies that should not be in business today will see their ultimatum too in the next few years. Hunter Walk recently wrote “they’re 2017-2021’s normal failures clustered into current times.”

So, while some GPs do pre-emptively mark down their portfolio by 25-30% — we’re seeing this behavior more so in pre-seed and seed funds — the only people in this whole dance that are incented to mark down portfolios are new LPs trying to figure out if they want to commit to a new fund.

Charles Hudson recently shared a beautiful chart:

Source: Charles Hudson’s The number one piece of advice I give to new VCs launching their investing careers

And while the advice applies to newer VCs, the same is true for experienced investors. Of course, most investors aim to be in the upper right-hand corner, but that’s really, really hard. In truth, most notable investors fall in two cohorts: marketers and tastemakers.

Marketers:

  • Share a high volume of deal flow,
  • Lower quality opportunities,
  • Have relatively low conviction on each deal compared to their counterparts, the tastemakers,
  • Have comparatively diversified portfolios,
  • And could have adverse effects on branding and positioning in the market.

Tastemakers, on the other hand:

  • Share a lower volume of deals,
  • Usually higher quality opportunities,
  • Higher conviction per deal,
  • Have comparatively more concentrated portfolios.
  • And the downside may simply be the fact that their volume may not warrant raising a fund around, and might be better off as an opportunistic investor.

And speaking of concentrated versus diversified, the interesting thing, as Samir Kaji shared on his recent podcast episode, is that “at 85 companies [in the portfolio], you had over 90% chance of getting a 2X. But a very low chance at getting anything above a 3X. And with smaller portfolio sizes [between 15-25 companies], there was much higher variance — both on the top and bottom. Higher chance that you perform worse than the median. But a much higher chance of being in the top quartile and even beyond that, in the top decile.”

It’s also so hard to tell what high quality companies look like before the liquidation event. Naturally, high quality funds are even harder to tell before the fund term. It’s ’cause of that that a few LPs and I wrote the post last week on early DPI. But I digress. At the end of the day, many, for better or worse, use valuation and markups as a proxy for quality.

But really, the last week’s valuation in this week’s market environment. Rather than chasing an arbitrary number, a lot more LPs when evaluating net new fund investments, and GPs making net new startup investments, care about the quality of the businesses they invest in. It’s not about the unicorns; it’s about the centaurs. The $100M annualized revenue businesses.

Samir Kaji’s words in 2022 ring true then as they do today. “Mark-downs of prior vintages are starting to occur but will take some time given valuation and reporting lags.” We’re still seeing many who have yet to go back to market. As many say, the flat round is the new up round. But until folks go back to market, there are many who won’t jump the gun in writing down their portfolio. But they are cautioning themselves, so that hopefully they won’t make the same mistakes again. The goalposts have changed.

I’m reminded of Henry McCance’s words channeled through Chris Douvos. “When an asset class works well, capital is expensive and time is cheap. What we saw in the bubble was that capital got cheap and time got expensive.”

We’re now back at a time when capital is expensive and time is cheap.

Photo by Frank Zinsli on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

The Science of Selling – Early DPI Benchmarks

The snapshot

Some of you reading here are busy, so we’ll keep this top part brief, as an abstract sharing our top three observations of leading fund managers.

Generally speaking, don’t sell your fast growing winners early.

Except when…

Selling on your way up may not be a crazy idea.

  1. You might sell when you want to lock in DPI. Don’t sell more than 20% of your fund’s positions unless you are locking in meaningful DPI for your fund. For instance, at each point in time, something that’s greater than 0.5X, 1X, 2X, or 3X of your fund size.
  2. You might consider selling when you’ve lost conviction. Consider selling a position when you feel the market has over-priced the actual value, or even up to 100% if you’ve lost conviction.
  3. You might consider selling when one is growing slower than your target IRR. If companies are growing slower and even only as fast as your target IRR, consider selling if not at too much of a discount (Note: there may be some political and/or signaling issues to consider here as well. But will save the topic of signaling for another blog post).

Do note that the above are not hard and fast rules. Every decision should be made in context to other moving variables. And that the numbers below are tailored to early-stage funds.

Net TVPI Benchmarks from Years 5-15
Net DPI Benchmarks from Years 5-15

Let’s go deeper…

On a cloudless Friday morning, basking in the morning glory of Los Altos, between lattes and croissants, between two nerds (or one of whom might identify as a geek more than a nerd), we pondered one question:

How much of selling is art? How much is science?

Between USV selling 30% of their Twitter stake, Menlo selling half of their Uber, Benchmark only selling 15% of their Uber pre-IPO shares, and Blackbird recently selling 20% of its Canva stake, it feels more like the former than the latter. Then when Howard Marks says selling is all about relative selection and the opportunity cost of not doing so, it seems to reinforce the artistic form of getting “moolah in da coolah” to borrow a Chris Douvos trademark.

Everyone seems to have a financial model for when and how to invest, but part of being a fiduciary of capital is also knowing when to distribute – when to sell. When RVPI turns into DPI. And we haven’t seen many models for selling yet. At least none have surfaced publicly or privately for us.
The best thought piece we’ve seen in the space has been Fred Wilson’s Taking Money “Off the Table”. At USV, they “typically seek to liquidate somewhere between 10% and 30% of our position in these pre-IPO liquidity transactions. Doing so allows us to hold onto the balance while de-risking the entire investment.”

Source: Fred Wilson’s Taking Money “Off The Table”

In aggregate, we’ve seen venture fund distributions follow very much of the power law – whether you’re looking at Correlation’s recent findings…

Source: Correlation Ventures

Or what James Heath has found across 1000+ firms’ data on Pitchbook.

Source: James Heath

As such, it gave birth to a thought… What if selling was more of a science?

What would that look like?

Between two Daves, it was not the Dave with sneakers and a baseball cap and with the profound disregard to healthy diets, given the fat slab of bacon in his croissan’wich, who had the answer there.

“To start off, in a concentrated portfolio of 30 investments, a fund returner is a 30x investment. For a 50-investment fund, it’s 50x. And while hitting the 0.5x DPI milestone by years 5-8, and a 2x DPI milestone by years 8-12, is the sign of a great fund, you shouldn’t think about selling much of your TVPI for DPI unless or until your TVPI is starting to exceed 2-3x.” Which seems to corroborate quite well with Chamath Palihapitiya’s findings that funds between 2010 and 2020 convert have, on average, converted about 25% of their TVPI to DPI.

“Moreover, usually you shouldn’t be selling more than 20% of the portfolio at one time (unless you’re locking in / have already locked in 3X or more DPI). You should be dollar-cost averaging – ensuring time diversity – on the way out as well. AND usually only if a company that’s UNDER-growing or OVER-valued compared to the rest of your portfolio. Say your portfolio is growing at 30% year-over-year, but an individual asset is growing slower at only 10-20% OR you believe it is overvalued, that’s when you think about taking cash off the table. Sell part (or even all) of your stake, if selling returns a meaningful DPI for the fund, and if you’re not capping too upside in exchange for locking in a floor.”

Meaningful DPI, admittedly, does mean different benchmarks for different kinds of LPs. For some, that may mean 0.25X. For others that may mean north of 0.5X or 1X.

“On the other hand, if a company is outperforming / outgrowing the rest of the portfolio, generally hold on to it and don’t sell more than 10-20% (again, unless you’re locking in meaningful DPI, or perhaps if it’s so large that it has become a concentration risk).”

I will caveat that there is great merit in its counterpart as well. Selling early is by definition capping your upside. If you believe an asset is reaching its terminal value, that’s fine, but do be aware of signaling risk as well. The latter may end up being an unintended, but self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, it begged the question: Under the assumption that funds are 15-year funds, what is meaningful DPI? TVPI? At the 5-year mark? 7.5 years in? 10 years? And 12.5 years?

The truth is the only opportunities to sell come from the best companies in your portfolio. And probably the companies, if anything, you should be holding on to. By selling early, you are capping your downside, but at the same time capping your upside on the entire portfolio. When the opportunity arises to lock in some DPI, it’s worth considering the top 3-5 positions in your fund. For instance, if your #2 company is growing quickly, you may not be capping the upside as much.

Do keep in mind that sometimes it’s hard to fully conceptualize the value of compounding. As one of my favorite LPs reminded me, if an asset is growing 35% year-over-year, the last 20% of the time produces 56% of the return. Or if an asset is growing 25% YoY, if you sell 20% earlier (assuming 12 year time horizons), you’re missing out on 45% of the upside.

As a GP, you need to figure out if you’re IRR or multiple focused. Locking in early DPI means your IRR will look great, but your overall fund multiple may suffer.

As an LP, that also means if the gains are taxable (meaning they don’t qualify for QSBS or are sold before QSBS kick in), you need to pay taxes AND find another asset that’s compounding at a similar or better rate. As Howard Marks puts it, you need to find another investment with “superior risk-adjusted prospective returns.”

And so began the search for not just moolah in da coolah, but how much moolah in da coolah is good moolah in da coolah? And how much is great?

Net TVPI Benchmarks from Years 5-15
Net DPI Benchmarks from Years 5-15

Some caveats

Of course, if you’ve been around the block for a minute, you know that no numbers can be held in isolation to others. No facts, no data points alienated from the rest.

Some reasons why early DPI may not hold as much weight:

  • Early acqui-hires. Usually not a meaningful DPI and a small, small fraction of the fund.
    • There’s a possibility this may be the case for some 2020-2021 vintages, as a meaningful proportion of their portfolio companies exit small but early.
    • In other words, DPI is constructed of small, but many exits, rather than a meaningful few exits.
  • TVPI is less than 2-3x of DPI, only a few years into the fund. In other words, their overall portfolio may not be doing too hot. Obviously, the later the fund is to its term, the more TVPI and DPI are alike.
  • As a believer in the power law, if on average it takes an outlier 8 years to emerge AND the small percentage of winners in the portfolio drive your return, your DPI will look dramatically different in year 5 versus 10. For pre-seed and seed funds, it’s fair to assume half (or more) companies go to zero within the first 3-5 years. And in 10 years, more than 80% of your portfolio value comes from less than 20% of your companies. Hell, it might even be 90% of your portfolio value comes from 10% of your companies. In other words, the power law.
  • GPs invested in good quality businesses. Some businesses may not receive markups, but may be profitable already, or growing consistently year-over-year that they don’t need to raise another round any time soon.
  • Additionally, if you haven’t been in the investing game for long, persistence of track record, duration, and TVPI may matter more in your pitch. If you’ve been around the block, IRR and DPI will matter more.
  • As the great Charlie Munger once said, “selling for market-timing purposes actually gives an investor two ways to be wrong: the decline may or may not occur, and if it does, you’ll have to figure out when the time is right to go back in.” For private market investors, unless you can buy secondaries, you’ll never have a time to go back in until the public offering. As such, it is a one-way door decision.

Some LPs are going to boast better portfolios, and we do admit there will be a few with portfolios better than the above “benchmarks.” And if so, that’s a reason to be proud. In terms of weighting, as a proponent of the power law, there is a high likelihood that we’ve underestimated the percent of crap and meh investments, and overestimated the percent of great investments in an LP’s portfolio. That said, that does leave room for epic fund investments that are outliers by definition. 

We do admit that, really, any attempt to create a reference point for fund data before results speak for themselves is going to be met with disagreement. But we also understand that it is in the discourse, will we find ourselves inching closer to something that will help us sleep better at night.

One more caveat for angels… The truth is as an angel, none of the above really matter all that much. You’re not a fiduciary of anyone else’s capital. And your time horizons most likely look different than a fund’s. It’s all yours. So it’s not about capping your downside, but more so about capping your regret. In other words, a regret minimization framework (aka, “spouse regret/yelling minimization insurance”). 

That will be so unique to you that there is no amount of cajoling that we could do here to tell you otherwise. And that your liquidity timelines are only really constrained by your own liquidity demands.. For instance, buying a new home, sending kids to college, or taking care of your parents (or YOU!) in their old age.

But I do think the above is a useful exercise to think through selling if you had a fund. You would probably break it down more from a bottoms up perspective. What is your average check size? Do you plan to have a concentrated portfolio of sub-30 investments? Or more? Do you plan to follow on? How much if so? And that is your fund size.

In closing

Returning above a 3x DPI is tough. Don’t take our words for it. Even looking at the data, only 12.5% of funds return over a 3x DPI. And only 2.5% return three times their capital back on more than 2 separate funds.

In the power law game we play, as Michael Mauboussin once said, “A lesson inherent in any probabilistic exercise: the frequency of correctness does not matter; it is the magnitude of correctness that matters.” Most will return zero, or as Jake Kupperman points out: More than 50%.

Source: Jake Kupperman’s The Time Has Come to Modernize the Venture Capital Fund of Funds

But it’s in the outliers that return meaningful DPI, not the rest. Not the acqui-hire nor really that liquidation preference on that small acquisition.

At the end of the day, the goal isn’t for any of the above to be anyone’s Bible, but that it’d start a conversation about how people look at early returns. If there is any new data points that are brought up as a result of this blogpost, I’ll do my best to update this thread post-publication.

Big thank you to Dave McClure for inspiring and collaborating on this piece, and to Eric Woo and all our LP friends who’ve helped with the many revisions, sharing data, edits, language and more. Note: Many of our LP friends chose to stay anonymous but have been super helpful in putting this together.

Footnotes

For the purpose of this piece, we know that “good” and “great”, in fact all of the superlative adjectives, are amorphous goalposts. And those words may mean different things to different people. This blogpost isn’t meant to establish a universal truth, but rather serve as a useful reference point for both LPs, looking for “benchmarking” data, and GPs to know where they stand. For the latter, if your metrics do fall in the “good” to “great” range, they’re definitely worth bragging about.

And so with that long preamble, in the piece above, we defined “good” as top quartile, and “great” as top decile. “Good” as a number on its own, enough for an LP to engage in a conversation with you. And “great” as a number that’ll make LPs running to your doorstep. Or at least to the best of our portfolios, leveraging both publicly reported and polled numbers as well as our own.

Our numbers above are also our best attempt in predicting steady state returns, divorcing ourselves from the bull rush of the last 3-5 vintage years. As such, we understand there are some LPs that prefer to do vintage benchmarking, as opposed to steady state benchmarking. And this blogpost, while it has touched on it, did not focus on the former’s numbers.

EDIT (Aug 18, 2023): Have gotten a few questions about where’s the data coming from. The above numbers in the Net DPI and Net TVPI charts are benchmarks the LPs and I agreed on after looking into our own anecdotal portfolios (some spanning 20+ years of data), as well as referencing Cambridge data. These numbers are not the end-all-be-all, and your mileage as an LP may very much vary depending on your portfolio construction. But rather than be the Bible of DPI/TVPI metrics, the purpose of the above is give rough reference points (in reference to our own portfolios + public data) for those who don’t have any reference points.

Cover Photo by Renate Vanaga on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

My Ever-Evolving Personal CRM

The soul dwells in things and in people you cherish.

I don’t remember where I first heard that line. But it’s a line that resurfaces in my life quite regularly.

Building and, more importantly, keeping relationships alive is something I get quite nerdy about. Have always been nerdy about, and have personally made a few angel investments on this front as well.

A few friends and I literally spend a few hours riffing on topics like this. So when Obi launched my episode with him on the Frugal Athlete, it sparked a few more conversations about my Airtable CRM, which I thought might be helpful to share some additional context.

I will also preface that my goal of even keeping a CRM in the first place was not motivated by a fear of not remembering hundreds of names. My fear was not remembering that one friend who’s been a champion in my life.

What’s in the CRM?

So I have the usual table stakes I imagine most, if not all, CRMs have:

  • Name
  • Location
  • Email
  • Socials
  • Preferred medium of communication
  • How we met
  • Year we first met
  • Last time we chatted
  • Job title
  • Company
  • Past companies
  • Expertise
  • Things they like/dislike
  • Birthday

But the reason you’re here is not for the table stakes. You’re here for what I include that others may not. So let me share a few.

Chill Factor

This one is simple. Different people have different propensities to go deep. Some choose not to. For others, maybe we just don’t know each other well enough. But it’s a reminder to myself (just because I’m quite unfiltered sometimes) that not everyone I know is comfortable with being vulnerable. It helps me, especially for someone I haven’t chatted with in a long time, calibrate the tone of how I reach back out to them.

Why I’m useful to others

While most people track a person’s expertise, I also track how I can be helpful to others. Sometimes it’s my network. Other times, it’s the events in which I host. But also, my network (i.e. they want intros from me), or job opportunities, or advice in which I can impart in different functions/industries. In the world of being an investor, the most canonical question a VC can ask is “How can I be helpful?” Which in all fairness, is a good question showing one’s willingness to help. But if I have context already, instead of asking that every time, I can take it one step further and actually offer specific things in which I am helpful to them in.

My bucket list

One thing I learned very early on as someone seeking advice and mentorship is that one of the best ways of giving back is to follow up once you’ve actioned on someone else’s advice or suggestion. It shows you take their words seriously. And so as soon as I built my CRM, I decided to track everyone’s recs. And when I finally check off something on the bucket list, I know who to go back to and thank for the recommendation. For many, that comes as a welcome surprise.

It also helps me help others when people ask me to recommendations, be it book, restaurant, movie, tourist spot or otherwise.

Quotable moments

No screenshot here unfortunately; just because some thoughts have been shared in confidence. But if you’re a repeat reader here on this blog, you’ll know I love quotes. And I love collecting quotes. And naturally, any time someone shares a tweetable soundbite or a banger, I make sure it’s not lost to the cosmos. I may not share all of them, but when I do, I know who to give attribution to, but many of my friends have admittedly used my CRM and me as their biographer.

In closing

I don’t want to get too metaphysical about this. But my Airtable is less so of an automation or an attempt to outsource friendships, but more so, it keeps me honest. When my memory slips and fails me, my CRM reminds me of the little moments that make my friends awesome!

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

#unfiltered #83 There Doesn’t Have to be a First Place

medal, winner, gold, first place

I recently learned that in FISM competitions — competitions hosted by the International Federation of Magic Societies (if the letters aren’t in order, it’s because FISM is in French not in English), that the judges don’t have to award any prizes. Meaning if they don’t think any of the magicians and their acts are up to par, they don’t have to dole out a first, second or third place. And according to Simon Coronel, it happens quite often. The goal is simple. That winning first place should mean something. Not just because you’re better than the rest that day or that year, but that you really deserve to stand among the greats.

And it got me thinking. Are there other fields that should strive for the same level of rigor?

For instance, does an Oscar need to be awarded every year for each category?

Or an Olympic gold medal for each event every four? (Although a caveat to my own, if the rules change, like when in 2010, they banned male full-body suits when swimming at the international stage, then there should be a reevaluation of excellence.)

And there might be some years that the best prize awarded should just be a second place one.

Then there are other contests, where the number of prizes only seem to increase. In other areas, namely to join certain rankings organized by members of the press, you have to pay for your spot. The latter of which I have no experience in. But had heard of accounts from friends who have.

The truth is it’s not my place to rate the world’s greatest artists or athletes. But it does make you wonder that if the magic society can hold themselves to that high of a regard, why can’t the rest of us do so?

Once upon a note

As all good Asian children did, once upon a time, I learned to play the piano since I was five. One of many teachers and admittedly the one I was with for the longest happened to this sweet lady who taught her students out of her home. And every year, usually around the beginning of summer, she would rent out a hall and host a recital between all her students. Every student (and she had 30-40 students) — from beginning to master — would play one song.

The whole recital would last about 2-3 hours. And at the close, there would be an award ceremony. For each skill category, there would be a Best of Show trophy. And for everyone else, a participation trophy. When I was first started off and was quite bad, that participation trophy felt great, even if I was only playing Twinkle Twinkle Little Stars. I put it at the top of my shelf next to my bed, so I would see it every morning when I woke up.

Then 1-2 participation awards later, they had lost their luster. The Best of Show is now what I was aiming for.

For a brief period of time, that was my goal. And eventually I got it. But I remember when I finally got it, I wasn’t nearly as elated as I thought I’d be. ‘Cause that year my teacher decided that one Best of Show wasn’t enough. Three felt right to her. To be fair, I don’t know if she had over-ordered or just felt the need to give more out due to some parental complaints. But I remember receiving mine alongside someone who I knew made a few hiccups on stage. And even though I did the best I could have, I didn’t feel like I deserved it.

So that night, I didn’t even put the Best of Show trophy on my shelf.

A side corollary to angel investing

The greatest feature of being an angel investor (as opposed to being a VC) is that you can be opportunistic. Your fund size is your own liquidity. You’re not tied down to a mandate. Or a deployment schedule. And if so, self-induced. What it means is that you invest only when you see a great company and team. Anything south of that means you don’t have to. You don’t have to award a check to a founder if you don’t feel they’re deserving of a first place. And because of that, “first place” actually means something. Not only to the founders you invest in, but to you.

That said, playing my own devil’s advocate, much of early-stage investing is luck-based game. And it is foolhardy to attribute to skill when a large amount of variables is unbeknownst at the time of investing — be it asymmetric information, or market conditions, incumbent moves, or purely black swan events in the future. The latter few, you need to count on luck more than once. And luck purely defined as “uncertainty in outcome,” in the words of the great Richard Garfield.

Photo by Brands&People on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

#unfiltered #82 Sometimes The Best Thing You Can Have In Life Is The Best Partners

This past week, my friends were sending me one of the latest Shark Tank episodes (apologies for not finding a better fidelity video), asking me: Would you have invested?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7Yf2BrfC_ww
If this link dies due to copyright issues (since I haven’t waited till ABC puts out their original version), just Google “Shark Tank Eyewris”

But I bring it up not because I’m here to share what my thoughts on the deal, but because of a powerful lesson shared on Shark Tank’s Season 14 finale.

The best thing you can get in life is often to have the best partners. That’s true in business. That’s true in romance. And that’s true in life.

And yes, it’s also true in venture. As a founder, it’s not about who gives you the most money. Or gives your business the greatest valuation. Unfortunately, both are often vanity metrics, underscored in the 2020 and 2021 bull era. It’s about partnering with the right partners who can take you to the next stage. Partners who will keep you honest. Partners who will call you out on your BS. And partners who will tell you the things you don’t want to hear, who will have you do the things you don’t wanna do, so that you can be the founder you were meant to be.

In careers, it’s no less true. I’ve always looked at careers from the perspective of who can I learn the most from. It hasn’t always been the highest paying or the biggest brand. Frankly, it was easy to turn down both of the before if I didn’t feel like I would spending the next few years working with the best. Not only in terms of acumen, but also in how much they cared.

My friend Nichole Wischoff’s recent tweet echoes the same.

To think that one doesn’t need others to succeed, that’s foolish.

#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.

Posted on

An Investor’s Job is to Hear the Silence

headphones, earbuds, listening, hearing

In the world of venture, hell, even in the broader world of investments, we are blessed and cursed a cosmos of information. A data ocean, as some may call it. In the words of the great Howard Marks,

“You have to either:

  1. Somehow do a better job of massaging the current data, which is challenging; or you have to
  2. Be better at making qualitative judgments; or you have to
  3. Be better at figuring out what the future holds.”

And while I go in length why the above are true in a former piece… today, I want to postulate a fourth.

Be better at listening to the silence.

Let me elaborate.

Facts and opinions

If I were to ask you, what day’s your birthday? I bet you could answer pretty quickly.

And the same would be true, if I asked you the color of the sky. Or what you ate for breakfast in the morning. Questions on facts have factual answers. There is either one immediate answer, or an answer you know exactly how to find, and at the very end, still a definitive answer. An example of the latter would be, What is the temperature right now?

On the other hand, if I were to ask you, what do you think about your life partner? The answer varies. You might say she or he is reliable. Or caring. And kind. And if I follow up with silence, you might spend some time thinking and filling the void with more words. Those words… are powerful. They simmer all of your life experiences and your stories — all your trials and tribulations, years, months, weeks, days, hours and minutes — onto a neatly organized platter for the other person. Those words that summarize it all are powerful. But what’s even more interesting to investor is the time it takes to come up with those words. That precious time, as your life is playing out like a flipbook, spends its precious milliseconds hugging silence.

No matter how miniscule those gaps are, they exist. And our goal as investors, and even more so for startup investors or emerging fund investors, with very little data to go on, is to create new datasets. In essence, to ask questions where the answers don’t just fill the air with vibrations, but to find answers that are dotted with tranquil stillness.

Great investors read between the lines. Listen to the pauses — the spaces between words. They look for the quiet thing out loud.

That silence is often more telling than anything you could put on a pitch deck or in a templated answer of “Tell me about your company.”

In closing

I know in this side of the world, we talk a lot about 10-year overnight successes. But let’s focus on the first two words of that phrase first. Ten-year. Startup journeys are long. They’re arduous. More things will go wrong than right. In the words of a serial founder with a few 9-figure exits under his belt, he once told me, “This shit sucks.” It’s tough. And if anyone discounts that — be it founder, operator, investor, friend or family — they don’t get it.

But that’s the very reason why investors look for grit, passion, and for me, obsession. But it’s also not a question we can really ask without getting a gift-wrapped, carefully-prepared answer. And so pushing the boundaries of questions is our job as investors. Why? Because even if for a moment, it sheds light into who we’re truly talking to.

And if there’s evidence of grit, passion, or obsession there, there might be something special.

Photo by Adrian Regeci on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

#unfiltered #81 Against All Odds

sunrise, sunset

A few days ago, I caught up with an old friend from college. Amidst our conversation on how I was spending my time, he asked me, “Wouldn’t your time be more valuable helping the winners in your portfolio than the others?”

And I told him, albeit a bit more defensively than I would have liked, “Our brand is determined by our winners. Our reputation is earned by helping everyone else.” One of my better ad hoc lines, if I say so myself.

But more so, and I might be naïve in saying so, I may not get the most number of hours for sleep a night, but I will say, when I hit the bunk, I have the best sleep out of anyone you might know. And I do so because I know I’ve meaningfully touched someone else’s life. And by extension of them, indirectly, a few others.

Just because most startups fail doesn’t make each of their endeavors any less important.

Malia Obama once asked her dad, our former president what’s the point in working on climate change if the difference is so miniscule. That the world is burning. And what can one person do?

To which, Obama said, “We may not be able to cap temperature rise to two degrees Centigrade. But here’s the thing. If we work really hard, we may be able to cap it at two and a half, instead of three. Or three instead of three and a half. That extra Centigrade… that might mean the difference between whether Bangladesh is underwater. It might make the difference as to whether 100 million people have to migrate or only a few.”

In the world of startups, which isn’t exclusive to our world by any means, there’s a saying that people love quoting. Aim for the stars; land on the moon. And regardless if you hit the stars or not, aiming for it gets you the escape velocity to be extraterrestrial. In other words, it’s not always about whether you hit your goals or not, but rather… it’s the pursuit of lofty goals that gets you further than if you didn’t try in the first place.

I’m reminded of a great line by Dr. Rick Rigsby quoting his dad. “Boys, I won’t have a problem if you aim high and miss, but I’m gonna have a real issue if you aim low and hit.”

So, in this week’s short dose of optimism, don’t aim low and hit. Stay awesome!

Photo by Mohamed Nohassi on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

Venture Capital Is Not Made For Trillion-Dollar Businesses

fish, school, multiple, sea, ocean

Let me elaborate.

VCs win upon liquidity event. And that happens either via M&A or via going public. After that, the shares are transferred to the hands of the LPs and they choose how they’d like to liquidate or keep. To date, we have neither seen a trillion dollar acquisition nor a trillion dollar IPO. I’m not saying it’ll never happen. I’m sure it will, at some point. A combination of inflation and companies finding more liquidity when private markets are bullish.

As Charles Hudson suggests in his one of his latest posts, the venture world has been changing. What was once a cottage industry gave way to multi billion dollar funds. While there are still many small sub-$100M funds, LPs have started evaluating venture capital not as just one big industry, but segmenting it by size of fund. Small funds, sub-$100M. Medium-sized funds, $100-500M. And big funds, funds north of $500M assets under management (AUM for short). And as the Mike Maples dictum goes, your fund size is your strategy.

Returning a billion-dollar fund requires different kinds of investments and math for it to work compared to returning a $50M fund. And one day, as large funds continue to expand into multiple stages, check size, but also eventually into public markets, we might see them start to bet on trillion-dollar outcomes. Because to return a 11- or 12-figure fund, you need to do just that. But given the market we’re in now, I imagine that won’t be in the near future.

The 10,000-foot view

So the thing you have to gain conviction around, as a macroeconomist, is not how big a venture fund should be. Nor the debate on how many VC funds is too many. The number nor the size truly matter in the grand scheme of things.

For an illiquid asset class like venture, where you’re betting on the size of the home runs, not one’s batting average, what you have to gain conviction around is:

  1. How many truly great companies are there every year
  2. How much capital is needed to get these companies to billion dollar outcomes

For the latter, there are two main ways to get to billion dollar exits: going public or getting acquired. And while there are outliers, the best way is for these businesses to get to $100M of recurring revenue.

And everything else is downstream of that.

As an LP once told me, “In the 1990s, it took $7 million to get to first revenue. In the 2000s and into the early 2010s, it took $700K. Now it takes $70K.” With each era and each wave of technological development, founders become more capital efficient. There are less barriers to get to market. Now with AI, it might just be $7K to get to first revenue, if not sooner.

The question is how much capital is needed to get to $1M ARR. If we take a decent burn multiple of 1.5x, then we underwrite an assumption that it’ll take $1.5M to get to $1M ARR. And possibly $4.5M to get to $3M ARR. And somewhere in there, that founder will find product-market fit and turn on the growth engine. CAC (customer acquisition cost) falls. And lifetime value increases. Payback periods shorten. And if all goes well, founders may find themselves with a sub-one burn multiple. And after they hit $1M ARR, and they triple the first two years, double the next three, they’re at $100M ARR. Of course, I’m illustrating the above all in broad strokes. The best case scenario. But most things don’t go according to plan.

Then an investor has to figure out if one should only make net new investments or re-capitalize a select few of their existing investments.

Then as LPs, what is the minimum ownership percentages that can return funds at each differentiated stage and fund sizes? And due for possibly another blogpost altogether, how does a 7-8x multiple on forward-looking ARR impact round sizes and valuations across bull and bear markets?

All this admittedly is both art and science. But I will admit that larger fund sizes and playing the AUM game may not be the answer.

In closing

My friend recently sent me this letter that Sam Hinkie wrote when he retired as GM of the 76ers. In it, he quoted the great Sage of Omaha when he closed down Buffett Partnership. “I am not attuned to this environment, and I don’t want to spoil a decent record by trying to play a game I don’t understand just so I can go out a hero.” And it’s for that same reason, Sam stepped down. The same reason Jerry Seinfield turned down $110 million to do another season of Seinfeld. Even though the sequel business does quite well.

There is no shame in knowing when to hang up the cleats. And there is great power in being disciplined. In fact, it’s one of the most sought-after traits in fund managers. If not, the most sought-after.

In VC, it comes in all sizes, ranging from:

  • Fund size discipline. There a lot of GPs out there who have gone on to raise 9- to 10-figure early stage funds. A mathematical equation that becomes increasingly harder to prove true, given outputs need to reflect inputs. In other words, larger funds are harder to return. There are a lot of VCs who would rather play the AUM (assets under management) game than stay disciplined on returns. Not just paper returns, but real cold hard cash. In the words of my friend Chris Douvos, “moolah in da coolah.” To quote another line from Chris, “OPM (other people’s money) is like opium. It’s addicting.” Something one too many investors have gotten addicted to.
  • Thesis discipline. As a friend who’s been a VC across multiple economic cycles once told me, it’s much better to turn down an off-thesis hot deal led by a top tier firm than to take it.
  • Career discipline. To echo the words of Sam Hinkie above.

And of course, knowing that we underwrite billion dollar outcomes, rather than trillion dollar ones. Then again, that’s just a subset of fund size and portfolio construction.

Photo by NEOM on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress