If you’ve been following me on Twitter recently, you might have noticed I’m working on a new blogpost for the emerging LP. One that I’m poorly equipped personally to talk about, but one that I know many LPs are not. Hence, I’ve had the opportunity to sit down with a number of LPs (limited partners – people who invest in venture funds) and talk about what is the big question GPs need to answer to get LP money, specifically institutional LP money.
And it boils down to this question:
Why does the world need another venture fund?
Most LPs think it doesn’t. And it is up to the GP to convince those LPs why they should exist. For most institutional LPs, even those who mean to back emerging managers, to invest in a new manager, they have to say no to an existing manager. While data has historically shown that new managers and small funds often outperform larger, more established funds on TVPI, DPI, and IRR, when institutional LPs invest in a Fund I, it’s not just about the Fund I, but also the Fund II and Fund III.
For those who reading who are unfamiliar with those terms, TVPI is the total value to paid-in capital. In other words, paper returns and the actual distributions you give back to LPs. DPI, distributions to paid-in capital, is just the latter – the actual returns LPs get in hand. IRR, internal rate of return, is the time value of money – how much an LP’s capital appreciates every year.
It’s a long-term relationship. Assuming that you fully deploy a fund every three years, that’s a 19-year relationship for three funds. Three years times three funds, with each fund lasting ten years long. If you ask for extensions, that could mean an even longer relationship.
But the thing is… it’s not just about returns. After all, when you’re fundraising for a Fund I, you don’t have much of a track record as a fund manager to go on. Even if you were an active angel and/or syndicate lead, most have about 5-6 years of deals they’ve invested in. Most of which have yet to realize.
So, instead, it’s about the story. A narrative backed by numbers of what you see that others don’t see. Many institutional LPs who invest in emerging managers also invest directly into startups. I’ve seen anywhere from 50-50 to 80-20 (startups to funds). And as such, they want to learn and grow and stay ahead of the market. They know that the top firms a decade ago were not the top firms that are around today. In fact, a16z was an emerging fund once upon a time back in 2009.
Of course, anecdotally, from about 15-ish conversations with institutional LPs, they still want a 4-5x TVPI in your angel investing track record as table stakes, before they even consider your story.
The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. I’ll let you decide which it falls under.
Subscribe to more of my shenaniganery. Warning: Not all of it will be worth the subscription. But hey, it’s free. But even if you don’t, you can always come back at your own pace.
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Seemingly, everyone these days – from Twitter to podcasts to blogposts (including mine) – talk about buying and investing in startups. What are best practices for investment theses? How do I pick the best companies to invest in? Conversely, how do I get picked or get allocation into hot startups? But people rarely seem to be talking about selling positions. So, if you know me, I hit up two of the smartest people I know – one early-stage, the other growth-stage. Both of whom might be familiar faces on this blog. So I asked them:
How do you think about selling a position? How much does DPI matter for your investors?
The below insights include minor edits for clarity.
The notice that you’ve all seen a million times
None of this is investment advice. This content is for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. Please consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Shawn Merani (Parade Ventures)
Shawn was instrumental in my early career growth in venture. When I met him years ago, he was still running Flight Ventures, where he wrote early checks into Dollar Shave Club and Cruise Automation and was one of the first syndicates on AngelList. There he led a network-based model of syndicate leads, which I’ve heard been described by others as a “venture partner program on steroids.” Now he’s the solo GP at Parade Ventures, a seed stage venture fund investing in enterprise-themed companies.
“I would preface all of this with the fact we have never fully exited a position before a traditional liquidity event, but more so, have managed our position given the duration of our ownership and to generate returns for our LPs and manage risk.
“We talk to founders all the time, and foster a relationship that grows. When I was writing check sizes for 1-5% of ownership, my engagement then is very different from my engagement with founders now, where we take more concentrated bets.
“When it comes to selling, it’s about influence and information. The larger our ownership, the more information we have access to. And if a company is doing well, we don’t think about selling. In fact, it’s the exact opposite; we buy more. If things are working, we take our pro rata. In some cases, we take more than my ownership target. And founders are willing since we’ve been helping them from the beginning. We know when there’s going to be a 3-4x uptick every 12-18 months. Compounding is powerful.
“Our investors back the fund because they trust us. They don’t talk to the founders as often as we do. They trust our decision when we say we should buy more or keep our shares. There are two ways to talk about DPI:
1. Making money for your current investors, and 2. Telling the story.
“Selling is really a case-by-case scenario, and it really depends on my relationship with the founder. All the equity in which I sold so far has been before Parade. But if we know the company is doing well, we buy more. There are also holding periods to consider under QSBS, which has huge tax benefits.”
For those that are unfamiliar with the terminology, DPI means distributions to paid-in capital. Effectively, how much money you actually return to your investors versus “paper returns”. QSBS, or qualified small business stock, tax exemption allows investors in qualified businesses to avoid 100% of the capital gains tax incurred if they hold their stock for more than 5 years.
Ratan Singh (Fort Ross Ventures)
I posed the same question to someone I’ve been a huge fan of the day I met him – Ratan Singh, Partner at Fort Ross Ventures. He’s an investor in some of the most recognizable businesses today, including the likes of Rescale and Clearcover, as well as holds board seats at Blueshift and Ridecell. You may remember Ratan from a previous essay about speed as a competitive advantage for investors. And you’ll likely see him a lot more on this blog. He summed it up best in our chat when he said, “There are two reasons why an investor needs to care about DPI: time horizon and fund strategy.” Both of which are variables, not constants, between early- and growth-stage investments.
“The true metric at the end of the day is DPI. DPI is turning in money to your investors. And there are two reasons why an investor needs to care about DPI: time horizon and fund strategy.
“Let’s start with time horizon. For a seed stage fund, as you get close to the end of your fund cycle, that’s when DPI matters. What type of vintage is the fund in? In 2021, it’s going to be the 2010 and 2011 funds.
“For the majority of the time, you want to ride your winners. At the end of your time horizon, ask for a one- to two-year extension. Usually LPs want more money or their shares distributed. They’ve already waited 10 years. Two more won’t make a difference, especially if you have some big fund returners in the making.
“For fund strategy, did you meet the objectives for your LPs already? If you have, and you want to sell some of your winnable deals in your portfolio to help raise your Fund II because those are the same LPs that would re-up in your next fund, then you might consider selling.
“The worst reason to sell is that you want to take the wins you currently have since you think the market is overvalued. ‘I’m at the peak.’ Or ‘I want to take chips off the table because there’s something bad that will happen, but that is very hard to predict.’
“There were a bunch of funds at the beginning of this year that sold their entire positions. They were desperate to lock in a win. They sold because they thought the market was at the top. And, they were wrong. I’m against it. Selling early doesn’t fully realize the strategy you have put forth. For us, at the growth stage, we shoot for 48 months to an exit. If it takes longer, did we underwrite it wrong? But even if it does, the case may be that the company is growing a little slower than expected.
“At the early stage, all funds will say 2 to 3x cash-on-cash in the LP presentation. Most funds return 1 to 1.5x, on average, with most funds total DPI at 1.2 to 1.5x, which barely returns the fund. Before your time horizon, everyone likes to cite unrealized gains and mark ups because TVPI’s all they have.
“DPI matters most for funds in the top quartile – the top returners, funds with more than $500 million, or nowadays, $1 billion mega-funds. For the bottom majority of funds, early DPI won’t matter. They would be limiting their upside.
Author’s Note: Notice that 65% of financings lost money for their investors. Source: Correlation Ventures
“The new interesting commentary is that – where the job is getting harder – a lot of crossover funds are making binary bets. Finding the one deal that’s the next Salesforce – the next industry-defining company. And putting a lot of capital to find that one or two companies. Tiger and Coatue, still maintain that 10-12% IRR, but spend a lot to find the company that’ll be the next Databricks. Every generation has their industry-defining companies. And, they’re willing to lose it all to find that one.
“You usually don’t see this at the growth stage. It’s bad for innovation. Everyone is trying to find investments that are scaling. 1000 investments in the past year became unicorns. And there are 3000+ unicorns. Yet, the top five to seven companies are still undercapitalized.”
In closing
As we closed the selling part of our conversation, Ratan shared a great quote from an Economist article:
“Flush with cash amid a deal frenzy, what is the industry to do? One option would be to liquidate portfolios, that is, to sell more assets than it buys, in effect trying to cash in some chips when prices are high. As yet, however, this does not seem to be happening. Take the figures for three big managers, Blackstone, Carlyle and KKR. So far this year for every $1 of assets, in aggregate, that they have sold, they have bought $1.30. Although Carlyle is being more cautious than the other two firms, these figures indicate that the industry overall thinks the good times will roll on.”
In fairness, as the saying goes, the high risk, high reward. Data does show that the funds with the greatest track records have more deals that lose money than those make them more money than they invested.
Interestingly enough, there’s also a huge differential between the world’s most valuable and most funded startups. According to Founder Collective, “the most valuable companies raised half as much capital and produced nearly 4X the value!” All of which echo Ratan’s words. “The top five to seven companies are still undercapitalized.”
The public often looks towards invested capital as a proxy of startup performance. But the data suggests that isn’t the case. In the words of the team at Founder Collective, “capital has no insights.” One of my favorite lines from Ashmeet Sidana of Engineering Capitalframes it is still: “A company’s success makes a VC’s reputation; a VC’s success does not make a company’s reputation.”
But when DPI boils down to selling on multiples at the end of the day, I often reference Samir Kaji‘s tweet on the return hurdles expected of different stages of investors. As you might guess, the return expectations of each type of fund varies based on fund strategy.
Since it was asked, return hurdles for LPs are for different types of funds:
Nano-Fund (<$20MM)- 5-7X+ Traditional Seed Fund – 3-5X+ Series A: 3X+ Growth – 2-2.5X+ Crossover/late growth – IRR driven – 10-12%+
As all things in the world, exiting is just as nuanced and complicated as entering. Hopefully, the above insights will be another set of tools for your toolkit.
If this essay has inspired more questions, here are some further reading materials, courtesy of Ratan:
Thank you Shawn and Ratan for reading over early drafts.
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!
Many investors often take their job quite seriously. And they should. Imagine if your surgeon didn’t take the utmost care to do her job in the operating theatre. Or if your defense attorney walked in a courtroom lacking preparation. Investors, while not as life critical as a surgeon or your defense attorney, are in the business of selling and appreciating money. It’s as simple as that. And yes, more often than not, we use niche jargon. Though I’m not quite sure if it’s to isolate outsiders or to make ourselves sound smarter. Or both. Most conversations I’ve had to date with other VCs while insightful, are often, to the layman, quite esoteric.
So as a welcome break from the bustle of Silicon Valley, VC Twitter, and 30-minute coffee chats, I created the Investor Purity Test. In part for the memes. In part as a reference guide to those who want to grow to be more active VC investors.
Your purity starts at 100. In this “quiz”, there’s a checklist of 100 items. And with every item you check off, you slowly lose your purity to capitalism, specifically around early-stage financing. In a way, think of it like a VC “personality” test.
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!
I was doomscrolling through Twitter when I stumbled on Samir Kaji‘s recent tweet:
A reason that emerging managers have done so well in early funds is not due to smaller funds sizes but because when gp/thesis is often strongest. Return atrophy usually happens when thesis drift happens at a magnitude that is more significant and faster than firm evolution.
I’ve written before that the difference between an emerged fund manager and an emerging manager is one’s raised a Fund III and the other hasn’t.
In Fund I, you’re selling a promise – a dream – to your LPs. That promise is often for angels, founders, and other GPs who write smaller checks. You’re split testing among various investments, trying to see what works and what doesn’t. More likely than not, you’re taking low to no management fees, and only carry. No reserve ratio either. And any follow-on checks you do via an SPV, with preference to your existing LPs. You’re focused on refining your thesis.
In Fund II, you’re pitching a strategy – the beginnings of pattern recognition of what works and what doesn’t. You’re thesis-driven.
Fund III, as Braughm Ricke says, “you’re selling the returns on Fund I.” On Fund III and up, many fund managers start deviating from their initial thesis – minimally at first. Each subsequent fundraise, which often scales in zeros, is a lagging indicator of your thesis and strategy. And across funds, the thesis becomes more of a guiding principle than the end all, be all of a fund. There are only a few firms out there that continue to exercise extreme fundraising discipline in. Which, to their credit, is often hard to do. ‘Cause if it’s working, your LPs want to put more money into you. And as your fund size scales, so does your strategy.
Subsequently, it becomes a race between the scalability of a fund’s strategy and fund size.
Softbank’s mistake
In 2017, Softbank’s Vision Fund I (SVF I) of $100B was by far the largest in the venture market. In fact, 50 times larger than the largest venture funds at the time. Yet, every time they made a bad bet, the media swarmed on them, calling them out. The reality is that, proportionally speaking, Softbank made as many successful versus unsuccessful bets as the average venture fund out there. To date, SVF I’s portfolio is valued at $146.5 billion, which doesn’t put it in the top quartile, but still performs better than half of the venture funds out there. But bigger numbers warrant more attention. Softbank has since course-corrected, opting to raise a smaller $40B Fund II (which is still massive by venture standards), with smaller checks.
While there are many interpretations of Softbank’s apparent failure with SVF I (while it could be still too early to tell), my take is it was too early for its time. Just like investors ask founders the “why now” question to determine the timing of the market, Softbank missed its “why now” moment.
Bigger funds make sense
I wrote a little over a month ago that we’re in a hype market right now. Startups are getting funded at greater valuations than ever before. Investors seem to have lost pricing discipline. $5 million rounds pre-product honestly scare me. But as Dell Technologies Capital‘s Frank told me, “VCs have been mispricing companies. We anchor ourselves on historical valuations. But these anchors could be wrong.” Most are vastly overvalued, yet future successes are grossly undervalued.
Allocating $152 billion into VC funds, LPs are excited about the market activity and that the timeline on returns are shorter. Namely:
Exits via SPAC,
Accelerated timelines because of the pandemic (i.e. healthcare, fintech, delivery, cloud computing, etc.)
And secondary markets providing liquidity.
We’ve also seen institutional LPs, like pension funds, foundations, and endowments, invest directly into startups.
Moreover, we’re seeing growth and private equity funds investing directly into early-stage startups. To be specific over 50 of them invested in over $1B into private companies in 2021 so far.
As a result of the market motions, the Q2 2021 hit a quarterly record in the number of unicorns minted. According to CB Insights, 136 unicorns just in Q2. And a 491% YoY increase. As Techcrunch’s Alex Wilhelm and Anna Heimputs it, “Global startups raised either as much, or very nearly as much, in the first two quarters of 2021 as they did in all of 2020.”
Hence, we see top-tier venture funds matching the market’s stride, (a) providing opportunity for their LPs to access their deal flow and (b) meeting the startup market’s needs for greater financing rounds. Andreessen recently raised their $400M seed fund. Greylock with their $500M. And most recently, NFX with their $450M pre-seed and seed Fund III.
In his analysis of a16z, writer Dror Poleg shares that “you are guaranteed to lose purchasing power if you keep your money in so-called safe assets, and a handful of extremely successful investments capture most of the available returns. Investors who try to stay safe or even take risks but miss out on the biggest winners end up far behind.” The a16z’s, the Greylocks and the NFXs are betting on that risk.
Fund returners are increasingly harder to come by
As more money is put into the private markets, with startups on higher and higher valuations, unicorns are no longer the sexiest things on the market. A unicorn exit only warrants Greylock with a 2x fund returner. With the best funds all performing at 5x multiples and up, you need a few more unicorn exits. In due course, the 2021 sexiest exits will be decacorns rather than unicorns. Whereas before the standard for a top performing fund was a 2.5%+ unicorn rate, now it’s a 2.5% decacorn rate.
The truth is that in the ever-evolving game of venture capital, there are really only a small handful of companies that really matter. A top-tier investor once told me last year that number was 20. And the goal is an investor is to get in one or some of those 20 companies. ‘Cause those are the fund returners. Take for example, Garry Tan at Initialized Capital, earlier this year. He invested $300K into Coinbase back in 2012. And when they went public, he returned $2B to the fund. That’s 6000x. For a $7M fund, that’s an incredible return! LPs are popping bottles with you. For a half-billion dollar fund, that’s only a 4x. Still good. But as a GP, you’ll need a few more of such wins to make your LPs really happy.
I also know I’m making a lot of assumptions here. Fees and expenses still to be paid back, which lowers overall return. And the fact that for a half-billion dollar seed fund, check sizes are in the millions rather than hundreds of thousands. But I digress.
There is more capital than ever in the markets, but less startups are getting funded. The second quarter of this year has been the biggest for seed stage activity ever, measured by dollars invested. Yet total deal volume went down.
Each of these startups will take a larger percentage of the public attention pie. Yet, most startups will still churn out of the market in the longer run. Some will break even. And some will make back 2-5x of investor’s money. Subsequently, there will still be the same distribution of fund returners for the funds that make it out of the hype market.
In closing
As funds scale as a lagging indicator of today’s market, the discipline to balance strategy and scale becomes ever the more prescient. We will see bigger flops. “Startup raises XX million dollars closes down.” They might get more attention in the near future from media. Similarly, venture capitalists who empirically took supporting cast roles will be “celebretized” in the same way.
The world is moving faster and faster. As Balaji Srinivasan tweeted yesterday:
But as the market itself scales over time, the wider public will get desensitized to dollars raised at the early stages. And possibly to the flops as well. Softbank’s investment in Zume Pizza and Brandless turned heads yesterday, but probably won’t five years from now. It’s still early to tell whether a16z, Greylock, NFX, among a few others’ decisions will generate significant alphas. I imagine these funds will have similar portfolio distributions as their smaller counterparts. The only difference, due to their magnitudes, is that they’re subject to greater scrutiny under the magnifying glass. And will continue to stay that way in the foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, I’m thrilled to see speed and fund size as a forcing function for innovation in the market. There’s been fairly little innovation at the top of the funnel in the venture market since the 1970s. VCs meet with X number of founders per week, go through several meetings, diligence, then invest. But during the pandemic, we’ve seen the digitization of venture dollars, regulations, and new fund structures:
Quoting a good friend of mine, “It’s a good time to be alive.” We live in a world where the lines between risk and the status quo are blurring. Where signal and noise are as well. The only difference is an investor’s ability to maintain discipline at scale. A form of discipline never before required in venture.
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!
I recently read Fable‘s Padmasree Warrior‘s breakdown of leadership lessons. Prior to Fable, she held executive positions at Motorola, Cisco, and NIO and currently serves on Microsoft and Spotify’s board. Out of all the insights she shared, I couldn’t help but reach out on one intriguing point she brought up: “Hire for expertise, not experience.”
Expertise ≠ Experience
Before reading the blogpost on her, I had never thought of expertise and experience as two separate wheelhouses of knowledge. While there is definitely some overlap, as Holly Liu, founder of Kabam, says:
Expertise and experience are similar, but not the same. It is to no surprise most people often conflate the two, myself included. Experience is a record of past events. Expertise is your ability to leverage experience to positively influence the outcome of future events.
I’m reminded of something Henry Ford once said. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Experience would have dictated faster horses. Expertise would have dictated why we once chose horses over other modes of transportation. And the framework to think about transportation in the next century.
Hiring for expertise
When I asked Padma, “What kinds of questions do you ask potential hires to measure on expertise rather than experience?”
She responded: “I usually as ‘if X happened what would you do?’ ‘If there is nothing here… how would you start a product?'”
I followed up with a David classic: “If I can be completely selfish one more time, and I understand if you don’t have the time, for the question, ‘if there is nothing here, how would you start a product?’ or similar ones, what differentiates between a good answer and a great answer?”
Padma added: “If someone says ‘I did this at such and such’ – wrong answer. I look for ‘I would start with … then do… then grow’.”
Everyone’s guilty of a bit of revisionist’s history when looking in hindsight. It’s in our DNA. We are the only species that create narratives from seemingly disparate data points. After talking with multiple recruiters, executives, and CEOs on the topic, I realized there is often a tendency for people connect their past achievements together and sound like they knew exactly what they were doing all along. But in foresight, that often isn’t true. There’s a lot of guesswork and uncertainty when looking through the windshield, compared to images that often seem closer in the rearview mirror.
To follow up on Padma’s thoughts, I had to ask my former professor, Janet Brady, the former Head of Marketing and Head of Human Resources for Clorox, about hiring for expertise. “I’m a big fan of situational interviewing, where I ask ‘What would you do if…?’ In the process, I am looking for (a) how would this come up, and (b) how would they approach the problem. It’s easy to make the puzzle pieces fit and make up narratives in the past, but much harder when given a situation to deal with on the spot.”
As with any matter, things are not as binary as they first seem to be. She concedes that there is validity in asking about experience as well. But the context around experience is often more insightful than the experience itself. Brady shared, “You never do something alone. If you see a turtle on top of a fence post, you don’t know how it got there, but you know it had help.” How many people were on your team? What was your role on the team? What problems did you run into? And how did you deal with those problems?
But one of her interview questions in particular stood above the crowd for me. “What did you do in this role that no one else in this role has done?” While past achievements aren’t always predictors of future progress, in this case, what you’re looking for aren’t anecdotes but general themes in life, specifically, the ability to question the status quo and act on it.
Echoing Brady’s questions on problems a hire has faced, what might be more interesting is what didn’t work out in the past. The scar tissue someone’s accumulated over the years. Marco Zappacosta of Thumbtack loves the question: “What’s your biggest professional regret?”. And he elaborates, “I’m under no illusions that I’m hiring perfect people, but I want to make sure I’m hiring people who are self-aware of being imperfect.”
Put into practice
SaaStr’s Jason Lemkin shared a great example in his blogpost. How the expertise of VPs of Marketing differ depending on what stage of a company’s maturity they earned their stripes. A corporate marketer’s experience might translate poorly to running marketing at a startup. Equally so, a seed-stage startup marketer’s job might carry much less significance in a Fortune 500 role.
Corporates focus on corporate marketing and brand marketing. A form of marketing that’s “all about protecting and reinforcing the brand once you are way past scale.” It’s less about getting your brand recognized since customers have already heard of your brand. It’s about getting potential customers over the activation energy required before making a buying decision. As Jason puts it, “the brand creates so many leads and customers all on its own.”
Startups, on the other hand, are all about demand generation. In other words, generating leads. It’s a numbers game. Spend X dollars to get Y leads, that generate five times of $X of revenue. The equivalent of an LTV-to-CAC ratio of 5x. At the same time, he notes that “brand marketing is very expensive in the early days – and frustratingly, generates zero leads.”
Someone with Z years of marketing experience might have a lot of scar tissue, but might not be able to solve the marketing problem for your startup. Demand gen folks can’t hide anywhere if they don’t get results, but corporate marketing folks can hide behind a brand. Focus on finding the expertise you need rather than the years of experience that might look sexy on a resume or on a pitch deck. As always they’re not mutually exclusive, but it’s important to know the difference.
Who knows? Maybe the next generation of lead gen is all about Twitter presence and memes, as a16z’s Andrew Chen recently tweeted.
Bottoms up SaaS founder to Enterprise sales founder:
On a bigger picture, the process of sales and marketing is a form of free education for a customer base. The better you can get your users to understand what you’re building, the more likely they will buy. Memes are just another medium of analogy and education. Better yet, of storytelling.
The better you can weave together seemingly disparate data points to create a compelling narrative without confounding extraneous variables, the greater your level of expertise. As Packy McCormick, one of my favorite writers, wrote on an a16z blogpost on expertise, “We live in a world where expertise can be justly claimed by anyone who can continue to prove it. Synthesis and storytelling are the keys to navigating that world. In a world with so much information available and fewer unquestioned experts, the ability to let large amounts of information wash over you, figure out where to dive deep, pull out the most compelling bits, and tie them all together is key.”
In closing
Hiring great talent across all levels breaks down to less of how many years of experience, but more so how you can leverage those experiences to understand and use unique and seemingly disparate data points going forward. Fall forward; don’t fall backward. An expert hire might not have all the answers to your problems, but will have built stress-tested mental models that’ll help in finding the answers for the questions you have.
Back when I was at SkyDeck, Caroline taught me that great entrepreneurs follow the “scientific method of entrepreneurship.” If I were to analogize her idea to expertise, an expert is a champion of the “scientific method of application.”
Of all the experts I’ve met – a title which is often one that society has deemed rather than being self-prescribed – they’ve almost always had an answer or multiple to a certain question. What proof would it take for you to change your mind?
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!
Earlier this month, I saw quite the thought-provoking tweet from Ashley Brasier.
“I took a cue from General Patton, who thought that the greatest danger was not that the enemy would learn his plans, but that his own troops would not.”
-Trader Joe (aka Joe Coulombe) on the need to sell to everybody – not just to your customers, but also to your employees
Whether it’s a function of confirmation and availability bias or lesser-known leadership secret, I saw similar themes pop up everywhere from Phil Libin of Evernote and General Catalyst fame to Kelly Watkins at Abstract to Colleen McCreary at Credit Karma. And because of that, I thought it was a topic worth double-clicking on.
There’s the age-old saying: Leaders lead. Managers manage. And a CEO is frankly a marriage of both. While there are the canonical examples of Musk and Jobs, a CEO both leads with her/his vision but also manages expectations.
“I think the most important job of a CEO is to isolate the rest of the company from fluctuations of the hype cycle because the hype cycle will destroy a company. It’ll shake it apart. In tech the hype cycles tend to be pretty intense. At mmhmm we are very much in the Venn diagram of two hype cycles. There’s a general hype cycle around video, which is going to be way up and down over the next few years. […]
“There is also a hype cycle around early and mid stage startup investment. It’s super volatile, now more than ever, because of potential changes in the tax laws, interest rates, and inflation. So you’ve got these two very volatile areas, video and startup investment, and we are sitting right in the bull’s eye of that. This means that my most important job is to isolate the team so that we don’t float based on the ups and downs of the current. Make sure we have enough mass and momentum to go through it, meaning we don’t change what we do based on the hype cycle.
“And that takes capital, which is why we have to raise some capital to do this. It also takes understanding of where you’re trying to go and knowing where you’re going is not based on the hype cycle. You have to have a long term conviction about that. You may be wrong. The conviction could turn out to be wrong, but you’re not going to know that based on day to day fluctuations of excitement or month to month. So have a clear direction of where you are going and then make sure the ship has enough momentum so it doesn’t matter what the waves are doing, you’re still going relatively straight.”
Kelly Watkins, CEO of Abstract, also said in an interview: “People might think the job of the CEO is to make a lot of decisions, but I see my job as setting the tone for the company. People look to leaders to gauge their own reactions in a situation. So if I’m running around like a headless chicken or my tone is on a really high frequency, people graft off of that.”
Similarly, I wrote an essay a year and a half ago. On Sun Tzu and how a leader’s job is setting the tone for her/his company. In short, your team follows you and is a direct function of:
How much they trust you, and
How well they understand a leader’s commands (the why, the how, and the what)
As a caveat, one might disagree with the what, and maybe the how, but a strong team believes in the same why.
In another interview, Colleen McCreary of Credit Karma once said: “Founders, in particular, are always looking to move onto the next thing, but people don’t come along the journey that quickly. So you have to slow down to be consistent, stay on message and tell employees how they’re going to define success. Because if you don’t focus on what really matters, people will hang their hat on an IPO or the stock price as being the determinant of success, and it’s just hard to unwind.”
And why does all this matter?
As Ben Horowitz wrote in his book What You Do Is Who You Are, “Culture is a strategic investment in the company doing things the right way when you are not looking.”
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!
I was introduced to a founder of an e-commerce marketplace recently trying to figure out what product-market fit looks like. Specifically what might be some early tells of PMF. And I told him, “If your users are sticking around long enough to try to game your system, you have something they want. While it might not be in the most efficient format, you’re close to PMF. Subsequently, solving that frictional point that users are trying to ‘hack’ will delight them.”
Last year, I wrote that one of the tells of a great unicorn idea is frustration with the status quo. And the lagging indicators of frustration are complaints, but even better, “hacks”. Life hacks. Career hacks. Cold email hacks. Any time a forum or community comes together to share best practices is a potential market opportunity. As Jeff Bezos once said, “Your margin is my opportunity.”
Similarly, if some of your users converge around circumventing your platform, they’re hacking their way to find a better solution. But the fact they’re sticking around on your platform means you have something they want. And while it could be more elegant, you’ve solved the rocks of the “rocks, sand, and water” framework. What’s left are the “sand” and the “water”. And they come disguised as a user hack.
Sarah Tavel of Benchmark once wrote: “You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer’s mind.” Solving all the frictional points in the user journey will get you to that compelling offering – a lovable product.
A reader reached out to me last year and said, “Thank you… [But] you have no idea how long I spend reading your blogposts with a dictionary next to me.” While it wasn’t necessarily a hack, to know there was a reader out there willing to weather through my idiosyncratic vocabulary in my earlier essays meant a million to me. But at the same time, it was a sign I was too caught up in my own wordsmithing. So, I dialed it back. While there will still be some esoteric jargon from time to time, I try to make my writing more relatable when editing. And to that reader… if you’re still reading this essay, thank you.
Back in 2007, Marc Andreessenwrote: “The market pulls product out of the startup.” In this case, that pull becomes a race between you and your users’ frustration. Can you release an update that addresses your users’ pain point before they become so frustrated they pack up and go? Either to build their own version or try a competitor’s.
I love Max Nussenbaum of On Deck’s analogy here. “If the market is indeed pulling the product out of you, you sometimes feel less like a creator and more like a mere conduit.” You, as the team behind the product, are a conduit to satisfying your users’ needs. As Mike Maples Jr.says, “Getting storytelling right means the founder is the mentor of the story (ie Yoda), rather than the hero (ie Luke.).” Your customers are the heroes of the story. Of their story. And your story. How they spend their time should offer you brilliant product insights.
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!
“I was a swimmer since I was very young and, you know, I never won. I never won.”
You’re probably assuming this is how the opening scene of a movie about a future world-champion swimmer begins. The beginning of the world’s most amazing underdog story. And you’re wrong. Well, not completely wrong. This isn’t a story about the world’s next biggest Olympic swimmer. Although it might be well-timed with the Tokyo Olympics around the corner. This… is a story, in my humble opinion, of one of the world’s next biggest venture capitalists. A story of a young Bangkok girl who became a VC from learning how to lose.
I’ve never been the smartest kid on the block. At least in the IQ department. So I make it my mission to hang out with folks who are smarter and more driven than I am. Jeep is no exception. I met her last month. And as if going from a World Bank economist to Intel leadership to startup advisor and investor to lecturing at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business was not enough, in our first conversation, she shared an incredible set of contrarian insights. So earlier this month, I had to jump into another conversation with her.
Something about going long
If you’re a long-time fan of this blog, you know one of my favorite Bezos-isms is, “If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that.”
Jeep is that same kind of superhuman.
“I started as a competitive swimmer since I was seven, and I swam so much and so hard, like three kilometers a day. It’s just a lot of practicing. I never even won a medal. And I kept doing it. And that was hard.
“Because other kids they got medals in different styles. So I learned early on in life what losing actually meant. And I think that’s very important because a lot of smart kids, they never learn how to fail early on in their life. And it’s kind of like a winner’s curse because you know, when they’re the best at everything, since they were young, throughout college , once they come out, and they realize that the world is hard, they are doing things or want to pursue a career that their parents cannot help them, they become risk averse. Meaning they don’t want to try new things.
“So I never won in [any] swimming competitions. Until I got into college. When I got into college, at the time I already quit swimming. I quit in high school. So, I didn’t swim competitively anymore since I didn’t have time to practice. I picked up other activities like piano, which I came to love. In college, one of my friends asked me, ‘Hey Jeep, why don’t you come back to the competition?’ And she knew I never won. We were in the same race at so many events. And I said, ‘I don’t know. Let me try.’ So I tried again.
“So I got back to the practice routine. Adjust my strokes a little bit. And then I won. I got gold and silver medals for a college swimming competition. And I was like, ‘This is a joke. How could I win?’
I never won ever, like for ten some years. And I joke with my friend, ‘You know why, because everybody else quit!’ They quit about the same age in high school.
I just went for it. And that was one of the moments in life that I realized that it’s all about grit. You do what you love and you don’t quit. There will be a moment that you win.”
The analogy extends further
“Failure is the mother of success.” It’s an ancient Chinese proverb that my mom used to tell me again and again growing up. Every time I “failed.” Scored low on a test. Embarrassed myself on stage for a school musical. Placed fourth, right off the podium for multiple competitions. It’s funny thinking about it in retrospect since she turned out to be the exact antithesis of a stereotypical Asian parent. And I love it!
Take tbh, an app where you send your friends anonymous compliments, as an example. It launched back in late 2017. 73 days after its launch, it went from zero to 2.5 million daily active users, which subsequently led to a $100M acquisition by Facebook. To many, tbh looked like an overnight success. But it wasn’t. Nikita Bier, co-founder of tbh, and his team spent seven years with 15 failed products before they arrived at tbh. And with each iteration, they learned and compounded their lessons from their previous failure.
Clubhouse’s Paul Davison and Rohan Seth is another example of a seemingly overnight success. From Talkshow to Highlight (acq. Pinterest), the pair went through at least nine failed apps before they arrive at Clubhouse – last reported to have passed 10 million users. And valued at $4 billion. Their lead investor, Andrew Chen at a16z, spent eight years getting to know Paul.
One of my junior swim teammates told me years ago when I was at my prime, “David, I don’t think I can beat you as you are now. But I promise you I will beat you one day, even if that means after you retire.” At the time, I dismissed it as just another snarky comment, which athletes are prone to make from time to time. But now that I’m a bit wiser than I was in high school, I find that same comment incredibly prescient. It just so happened that a few years ago, we raced each other again. Both of us had long exited the competitive arena, and he won.
In closing
Near the end of our conversation, Jeep cited something Soichiro Honda, the namesake for the Honda Motor Company, once said. “Success can be achieved only through repeated failure and introspection. In fact, success represents 1% of your work which results only from the 99% that is called failure. Many people dream of success. To me success can be achieved only through repeated failure and introspection. In fact, success represents 1% of your work which results only from the 99% that is called failure.”
She further elaborated, “For people who grew up in a society, in a culture that does not easily accept failure, I want them to know that it’s actually not a bad thing to try and hear rejection. But along the way, they have to make sure that they learn.
“It’s the same thing when I teach UC-Berkeley students. I told my brilliant graduate MBA students that there is, for me – and it’s true – there is no stupid question. If other people think your question is stupid, but at least you learn. If you learn, there’s no stupid question. Do not ask good questions, if it means you don’t learn anything.”
In a way, I’m reminded of a peculiar quote by Karl Popper, “Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again.” While Popper was known to be quite the contrarian thinker of his day, the same seems to hold for questions. Good questions kill flawed theories. We remain alive to learn again. After all, speaking from personal experience, I often find myself burning the midnight oil to ask the perfect question. But in the pursuit of asking the “perfect question”, I’ve forgone the adventures I would have had to arrive at the answer I thought I sought.
We learn when we fail. We learn, to one day succeed. The greatest are the greatest because they have a higher propensity to fail than the average person. As the great Winston Churchill said, “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”
And as Jeep said, “Winning is actually losing, but learning along the way.”
Thanks Jeep for helping with earlier draft edits!
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!
Founders often ask me what’s the best way to cold email an investor. *in my best TV announcer voice* Do you want to know the one trick to get replies for your cold email startup pitches that investors don’t want you to know? Ok, I lied. No investor ever said they don’t want founders to know this, but how else am I going to get a clickbait-y question? Time and time again, I recommend them to start with the one (at most two) metrics they are slaying with. Even better if that’s in the subject line. Like “Consumer social startup with 50% MoM Growth”. Or “Bottom-up SaaS startup with 125% NDR”. Before you even intro what your startup does, start with the metric that’ll light up an investor’s eyes.
Why? It’s a sales game. The goal of a cold email is to get that first meeting. Investors get hundreds of emails a week. And if you imagine their inbox is the shelf at the airport bookstore, your goal is to be that book on display. Travelers only spend minutes in the store before they have to go to their departure gate. Similarly, investors scroll through their inbox looking for that book with the cover art that fascinates them. The more well-known the investor, the less time they will spend skimming. And if you ask any investor what’s the number one thing they look for in an investment, 9 out of 10 VCs will say traction, traction, traction. So if you have it, make it easy for them to find.
That said, in terms of traction, most likely around the A, what growth metrics would be the attention grabber in that subject line?
Strictly annual growth
A while back, my friend, Christen of TikTok fame, sent me this tweetstorm by Sam Parr, founder of one of my favorite newsletters out there, The Hustle. In it, he shares five lessons on how to be a great angel investor from Andrew Chen, one of the greatest thought leaders on growth. Two lessons in particular stand out:
2. Run towards the heat.
If a company has tons of hype and seems overvalued, don't run away. Run towards it. Hype is good. Means they'll raise, exit at higher valuation. And the price likely won't feel overpriced after the startup exits.
3. Look for stuff that's growing at least 3x a year.
A business can grow slowly and still be great. But if you want a huge exit as an angel, you need at 3x annual growth for users, revenue, or something else important in order to get a multi-billion outcome.
Why 3x? If you’re growing fast in the beginning, you’re more likely to continue growing later on. Making you very attractive to investors’ eyes – be it angels, VCs, growth and onwards. Neeraj Agrawal of Battery Ventures calls it the T2D3 rule. Admittedly, it’s not R2-D2’s cousin. Rather, once your get to $2M ARR (annual recurring revenue), if you triple your revenue each year 2 years in a row, then double every year the next 3 years, you’ll get to $100M ARR and an IPO. More specifically, you go from 2 to 6, then 18, 36, 72, and finally $144M ARR. More or less that puts you in the billion dollar valuation, aka unicorn status. And if you so choose, an IPO is in your toolkit.
Source: Neeraj Agrawal’s analysis on public SaaS companies that follow the T2D3 path
For context, tripling annually is about a 10% MoM (month-over-month) growth rate. And depending on your business, it doesn’t have to be revenue. It could be users if you’re a social app. Or GMV if you’re a marketplace for goods. As you hit scale, the SaaS Rule of 40 is a nice rule of thumb to go by. An approach often used by growth investors and private equity, where, ideally, your annual growth rate plus your profit margin is equal to or greater than 40%. And at the minimum, your growth rate is over 30%.
For viral growth, many consumer and marketplace startups have defaulted to influencer marketing, on top of Google/FB ads. And if that’s what you’re doing as well, Facebook’s Brand Collabs Manager might help you get started, which I found via my buddy Nate’s weekly marketing newsletter. Free, and helps you identify which influencers you should be working with.
But what if you haven’t gotten to $2M ARR? Or you’ve just gotten there, what other metrics should you prepare in your data room?
As part of my work, I talk to many seed-stage SaaS founders. At the seed, most of these founders are thinking about how to get to product-market fit. The one in zero to one. They’re launching their product with a select few companies to really nail their pain points. And often times, pricing and the business model take a backseat when they offer their customers the product for free or at an extreme discount. While investors don’t expect founders to nail pricing at the seed, it’s useful to start thinking about your revenue model early on. After all, pricing is both an art and a science. And with the right pricing structure, it can also be your proxy for assessing product-market fit. Here’s how.
Every product manager out there knows that customers don’t always know what they want, so asking them for a solution rarely nets valuable feedback. Rather, start with the problem. What are their frustrations? What sucks? What’s the last product they bought to attempt to alleviate their problem? Subsequently, what’d they like about that product? What didn’t they like?
There are two perspectives you can use to approach pricing: cost-plus and value-based. Cost-plus pricing is pricing based on selling the product at a given markup from its unit cost. The biggest mistake founders often make here is underestimating how much it costs to produce a product.
On the other hand, there’s value-based pricing. An approach where you determine the economic value of the service you are providing and give it to your customers for a bargain. Superhuman, for instance, prices the fastest email experience at $30/month. Or in a different light, a dollar a day. If you are saving more than a dollar of economic value a day by responding to emails faster than ever, then the product is worth it. The biggest pitfall here is that founders often don’t fully understand the value they’re bringing to their customers, which is a result of:
They don’t understand your value,
Or you can’t convince them of the value you think you offer.
To visualize both of these approaches better, let’s use the pricing thermometer, as YC calls it.
The greater the gap between two nodes (i.e. value and price, or price and cost), the greater the incentive. If you’re selling at a price far greater than its unit cost, you are far more motivated to sell your product. On the flip side, if your product is priced far below the value and benefits you provide, a customer is more motivated to purchase your product.
Buyers vs Customers
To take it a step further, if you’re planning to scale your startup, what you’re looking for our customers, not buyers. Buyers are people who purchase your product once, and never again. They learned from their mistake. Your product either didn’t deliver the value you promised or the value they thought you would deliver. Customers are repeat purchasers. Why? Because they love your product. It addresses your customers’ needs (and ideally more) again and again. Your customers’ satisfaction is evergreen, rather than ephemeral.
When you only have buyers, you have to push your product to others. It’s the epitome of a door-to-door salesperson. Think Yellow Pages.
When you have customers, you feel the pull. Customers are drawn to you. They come back willingly on their own two feet. As Calvin French-Owen, co-founder of Segment, once said: “The biggest difference between our ideas pre-PMF vs. when we found it was this feeling of pull. Before we had any sort of fit, it always felt like we had to push our ideas on other people. We had to nag people to use the product.”
Value-based pricing is playing to win. Cost-plus pricing is playing to not lose. While the latter is convenient strategy when you’re a local business not looking to scale (i.e. coffee shop, local diner, local auto parts store, etc.), it’s incredibly difficult to scale with, especially as customer needs evolve. As you scale, your customers might include anyone from Microsoft who wants you to bring a sales engineer to integrate your product to a 5-person startup team who’s just testing your product out. With cost-plus pricing, you’ll be forced to determine price points on a case-by-case scenario. With value-based pricing, you can systemize dynamic pricing based on evolving customer needs. As their value received goes up, the price does too.
As the name suggests, to generate pull, we have to start from value. In this case, your value metric.
