Posts

Posted on

Winning Deals Based on Check Size (VCs versus LPs)

scale, weight, size

I know I just wrote a blogpost on how LPs assess if GPs can win deals. But after a few recent conversations with LPs in fund of funds, as well as emerging LPs, I thought it would be interesting to draw the parallel of not only proxies of how GPs win deals, but also proxies of how LPs win deals. And as such, coming back with a part two. Maybe a part one and a half. You get the point.

The greatest indicator for the ability to win deals as a VC is to see what the largest check (and greatest ownership target) a world-class founder will take from you. (That said, if you are only capable of winning deals based on price, you might want to consider another career. You should have other reasons a brilliant founder will pick you.) And even better if they give you a board seat.

The greatest indicator for the ability to win deals as an LP is to see what the smallest check a world-class GP will take from you. And even better if they give you a seat on the LPAC.

In the world where capital is more or less a commodity, the more capital one can provide (with some loose constraints on maximums), the better. But if someone who has no to little trouble raising is willing to open doors in a potentially over-subscribed fund for you, that’s something special.

An LP I was chatting with recently loves asking the question, “How big of a check size would you like me to write?” And to him, the answer “As much as you can.” Or “I’ll take any number.” is a bad answer. According to him, the best GPs know exactly how much they’re expecting from LPs, and sometimes as a function of how helpful they can be, especially in a Fund I or II. But always as a function of portfolio construction. Your fund size is after all your strategy, as the Mike Maples adage goes. While I don’t know if I completely agree with this approach, I did find this approach intriguing, and at least worth a double take.

I’m forgetting the attribution here. The curse of forgetting to write things down when I hear them. But I was listening to a podcast, or maybe it was a conversation, where they used the analogy that being a VC is like watching your child on the playground. You let your child do whatever they want to. Go down the slides. Climb the monkey bars. Sit on the swings. And so on. You let them chart their own narratives. But your job as the parent is once you see your kid doing something dangerous, that’s when you step in. When they’re about to jump off a 2-story slide. Or swing upside-down. But otherwise your kid knows best on how to have fun. In the founders’ case, they know how to build an amazing product for an audience who’s dying for it.

Excluding the fact that you’re a good friend or family that go way back, you likely have something of great strategic value to that GP — be it:

  • Network to other LPs
  • Operational expertise and value to portfolio companies (to a point where you being an LP will help the GP win deals with founders)
  • Operational expertise to the GP and the investment team
  • Investment expertise to help check the GP’s blindside
  • Access to downstream capital
  • Deal flow, or
  • Simply, mentorship

At the same time, ONSET Ventures once found that “if you had a full-time mentor who was not part of the company’s management team, and who had actually run both a start-up and a larger business, the success rate increased from less than 25% to over 80%.” (You can find the case study here. As an FYI, the afore-mentioned link leads to a download of the HBS case study.)

That’s the role of the board. The LPAC. Of the advisory board. For a founder or emerging GP, the full-time availability of said board members or LPAC members is vital.

A proxy of a mentor’s availability is pre-existing relationships between founder/emerging funder and said investor or advisor. Another is simply the responsiveness of the investor or advisor. Do they take less than 12 hours to reply? Or 3-5 business days? It’s for that latter reason Sequoia’s Pat Grady once lost out on an investment deal to his life partner, Sarah Guo. Being responsive goes a long way.

In sum, for LPs in fund of fund managers, small things go a long way.

Photo by Piret Ilver 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

“Who Else is Investing?” Is a Good Question

who, who else

Ok, before y’all rise up in arms, hear me out. And if by the end of this blogpost, you still want to bring the pitchforks and torches, so be it.

Generally, I get it. Who else is investing isn’t usually a great question. Because for most investors who ask this question, it means they’re outsourcing their conviction.

Tweet I stumbled on reading Chris Neumann’s post yesterday

In fact, I wrote a quick LinkedIn (and tweet) post about it the day before yesterday. Which admittedly got a lot more attention than I expected. And if you have the time, it’s worth seeing the discussion on that post that ensued.

Source: Me on LinkedIn
Yes, I’m a dark mode user. 🙂

So, potentially hot take, I believe investors should ask the question. Who else is investing? It’s part of the diligence process. That said, when they ask that question is key. There’s a vast ocean between the shores of asking that question before you reach conviction and after.

If you pop the question before you reach conviction, well, we’ve seen the follies of that. Most evidenced by the manic rush of 2020 and 2021 into “hot deals” largely led by names that grew to popularity around the dinner table.

If you pop it after, it’s diligence. Where the availability of names shouldn’t convince you to bat or lack thereof to otherwise. But that you now have additional opportunities to reference check and cross-diligence the same opportunity. And it extends to the LP side as well. Jamie Rhode who’s now at Screendoor, said on a Superclusters episode that one of her greatest lessons as an LP was committing to a fund where there was a bunch of soft commits but far less in hard commits, and ended up overexposing Verdis (where she was at) to a single asset and taking a much higher ownership as an LP into a single fund.

Truth is, LPs pay GPs for their opinion. Not anyone else’s. And while given long feedback loops, no one really knows what’s right and what’s wrong except over a decade later and only in hindsight, you have to really believe it, and be able to back it up.

Photo by Patrick Perkins 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

When Trying Something New

new, apple, vision pro

The great Jim Collins has this line I really like where he says fire bullets then cannonballs. “The right big things are the things you’ve empirically validated. So, you fire bullets, you validate, then you go big — bullets, then cannonballs — it’s both.”

Too often — something I see in me as much as I see in founders — when trying something new, we bottle it up. We charge the entropy of our creativity. Waiting to release it all at one big moment. A cannonball. No one else should or needs to know know. Sometimes it’s a fear of someone else stealing your idea. Sometimes, well, speaking more for myself, I just like surprises. I love the mystique. And on the slim chance you’re right, albeit rare, then awesome. But 999 out of 1000 times, you’re likely not. At least not in the first try.

I’m forgetting and also can’t seem to find the attribution. But I read somewhere that the only difference between vision and a hallucination is that others can see it. You see… the greatest YouTubers test their ideas with test audiences several times. In fact, they even test their video titles with select audiences a number of times before launching. (Instagram even added the ability to do it at scale for creators too.) Reporters do too with their headlines. Legendary investor Mike Maples at Floodgate once said, “90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.” ONSET Ventures also found in its research1 that founded the institution back in 1984 (prescient, I know) that there is a 90% correlation between success and the company changing its original business model.

All to say, one’s first idea may not always be the best and final idea. So, test things. With small audiences. With trusted confidants.

And while I may not do this all the time, with my bigger blogposts (like this, this, and this), I always run it by co-conspirators, subject-matter experts, lawyers, writers, bloggers, and people who love reading fine print. And sometimes the final product may not look like the one I initially intended, which will be true for an upcoming bigger blogpost. For events, like one I recently worked with the team at Alchemist on — redefining what in-person Demo Days look like at accelerators, we tested the idea with 20 other investors and iterated on their feedback before launching on January 30th this year. And still is not even close to its final evolution.

As Reid Hoffman once said, “If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.”

Now that it’s out there…

One of the greatest Joker lines in The Dark Knight is: “Trust no one, salt and sugar look the same.”

It’s true. Whether people like something or not, they’ll always tell you things were good. It’s the equivalent of when one goes to a restaurant, orders something that’s a bit saltier than one’s liking, but when the server comes by to ask, “How is everything?”, most people respond with “Everything’s fine.” Or “good.”

You’re not going to get the real answer out of people oftentimes. Unless people really do love or hate something you did passionately. So… you must hunt for them. You must lure out the answers. You need to force people to take sides. There can be and shouldn’t be middle ground. If there are, that means they don’t like it.

Maybe it’s in the form of the NPS question. On a scale of 1-10, how likely would you recommend this product to a friend? And you cannot pick 7.

In the event space, I’ve come to like a new question. If I invited you to this event the week of, would you cancel plans to make this event? And to add more nuance, what kinds of events would you cancel to be here? What kinds of events would you not cancel?

Sometimes it helps to seed examples on a spectrum (although I try not to lead the witness here). Would you cancel a honeymoon? Or would you cancel going to another investor/founder happy hour? What about an AGM (annual general meeting, annual conference in VC talk)? What about a vacation?

As Joker said, salt and sugar look the same. So you have to taste it. Looking from afar won’t help. And if you want to iterate and improve, you need what people really think. I’d rather have people hate or dislike something I’ve created than have a lukewarm or worse, a “good” reaction.

In a way, if you’re not getting enough of an auto-immune response from the crowd, and the antibodies don’t start kicking in (aka the naysayers), you’re not really doing something new.

Photo by Roméo A. on Unsplash

1 FYI, the research link redirects to its HBS case study, not the original research. Couldn’t find the latter unfortunately. But the point stands.

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

v28.0

I came across a quote recently, which I believe originates from Qi Lu, former COO of Baidu, and the one who created Bing, Microsoft’s search engine. “Luck is like a bus. If you miss one, there’s always the next one. But if you’re not prepared, you won’t be able to jump on.”

And your bus fare comes by way of preparation. The 10-year overnight success.

Or as the classic Seneca line goes, “Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.” Or as Louis Pasteur also said, “Chance favors the prepared mind.” And by having a prepared mind at the bus stop, you’ve increased the surface area for luck to stick.

Of course, I could fill an entire blogpost with just quotes on what luck means. But I won’t.

Year 27 on this planet was simply a year to try new things. An exploration of the human mind. An exploration of what are the boundaries of the LP landscape. And what’s worth pushing on, and what’s not. The output of which culminated in events, new ways to operate, building trust circles, the podcast, more content on the blog, and of course, a lot more conversations with influencers in and away from the limelight.

The inputs of which came from my last year’s resolution.

A reflection

Last year, the goal was to find myself in the flow state at least twice a week. Truth was, at that point in time, I had yet to figure out how to truly measure it. And it wasn’t until October 15th last year when I started measuring the early semblances of it outside of just allotting time to be in the flow state. For me, it came down to a simple question. Was today worth it?

In other words, was today well spent? Defined by either:

  1. Learning a new skill or framework
  2. Creating a core memory
  3. Or by realizing something I never realized before, a new way of looking at the world around me.

Each of which, at least for me, largely become possible when I am in an egoless state working or thinking about something proactively than reactively.

As of writing this blogpost, I’m 16 weeks in. And I have 18 days well spent. On average, between one and two days per week. Leaning more on one though.

Though I might be able to allot time on a weekly basis on my calendar for “flow state,” I’m not always in the mood for it. That in itself was dependent on circumstance, timing, stress, and the disciplined pursuit of inspiration. The last of which was a luxury I couldn’t always afford. Sometimes when there are more pressing matters, I can’t help but find my mind wandering and stressing over more urgent matters than focusing on doing something new.

As such, to help me do so, I focused on things I could control daily: Was I consuming a healthy and diverse diet of information? Which I measured through reading, listening to podcasts and content, and conversations with different kinds of people.

I also look back at my journal entries for the past year, and anecdotally, more than 60-70% of them are about topics and tasks I had to do, pre-assigned (often self-assigned due to constraints). And a lot of them focus on the 10%, maybe 20%, marginal improvement and refinement of what’s been done already, rather than the 10X thinking I find more common in journal entries in the years before. The difference between reactive journaling and proactive journaling. The product of consuming too much (work, podcast, and otherwise) of the same genre of information. Simply, I didn’t cover all my macros.

So, this year…

So this year’s goal is no different than the last. To explore. To find myself in creative pursuits and in the flow state. And to take risks.

While I remember the lyrics, I often forget Sanderson’s Second Law. “Flaws/limitations are more interesting than powers.” Constraints are the breeding grounds of inspiration.

Not sure how much of this is lore, but I remember reading once that Bill Gates loves hiring lazy procrastinators. As his words once rung, “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.” For Gates, the constraint of time and energy on a responsible individual is the forcing function for brilliance.

While it’d be ridiculous to give myself a pat on the back for “brilliance,” there is immense value in time constraints, as well as intentionally handicapping myself to produce results. To not let perfect be the enemy of good.

As such, I’m going to impose limitations on myself as a forcing function of iteration, and hopefully by product of doing so, I live more days that are worth it. For now, the count is 19 since Oct 15, 2023 (when I started counting).

How I will measure success, with a North Star of at least 2 per week

While I don’t know what else will come up, my goal is to color in as many pickles as I can in the fickle jar. For now, to hold myself accountable:

  • Publish the intuition vs discipline blogpost (final draft done by end of February)
  • Host an escape room where all the clues to escape are based on each guest’s individual stories (March)
  • Build a repeatable framework for backing GPs as an individual LP (by the end of February)

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

Lessons from Season 1 of Superclusters

microphone, podcast

I’m in my fourth year of writing this blog and never once have I called myself or identified as a content creator. As many of you know, I write to think. I do so out of joy and intellectual stimulation. In many ways, I write for myself. Or better put, as a form of self-expression. Other than posting in the morning, as is thematically helpful for my blog, I don’t really have much cadence to posting. Nor have I looked too deeply on analytics. Nor have I really optimized for SEO. In other words, finding the top searched topics in my industry and writing a blogpost for each of those highly trafficked keywords. I haven’t done that, nor do I want to. I haven’t chased people down to subscribe. In fact, there are times I try to convince people to not subscribe (due to the scattered nature of my content).

To that end, I had not been a content creator.

But with the launch of Superclusters, for the first time, and still a work-in-progress, I am designing the content for someone other than my immediate self. Although, do I take opportunities to scratch my own itches? Yes… yes I do.

But in doing so, I am starting to think about creating content for others. And to do that, I need to look at what people like and tune in to.

Now at the end of Season 1, some quick learnings…

Note: The below gets a bit nerdy on numbers. Mostly as an accountability metric to myself to be paying attention to the below. This may not be for everyone, but in case you’re curious, and/or working on creating your own content, hopefully the below might be helpful.

  • Between all the platforms, YouTube seems to be the most popular channel. Followed by Apple Podcasts then Spotify. Where Apple Podcasts only has half or so the number of plays than YouTube does. And Spotify has three-quarters the listens compared to Apple.
    • May be helpful to note that YouTube and Apple Podcast count plays as just someone viewing the video for a split second (“greater than 0 seconds”), whereas Spotify counts a play as someone who’s played the episode for at least 60 seconds.
  • YouTube seems to be better for discovery than the other podcasting platforms, with over 4.5X the impressions compared to the next best, Spotify. 28K versus 6K. Tracked by last 30 days, not all time.
  • For short-form vertical content, TikTok continues to perform better than both YouTube and Instagram, especially for new audiences. Still perplexes me since I imagine the demographic on YouTube has more of my intended audience. Nevertheless, even on YouTube shorts, the shorts are consumed by a younger audience than the long-form videos on average.
  • Instagram, in general, performs poorly in terms of discovery among new audiences. But that might simply be, I haven’t learned the IG algorithms well enough yet. Moreover the new algorithm seems to prioritize completion percentage. And given that it’s hard to shorten even my short-form content to less five seconds or less, unless I just make people read while playing some kind of looped video in the background, Superclusters will likely continue to perform poorly on IG.
  • On YouTube, 90%+ of Shorts viewership comes from non-subscribers than subscribers. where 75-80% come from non-subscribers, the average for the full podcast episodes.
  • On YouTube, 41% of my audience comes from the US. TO break it down further, 50% comes from the US for long-form. 27% for short-form. Spotify, 67% comes from the US. Apple Podcasts, 87%.
  • Interestingly, by city, according to Apple Podcasts, New York City takes the cake on where my audience reside.
  • Across all platforms, most of my listeners/viewers are in the 35-44 age range. Accounting for almost 50% across all platforms. Followed by the 28-34 age group, then 45-59 age group. In general, Superclusters has a larger younger audience fan base on YouTube, compared to Spotify and Apple Podcasts. The latter two with similar distributions.
  • Superclusters audience is also about 75% male, 25% female.
  • While less than 0.05%, fun fact, the only other subtitles used on YouTube to tune into my podcast was French (outside of English).

Popularity versus watch time

The most popular episode on YouTube is Chris Douvos’, followed by Ben Choi’s. Episode 1 and Episode 6 respectively. My suspicion was that while both were super fun to record, Chris’ episode came first but may by the end of Season 2 be surpassed in viewership by Ben’s.

On Apple Podcasts, it’s Samir Kaji’s. And on Spotify, it’s the post season episode with Jeff Rinvelt and Martin Tobias.

But what’s most fascinating to me is that among the nine episodes released for Season 1, on YouTube, the top four most popular episodes have shorter average watch times than the most bottom five. On average a two- to three-minute difference, where the least watched episodes happen to have 7-8 minutes of average watch time.

In closing

All in all, there’s a lot of work to do ahead. And as I’m recording Season 2 and my team is hard at work in editing those episodes, all of the above insights are helpful to keep my finger on the pulse. Do let me know if I’m missing any areas I should be paying attention to or measuring.

Otherwise, for Superclusters, I’ll see y’all again in early March for the launch of Season 2.

Keep staying awesome!

Cover photo by israel palacio 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 #86 Learning from Personal Mistakes, Excellence, and from Others

sand, filter

A few years ago, in one of my favorite coffee shops on 7th Street in San Francisco, over a vanilla cold brew, a then 25-year old founder told me that he had recently taken his then-first vacation in five years. Took a full week off. Didn’t touch work at all. And just enjoyed it with his fiancée. But contrary to what one would expect, his body language that seemed to indicate the exact opposite of having a good time. Two hands cupped over his face, as he slowly dragged them both downwards in exasperation. Followed by many sighs.

He shared that in the time he was gone, the website crashed and the team had trouble bringing it back online. And when they finally did bring it back online, they were waiting for his approval to move forward. As such, didn’t bring it back online until he came back. With another large sigh, he went on to say that he’d never take another vacation ever again.

Running your own business is tough. Really tough. I get it. If you’re the founder, it’s your baby. And sometimes, it’s really hard letting go on what may seem like key decisions. Eventually, that becomes a slippery slope where I see too many founders needing to control every decision that goes on in the company. And even if you hired extremely well, you’ve capped your team’s potential by not letting them execute to their fullest capacity.

In the above dilemma, as you might know, it’s not a to-vacation-or-not-to-vacation problem. It’s a you-need-to-give-your-teammates agency problem. And it might seem obvious to you and me, to any third party observer. But it wasn’t to him. He was so frustrated that he was focused on the one new thing he did and believed that one new thing had a causal effect to a problem that was looming over his team’s head for a long time.

It is true that we are products of our scar tissue, but quite often, in an attempt to not be in the same situation again, people overcorrect. They take then run with the seemingly most extreme “solution.”

And in the times scar tissue start to form, start from first principles. Is taking a vacation really the biggest offender? Do great CEOs just not take time off? Is there something else that I’m not willing to admit about how the results played out?

What am I assuming to be true that may not have to be true? What are the raw facts, stripped of opinions and speculation?

Why was my team incapable of making that decision? Was it something that I told them before or did before that has since prevented them from making calls? What do I spend most of my day doing? Can I outsource some of my tasks? Some of my decisions? How would I do that? And only then, can I ask myself and others: what can I do from now on so that history doesn’t repeat?

Seeking and redefining excellence

And once you’re at the root of the problem, find others you admire who run organizations you admire.

Excellence is an interesting concept. One of the few words out there where its definition changes over the course of your life.

It’s one of the few words where it is not only different for every person, but that even within each person, every time you see something excellent, it sets a new bar and stretches that definition. Defined by only the most excellent thing you’ve seen.

The truth is that most great lessons happen to err on the side of examples. So to have people who define that word for you again and again are the “Sensei-s” you want in your life.

So spend time with others. Notice how they approach problems. And stretch your definition of excellence.

For the 25-year old founder who hadn’t worked any other job in his life, and only his own, there’s immense value in learning from others and building expertise at high-growth institutions. Or with people who you deeply respect.

Asking for the lesson

Tim Ferriss, on a recent episode with Noah Kagan, said, “Life punishes the vague wish and rewards the specific ask.” And I frickin’ love that line.

Be specific. No picking brains. You’re not a zombie or a vulture or a crow.

Not 30-minute coffee chats. Those quickly become recipes of asking for too much time with an amorphous ask. To a busy person, that 30-minute ask sounds like a recipe for losing 50 minutes to an hour of your life you can never get back. Including travel to and from. Time, as the only unreplenishable commodity, is precious. As Howard Lindzon said on the Superclusters podcast, when we’re young, we’re time-millionaires, but over time, we get poorer and poorer. We then become time-thousand-aires as we age. And eventually, we run out of temporal capital.

It is in times of need and struggle, that we often have the most prescient and specific ask to make of potential mentors.

“When in X situation, and after having Y results, my gut seems to tell me to do Z, but given that you’ve experienced these situations before or have likely seen these situations unfold, am I directionally accurate?”

In closing

There’s a lot of this hustle porn in the Bay Area. Loud claims of not taking any vacations or sleeping only three hours per night. Moreover media perpetuates and lionizes this way of living.

It’s not true. Science shows we do much better with eight hours of sleep. It shows that every so often, we need to take time to unwind, so that we can come back to be more efficient and inspired than before. You can clock in the hours, but that doesn’t mean you are producing quality in a one-to-one capacity.

And I worry that like the founder that took his vacation for the first time, then overcorrected, we live in a society where we’ve forgotten that we’re human. That we need breaks. That we need sleep. And that we can’t do most things alone, including building ambitious ideas and maturing as professionals.

Photo by NEOM 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

Do Founders Like You For Your Money?

club, party

Would the founders in your portfolio let you in on the cap table if you weren’t an investor? If you had no money? If they could only borrow your brain for two hours every three months, and that’s it?

The uncomfortable truth is that most founders won’t.

But to find the founder who will take that deal is the person you want to be focusing on. They’re the archetype of founder you want to win — that you put your whole heart into perfecting your craft for that founder.

Play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. Where do you have home field advantage?

Why does this matter?

All cards on the table, it won’t matter if you plan to stay a boutique VC firm or angel whose check size for an investment never goes past $250K. Even better if you don’t have any pro rata. But if you plan to institutionalize your firm — and I don’t mean to say this is the only way to institutionalize — you need to hire. To hire, you need enough management fees to support a team of that size. And to get enough management fees, most of the time, that requires you to scale your fund size.

Whereas in Fund I and maybe II, you played the participating investor. Squeezing in great deals. And everyone’s your friend. Founders love you. Your co-investors love you. With larger funds, you may end up scaling your check size. If you don’t, you start diversifying your portfolio more and more. And most large LPs prefer concentrated portfolios. Why?

They often do the diversification work in their own model. They pick their own verticals and stages they want exposure to. The product they want to buy is not to be their portfolio for them, but that it is just one asset in a larger portfolio. A lot of LPs also fear diversified portfolios in managers because at some point, managers will be investing in the same underlying asset. No LP wants to invest in 10 funds and have four of them all be investors in Stripe. If that’s the case, they might as well invest directly in Stripe via co-investment.

But at the end of the day, if your checks are bigger (along with ownership targets), it’s hard to always be 100% friendly with other investors since they have their own mandates. And at some point, the founder is forced to pick: you or any of those other interested investors.

And for you to win that deal, you must have something enduring that founders want outside of capital.

Examples

Of course, there are different ways to prove that you can win deals to your prospective LPs. The list below is by no means all-encompassing, but may help in giving you an idea of how people who have walked the path before you have done so.

  • Being chosen as the independent board member in other companies you didn’t invest in (Kudos to Ben Choi for sharing this one in our episode)
  • Having a platform to generate customers/leads for your portfolio companies. Like Packy McCormick‘s Not Boring or Harry Stebbings‘ 20VC.
  • Winning pro rata in past subsequent rounds
  • Even better if super pro rata (rarely happens though, especially after Series A)
  • (Co-)Leading rounds (met an emerging GP last year who syndicated the whole $2M round)
  • Repeat founders (with previous exits >$100M) let you invest in oversubscribed rounds with a check larger than $250K
  • Founders letting you invest on previous round’s terms (or highly preferential treatment)
  • Incubating the company
  • Evidence or repeatable ability for you to pre-empt rounds before founders go out to fundraise
  • Some combination of the above

In closing

Unintentionally, this blogpost is the unofficial part two of my first one on the topic of sourcing, picking, and winning. Part one was on sourcing. This one is on winning. No guarantees on picking, but who knows? I may end up writing something.

For the uninitiated, this was said by both Ben Choi and Samir Kaji on the Superclusters podcast. That to be a great investor, you need to be great in at least two of three things: sourcing, picking, and/or winning. If you only have great deal flow, but don’t know how to pick the right companies that come your way or have the best founders pick you, then you don’t have an advantage. If you’re really good at winning deals, but no one comes to you or you pick the wrong deals to win, then you also don’t have anything. You need at least two. Of course, ideally three.

But as you institutionalize, the third may come in the form of another team member or as you build out the platform.

Photo by Long Truong 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

A Case Study on Why LPs Pass on Great Funds | Jeff Rinvelt & Martin Tobias | Superclusters | S1 Post Season E1

Jeff is a partner at Renaissance Venture Capital an innovative venture capital fund of funds. Jeff’s diverse background in venture capital and technology and his experience working in various start-up ventures uniquely position him to advise startups. In addition, Jeff is quite active in the Michigan start-up community, volunteering his time to mentor young entrepreneurs, judge pitch competitions, and guest lecture student classes and organizations. Through Jeff’s work on the Fund, his volunteer efforts, and his role as the chair of the Michigan Venture Capital Association’s board of directors, his passion for fostering a productive environment for venture capital investment in the State of Michigan is evident.

You can find Jeff on his socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rinvelt
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rinvelt/

Martin Tobias is the Managing Partner and Founder of Incisive Ventures, an early-stage venture capital firm focused on investing in the first institutional round of technology companies that reduce friction at scale.

Martin was previously at Accenture and Microsoft and is a former Venture Partner at Ignition Partners. Martin is a 3X venture-funded CEO rising over $500M as CEO with two IPOs who has also invested in hundreds of companies and is a limited partner in over a dozen VC funds. Martin was an early investor in Google, Docusign, OpenSea, and over a dozen Unicorns.

Martin is the father of 3 daughters, a cyclist, surfer, poker player, and life hacker. Martin tinkers with motorcycles on the weekends. He writes about Venture Capital on Incisive Ventures blog and Twitter.

You can find Martin on his socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MartinGTobias
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martintobias/

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Introducing Jeff Rinvelt and Martin Tobias
[04:14] What was Jeff’s pitch to their LPs for Renaissance Capital?
[06:30] Why did Jeff pivot from being a founder to an LP?
[08:10] Renaissance Capital’s portfolio construction model
[13:00] Jeff’s involvement in non-profits
[15:56] How did Martin become an angel investor?
[18:03] The big lesson from being an LP in SV Angel’s Fund I and II
[20:10] Why is Martin starting a fund now?
[26:07] A lesson on variable check sizes
[28:53] What is Martin’s value add to founders?
[33:29] What stood out about Martin’s deck and email when it arrived in Jeff’s inbox?
[35:43] The 2 biggest worries Martin had in sharing his deck with Jeff
[36:47] What does Jeff think about generalists?
[40:49] What held Jeff back from making an investment in Incisive Ventures?
[42:37] What kinds of conversations does Martin usually have with LPs?
[47:05] One of the greatest professional lessons Jeff picked up as a manager
[49:07] Martin’s greatest lesson from his days as a CEO
[51:57] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[54:33] Like, comment and share if you enjoyed the episode

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“One of the things a lot of investors don’t do is go back and be honest about where they got fucking lucky and where they had a thesis that they could potentially replicate in future investments.”

– Martin Tobias

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Posted on

Thesis is a Lagging Indicator of Outperformance

thread, yarn, pull

In the process of catching up with a number of fund managers this week, I was reminded of two things:

  1. That I still have an outstanding blogpost on intuition and discipline sitting on my desk, having gone through more revisions than I would like
  2. That Fund I’s mostly start by drawing trendlines in your previous portfolio’s winners.

Now it’s not my job to call anyone out, but many of those I caught up with this week, told me in confidence (no longer in confidence now that I’m writing about it) that their best investments were simply due to being in the right place at the right time. That they were lucky. Others invested often off-thesis to accommodate for a brilliant founder that looked and sounded like nothing they had seen before. Then retroactively, went back to LPs in a subsequent fundraise armed with the knowledge to account for their previous outlier.

Chris Paik once wrote, ““Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.”

Josh Wolfe said last year, “We believe before others understand.” And sometimes the investor themselves may not fully grasp what makes someone special other than that person is special.

Other times the company in which you initially bet on may not look like the company that earns you the most capital. As Mike Maples Jr. once said, “90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.

Of course, many LPs don’t want to hear that. They want to hear that you know exactly what you’re doing. That you can predict the future. But you can’t. In many ways, VCs invest in what stays the same. Not what changes. Human nature. Great hires. Network effects. Talent pools. Intellectual curiosity. Rigor. It’s a long list.

An amazing VC once told me. The job of a VC is to:

  1. Have a wide enough aperture so enough light can come in
  2. But have a fast enough trigger finger to catch the light, the reflections, the shadows just at the right time so that you get a good enough shot.

The rest is all done in the editing room, where you massage the photo with your expertise and experience to help it stand out.

I love that line. But simply put, the job of a VC is to:

  1. Cast a wide enough net so that you can see as many great companies as you can,
  2. Have the ability and awareness to know a great company when you see it.

After all, as an investor, you don’t have to invest in every great company, but every company you invest in must be great. Big anti-portfolios don’t mean much in this world if you can still get great returns.

All that to say, the job of an angel is to increase the surface area for luck to stick. And once enough do, a thesis blossoms.

A thesis, at the end of the day, is retroactive. And the best thing a fund manager can do is that the thesis the fund ends on is as close as possible to the initial. As LPs, it is our job to bet on the future of the thesis and the discipline of the fund manager. Both are equally as important. If things do change, a fund manager must preemptively communicate strategy drift and do so in the best interest of their investors.

It’s not ideal in many cases. For individual LPs and smaller family offices, strategy drift matters less. For large institutional LPs, it matters more. Because the latter don’t want you to be investing in the same underlying asset as other funds they’re invested into are.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema 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

An Individual LP’s Guide to Investing Like an Institution | Samir Kaji | Superclusters | S1E8

Samir Kaji is the CEO and Co-Founder of Allocate, a private markets technology company that pairs origination with portfolio management tools to allow investors to efficiently construct and manage their alternatives portfolios. 

Prior to Allocate, Samir spent 22 years in venture banking between SVB and First Republic Bank and closely worked with and advised over 700 venture capital and private equity firms. During this time, he completed over $12B in structured debt transactions and has invested personally in over 75 funds and companies, including early-stage investments into Carta (seed), Side (seed), PolicyGenius (Series A), and FanDuel (Series B) as well as Growth investments into Reddit, Alto Pharmacy, and Carbon Health. He has also invested in over 40 funds across various investment types.

Samir completed a finance undergraduate degree at San Jose State University, a finance MBA from Santa Clara University, and completed the prestigious Kauffman Fellows venture program in 2017. Samir is also the host of Venture Unlocked, a top venture capital podcast available on Itunes, Spotify, and Substack.

You can find Samir on his socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Samirkaji
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samirkaji/

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[04:15] What will be the biggest change in the next decade for the LP universe?
[08:45] Portfolio allocation for emerging LPs
[12:32] How has Samir’s LP investment strategy evolved over the years?
[16:04] Why Samir invested in Bullpen Capital’s Fund I
[17:43] GP-business model fit
[19:40] GP red flags
[21:00] The one question Samir asks to see if GPs understand how to do portfolio math
[23:31] The art of asking good questions
[29:44] What is the Minimum Viable Fund?
[36:14] How to pick 10 funds out of 4000 VC funds
[42:19] How did Samir pitch Allocate to his investors?
[48:11] The first hires at Allocate
[50:53] How Samir defines work-life integration
[56:38] The first two emerging fund managers Samir backed at First Republic Bank
[59:41] The lesson Samir’s father shared with him when he thought about leaving SVB
[1:02:41] What happens when you overanalyze
[1:07:27] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:10:02] If you liked it, give us a like or share!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“When you think about investing in any fund, you’re really looking at three main components.

  1. It’s sourcing ability. Are you seeing the deals that fit within whatever business model you’re executing on?
  2. Do you have some acumen for picking?
  3. And then, the third is: what is your ability to win? Have you proven your ability to win, get into really interesting deals that might’ve been either oversubscribed or hard to get into? Were you able to do your pro rata into the next round because you added value?

“And we also look through the lens of: Does this person have some asymmetric edge on at least two of those three things?”

“When you’re investing in a fund, especially when you’re making an ex ante decision, meaning you’re not buying a secondary, you’re actually just looking at what’s the probability of success in the future. You want to focus on process, more than just outcomes in the past. The process is how they think.”

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Proudly powered by WordPress