Tag: benchmark

Posted on

When Should You Sell Your Shares As An Investor?

options, comparison, relative selection, when to sell

Recently, I stumbled across a captivating perspective on aphorisms via Tim Ferriss’ 5-Bullet Fridays. The Procrustean Bed. To be fair, before reading it on Tim’s newlsetter, I haven’t even heard of the concept. In one of his newsletters, he cites two incredible sources:

” ‘Something designed to produce conformity by unnatural or violent means. In Greek mythology, Procrustes was a robber who tied his victims to a bed, either stretching or cutting off their legs in order to make them fit it.’ (Source: Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms).

“Nassim Taleb has a related book of aphorisms titled The Bed of Procrustes. He explains the title thusly: ‘Every aphorism here is about a Procrustean bed of sorts—we humans, facing limits of knowledge, and things we do not observe, the unseen and the unknown, resolve tension by squeezing life and the world into crisp commoditized ideas, reductive categories, specific vocabularies, and prepackaged narratives, which, on the occasion, has explosive consequences.’ “

Down the investing rabbithole

There exist a number of aphorisms in the investing world. Chief of which reads “buy low, sell high.” Public market assets are quite liquid. Hypothetically, you can cash out whenever you want. Such liquidity has paved way for psychological inconsistencies to maximize gratification. In language with unnecessary jargon redacted, the option to sell is less motivated by rational thinking but more by fear of losing money – loss aversion. If you invest $100 into the public market, you can choose if you want to cash out at $95, $90, or $120 or $200. While there is a non-zero chance of you losing your entire principal, chances are you’ll liquidate your positions before that happens.

On the other hand, private market investments are illiquid. Upon investment, there is no liquid market in which you can sell immediately. At best, you have to wait 3-5 years before a rapidly marked-up investment creates opportunities for distributions in the secondary market. In other words, cash money while companies are still private. In the private markets, your principal either appreciates in multiples, rather than percentages, or bottoms out. Any in-betweens will neither make or break your investment strategy, and are often out of your immediate control. So in this case, illiquidity is a feature, not a bug.

The notion of exiting positions as a private market investor, therefore, gravitates towards a singularity – when you make a damn good investment. The only time you really have an option to choose whether you can sell or not, when otherwise, it becomes a tax write-off or a small exit outside of your immediate control.

When should you sell?

Should you ever sell?

And if you sell, how much should you sell?

To answer all the above questions…

With the help of Shawn and Ratan, I wrote a blogpost on how to think about exiting positions at the beginning of this year. A topic of which I am still very much a rookie at, which may be quite apparent in this essay as well. Nevertheless I’m going to try to elaborate more on the notion of selling positions as an early-stage investor.

In a memo earlier this year, Howard Marks wrote that there are two main reasons people choose to sell: “because they’re up and because they’re down.”

When “they’re down”

Let’s start with the latter. When “they’re down.” Like I mentioned before, there are often very few options to sell when things are down. While I’m not proud that these investors exist in the early-stage private markets, I’ve seen and heard of some investors who try to make a last ditch effort to regain some of their principal when the startup goes south. Selling off IP. As well as assets. Or forcing the founders to make a modest exit, so that the investors cap their downside. Maybe at best, this returns them 2x on their capital (rarely the case).

But let’s say that’s the “best” case scenario. And let’s say it’s a $25M Fund I, writing $250K checks. A 2x net return means they got back $750K. $750K is far from returning the $25M fund. Not even close to doing so. You need over 30 of those “exits” to just break even for your fund. So, if you’re an investor penny pinching here, you’re in the wrong game AND you’re going to lose out on the relationships with the founding team.

Why the wrong game?

Venture is a hit-driven business. It’s not about your batting average but about the magnitude of the home runs you hit. We bat for 100x returns, which also increases the probability of misses, determined by ability to return the fund or not. If you’re optimizing for local maximums, you’d probably do better as a public market investor.

And why do relationships matter?

One, the startup world is a smaller world than you think. People gossip.

Two, statistically, first swings at bat rarely work out. In research done by Cowboy Ventures, they found 80% of unicorns had at least one co-founder with previous founding experience. Paris Innovation Review also found that “86% started their project with a partner, after having created other companies.” Two of many other studies. So, even though this venture didn’t achieve financial success for an investor, the next might. Or the one after that. Assuming you bet on the right people, it’ll just take a couple iterations before timing, market, and product also match up. If you leave on bad terms on this deal, you won’t be able to get in when things do work out.

Three, what makes early-stage investing incredible is the relationships you build along the way. The ability to learn and grow with really smart people.

When “they’re up”

The question of if to sell often leads to controversial debate. I know of some investors who never sell any of their stock. And that if they sell, to them, it is a measure of their lack of faith in a founder. And they would never want to feel that they’re betting against the founders. That’s okay if you’re an angel. But if you’re a VC, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your investors, which means you’ll eventually have to sell.

The question of when to sell is often answered in broad strokes with laws around QSBS, which states that if you hold a qualified small business stock for longer than five years, you’re not subject to capital gains taxes in the US. But should you sell in the 6th year or 10th year? And under what market conditions? Do you sell in a boom market or on the precipice of a bust market? For a company you believe in the long-term potential, regardless of short-term fluctuations, I’m a big fan of what Bill Miller said in his Q3 2021 Market Letter. “We believe time, not timing, is the key to building wealth in the [market].”

But when things are going really, really, really well, it’s okay to take money off the table, even ahead of the end of the fund’s 10-year lifespan. In fact, Union Square Ventures generally sells 15-30% of their position in their top portfolio companies to distribute back to their LPs. Fred Wilson‘s personal framework lies around “[selling] one third of the position immediately, put one third away for a long term hold, and actively manage the other third.”

To most, including myself, the goalposts for selling how much seem arbitrary. USV sold 30% of their position in Twitter to return twice the entire fund. Menlo Ventures sold almost half of their stake in Uber when Softbank offered to buy. Whereas, Benchmark sold 15% of its Uber shares. I also have really smart friends who liquidate 50% of their stake in a token if a single cryptocurrency reaches double digit percentages of their net worth.

It’s all about the opportunity cost

In a game where arbitrage matters, and the “why” matter more than the “what”, it was love at first sight when Howard Marks shared his mental model on selling. He boils it down to the simple economic concept of opportunity cost:

  1. “If your investment thesis seems less valid than it did previously and/or the probability that it will prove accurate has declined, selling some or all of the holding is probably appropriate.
  2. “Likewise, if another investment comes along that appears to have more promise – to offer a superior risk-adjusted prospective return – it’s reasonable to reduce or eliminate existing holdings to make room for it.”

In sum, the option to sell is not an isolated decision, but rather one which considers the other investment opportunities you have available to you. For a number of VCs, this breaks into the calculus of recycling carry and what to use early distributions to invest in next. If you’re a VC with consistent AND high-quality deal flow, you’d probably want to reinvest. If you’re a VC without either of the two (i.e. only consistency or quality) or an emerging angel, your goal is to get both. In having both, you then have access to relative selection.

Photo by Sina Asgari 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!

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 or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

Posted on

The Hype Rorschach Test: How To Interpret Startup Hype When Everything’s Hyped

abstract, rorschach, hype, color

Not too long ago, I quoted Phil Libin, founder of All Turtles and mmhmm (which has been my favorite virtual camera in and most likely post-pandemic), who said: “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.”

Hype is the difference in expectation and reality. Or more specifically, the disproportionate surplus of expectation. A month ago, Sarah Tavel at Benchmark wrote: “Hype — the moment, either organic or manufactured, when the perception of a startup’s significance expands ahead of the startup’s lived reality — is an inevitability. And yet, it’s hard not to view hype with a mix of both awe and fear. Hype applied at the right moment can make a startup, while the wrong moment can doom it.”

Right now, we are in a hype market. And hype has taken the venture market by storm.

We’ve all been seeing this massive and increasing velocity and magnitude of capital deployment over the last few months. Startups are getting valued more and more. In the past, the pre-money valuations I was seeing ranged from 2-on-8 to 3-on-9. Or in not so esoteric VC jargon, $2M rounds on $8M pre-money valuations ($10M post-money) to $3M rounds on $9M pre-money valuations ($12M post-money). These days, I’ve been seeing 5-on-20 or 6-on-30. Some of which are still pre-traction, or even pre-product.

Founders love it. They’re getting capital on a discount. They’re getting greater sums of money for the same dilution. Investors who invested early love it. Their paper returns are going through the roof. When looking at IRR or TVPI (total value to paid-in capital – net measurement on realized and unrealized value), higher valuations in their portfolio companies are giving investors jet fuel to raise future funds. And greater exit values on acquisition or IPO mean great paydays for early investors. Elizabeth Yin of Hustle Fund says “this incentivizes investors to throw cash at hyped up companies, instead of less buzzy startups that may be better run.”

Sarah further elaborated, “In the reality distortion field of hype, consumers lean in and invest in a platform with their time and engagement ahead of when they otherwise might have. They pursue status-seeking-work, not because they necessarily get the reward for it relative to other uses of their time, but because they expect to be rewarded for it in the future, either because of the typical rich-get-richer effect of networks, or just in the status of being an early adopter in something that ends up being big.” The same is true for investors investing in hyped startups. It’s status-seeking work.

Frankly, if you’re a founder, this is a good time to be fundraising.

Why?

  1. Capital is increasingly digital.
  2. There is more than one vehicle of early stage capital.
  3. There are only two types of capital: Tactical capital and distribution capital.

1. Capital is increasingly digital.

Of the many things COVID did, the pandemic accelerated the timeline of the venture market. Pre-pandemic, when founders started fundraising, they’d book a week-long trip to the Bay Area to talk to investors sitting on Sand Hill Road. Most meetings that week would be intro meetings and coffee chats with a diverse cast of investors. Founders would then fly back to their home base and wait to hear back. And if they did, they would fly in once again. This process would inevitably repeat over and over, as the funnel grew tighter and tighter. And hopefully, at the end of a six-to-twelve month fundraise, they’d have one, maybe a few term sheets to choose from.

Over the past 18 months, every single investor took founder meetings over Zoom. And it caused many investors to realize that they can get deals done without ever having to meet founders in-person. Of course, the pandemic forced an overcorrection in investor habits. And now that we’re coming out of isolation, the future looks like: every intro meeting will now be over Zoom, but as founders get into the DD (due diligence) phases or in-depth conversations, then they’ll fly out to meet who they will marry.

  1. It saves founders so much time, so they can focus on actually building and delivering their product to their customers. And,
  2. VCs can meet many more founders than they previously thought possible.

This has enabled investors to invest across multiple geographies and build communities that breathe outside of their central hub or THE central hub – formerly the SF Bay Area. Rather, we’re seeing the growth of startup communities around the nation and around the world.

2. There is more than one vehicle for early stage capital.

While meetings have gone virtual, the past year has led to a proliferation of financing options in the market as well. Capital as jet fuel for your company is everywhere. Founders now have unprecedented optionality to fundraise on their terms. And that’s great!

Solo capitalists

Individual GPs who raise larger funds than angels and super angels, so that they can lead and price rounds. The best part is they make faster decisions that funds with multiple partners, which may require partner buy-in for investments.

Rolling funds

With their 506c general solicitation designation, emerging fund managers raise venture funds faster than ever and can start deploying capital sooner than traditional 506b funds.

Micro- and nano-VCs

Smaller venture funds with sub-ten million in fund size deploying strategic checks and often leverage deep GP expertise. No ownership targets, and can fill rounds fast after getting a lead investor.

Equity crowdfunding

Platforms, like Republic and SeedInvest, provide community-fueled capital to startups. Let your biggest fans and customers invest in the platform they want to see more of in the future. With recent regulations, you can also raise up to $5 million via non-accredited and accredited investors on these platforms.

Accelerators/incubators

Short three-month long programs, like Y Combinator, 500 Startups, and Techstars, that write small, fast checks (~$100K) to help you reach milestones. Little diligence and one to two interviews after the application. Often paired with an amazing investor and/or advisor network, workshops, powerful communities, and some, even opportunity funds to invest in your next round.

Syndicates/SPVs

Created for the purpose of making one investment into a company a syndicate lead loves, syndicates are another ad hoc way of raising capital from accredited investor fans, leveraging the brand of syndicate leads and deploying through SPVs. Or special purpose vehicles. I know… people in venture are really creative with their naming conventions. In turn, this increases discoverability and market awareness for your product.

SPACs and privates are going public again

Companies going public mean early employees have turned into overnight millionaires. In other words, accredited investors who are looking to grow their net worth further by investing in different asset classes. Because of the hype, investing in venture-scale businesses tend to be extremely lucrative. These investors also happen to have deep vertical expertise, high-value networks, as well as hiring networks to help startups grow faster. More investors, more early stage capital.

Growth and private equity are going upstream

Big players who usually sat downstream are moving earlier and earlier, raising or investing in venture funds and acceleration programs to capture venture returns. And as a function of such, LPs have increased percent distributions into the venture asset classes, just under different names.

Pipe

Pipe‘s existed before the pandemic, but founders have turned their eye towards different financing options, like Pipe. They turn your recurring revenue into upfront capital. Say a customer has an annual contract locked in with you, but is billed monthly. With Pipe, you can get all that promised revenue now to finance your startup’s growth, instead of having only bits and pieces of cash as your customers pay you monthly. Non-dilutive capital and low risk.

3. There are only two types of capital: Tactical capital and distribution capital.

There’s an increasingly barbell distribution in the market. Scott Kupor once told Mark Suster that: “The industry’s gonna bifurcate. You’re going to end up with the mega VCs. Let’s call them the Goldman Sachs of venture capital. Or the Blackrock of venture capital. And on the other end, you’re going to end up with niche. Little, small people who own some neighborhood whether it’s video, or payments, or physical security, cybersecurity, physical products, whatever. And people in the middle are going to get caught.”

Those “little, small” players have deep product and go-to-market expertise and networks. Their checks may be small. But for an early stage company still trying to figure out product-market fit, the resources, advice, and connections are invaluable to a startup’s growth. They’re often in the weeds with you. They check your blind side. And they genuinely empathize with the problems and frustrations you experience, having gone through them not too long ago themselves. Admittedly, many happen to be former or active operators and/or entrepreneurs.

On the flip side, you have the a16z’s and Sequoias on their 15th or 20th fund. Tried and true. Brilliant track record with funds consistently north of 25% IRR. Internal rate of return, or how fast their cash is appreciating annually. LPs love them because they know these funds are going to make them money. And as any investor knows, double down on your winners. More money for the same multiples means bigger returns.

The same is true for historical players, like Tiger, Coatue, and Insight, who wire you cash to scale. They assume far less risk. Which admittedly means a smaller multiple. And to compensate for a lower multiple, they invest large injections of capital. By the time you hit scale, you already know what strategies work. All you need is just more money in your winning strategies.

You find product-market fit with tactical capital. You find scale with distribution capital.

Product-market fit is the process of finding hype. When you stop pushing and start finding the pull in the market. Scale is the process of manufacturing hype.

The bear case

But there are downsides to hype. Last month, Nikhil, founding partner at Footwork, put it better than I ever could.

Source: Nikhil Basu Trivedi on next big thing

If I could add an 8th point to Nikhil’s analysis, it’d be that investors in today’s market are incentivized to “pump and dump” their investments. Early stage investors spike up the valuations, which leads to downstream investors like Tiger Global, Coatue, Insight, and Softbank doubling down on valuation bets. Once there’s a secondary market for private shares, early stage investors then liquidate their equity to growth investors who are seeking ownership targets, or just to get a slice of the pie. This creates an ecosystem of misaligned incentives, where early stage investors are no longer in it for the long run with founders. Great fund strategy that’ll make LPs happy campers, but it leaves founders with uncommitted, temporary partners.

Sundeep Peechu of Felicis Ventures has an amazing thread on how getting the right founder-investor fit right is a huge value add. And getting founder-investor fit takes time, and sometimes a trial by fire as well. After all, it’s a long-term marriage, rather than a one-night stand. Those who don’t spend enough time “dating” before “marriage” may find a rocky road ahead when things go south.

On a 9th point, underrepresented and underestimated founders are often swept under the rug. In a hype market, VCs are forced to make faster decisions, partly due to FOMO. With faster decisions, investors do less diligence before investing. Which to the earlier point of misaligned incentives, has amplified the already-existing notion of buyer’s remorse.

When VCs go back to habits of pattern recognition, they optimize for founder/startup traits they are already familiar with. And often times, their investment track record don’t include underrepresented populations. To play devil’s advocate, the good news is that there is also a simultaneous, but comparatively slow proliferation of diverse fund managers, who are more likely to take a deeper look at the problems that underestimated founders are tackling.

What kind of curve are we on?

When many others seem to think that this hype market will end soon, last week, I heard a very interesting take on the current venture market in a chat with Frank Wang, investor at Dell Technologies Capital. “VCs have been mispricing companies. We anchor ourselves on historical valuations. But these anchors could be wrong.

“We’re at the beginning of the hype and I don’t see it slowing down. VC has been so stagnant, and there hasn’t been any innovation in venture in a long time. Growth hasn’t slowed. And Tiger [Global] and Insight [Partners] is doing venture right. Hypothetically speaking, if you invest in everything, the IRR should be zero. They are returning 20% IRR because they seem to have found that VC rounds are mispriced. So, there can be an arbitrage.

“There will be a 20% market correction in the future, but we don’t know if that’s going to happen after 100% growth, or correct then grow again. The current hype is just another set of growing pains.”

Part of me is scared for the market correction. When many founders will be forced to raise flat or down rounds. The fact is we haven’t had a serious market correction since 2009. It’s going to happen. It’s not a question of “if” but rather “when” and “how much”, as Frank acutely points out.

Investors who deploy capital fast win on growing markets – on bull markets. Or investors who deploy across several years, or what the afore-mentioned Mark Suster defines as having “time diversity“, who win on correcting markets – bear markets. Think of the former as putting all your eggs in one basket. And if it’s the winning basket, you’re seen as an oracle. If not, well, you disappear into obscurity. Think of the latter as diversifying your risk appetite – a hedging strategy. More specifically, (1) being able to dollar-cost average, and (2) having exposure to multiple emerging trends and platforms. You’re not gonna lose massive amounts of capital even in a bear market, but you also will be losing out on the outsized returns on a bull market.

Only time will tell how seriously the market will correct and when. As well as who the “oracles” are.

In closing

At the end of the day, there are really smart capital allocators arguing for both sides of the hype market. Like with all progress, the windshield is often cloudier and more muddled than the rearview mirror. As Tim Urban once wrote, “You have to remember something about what it’s like to stand on a time graph: you can’t see what’s to your right.“

Edge
Source: Tim Urban’s “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence“

And as founders are going to some great term sheets from amazing investors, I love the way Ashmeet Sidana of Engineering Capital frames it earlier this year. “A company’s success makes a VC’s reputation; a VC’s success does not make a company’s reputation. In other words to take a concrete example, Google is a great company. Google is not a great company because Sequoia invested in them. Sequoia is a great venture firm because they invested in Google.”

Whether you, the founder, can live up to the hype or not depends on your ability to find distribution before your competitors do and before your incumbents find innovation. Unfortunately, great investors might help you get there with capital, but having them on your cap table doesn’t guarantee success.

Nevertheless, the interpretation of hype is always an interesting one. There will continue to be debates if a market, product, or trend is overhyped or underhyped. The former assumes that we are on track for a near-term logarithmic curve. The latter assumes an immediate future looking like an exponential curve. The interpretation is, in many ways, a Rorschach test of our perception of the future.

Over the course of human civilization, rather than an absolutely smooth distribution, we live something closer to what Tim Urban describes as:

S-Curves
Source: Tim Urban’s “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence“

If the regression line is the mean, then we’d see the ebbs and flows of hype looking something like a sinusoidal function. As Mark Twain once said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

It won’t be a smooth ride. The world never is. But that’s what makes the now worth living through.

Photo by Jené Stephaniuk on Unsplash

Thank you Frank for looking over earlier 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!

Posted on

Why User Hacks Are Awesome to Get to Product-Market Fit

user hacks, product-market fit

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 Andreessen wrote: “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.

Photo by Florian Krumm 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!

Posted on

Should you get an MBA as a founder?

library, should i get an mba, entrepreneurship

Over the years, the silver screen sure has mythologized the dropout founder – from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Mark Zuckerberg. While students who choose to dropout will continue to wow the world, and I believe it (otherwise, I wouldn’t be working with Danielle and Mike at 1517 Fund, if I didn’t), reality isn’t nearly as black and white. A Quora user requested my answer to this question recently. Why do business schools not make world class entrepreneurs? It presumed that great academic institutions, mainly B-schools, were no longer capable of minting world-class founders. Admittedly, it’s neither the first, nor will it be the last time I see or hear of it.

The MBA grads

I met a Fortune 100 executive last year who said that it was because of her Wharton MBA, that she catapulted her career in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Specifically, it was because of the research she did with her professor, Adam Grant, that led to opportunities and introductions down the road. On the same token, David Rogier of MasterClass met his first investor at the Stanford GSB. In fact, it was his business professor who wrote that first check, just under $500K.

Business schools are amazing institutions of learning, but admittedly most people go for the network and the brand. On the same note, I would never go as far as to say that business schools don’t mint world-class entrepreneurs. If we’re going by pure valuation, there’s a study that found a quarter of 2019’s top 50 highest valued startups had MBAs as founders.

And here are a few more founder names among many, not even including some of the most recognizable CEO names, like Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Tim Cook (Apple) and more.

  • Tony Xu and Evan Moore of Doordash
  • Michael Bloomberg of Bloomberg
  • Steve Hafner of Kayak
  • Aneel Bhusri and Dave Duffield of Workday
  • Jeremy Stoppelman of Yelp
  • Mark Pincus of Zynga

Having grit and having a business degree don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I work with founders who come from all manners of educational backgrounds: high school dropouts, college dropouts, BA/BSs, MBAs, PhDs, MDs, JDs, home schooled, and self-taught. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what kind of education someone has. What matters is what they do with the education.

What an Ivy League dean once told me

Back when I toured the US to decide which school to SIR (statement of intent to register) to, I met the dean of an Ivy League school. I thought he was going to spend our 20 minutes trying to convince me to come to his school. But he didn’t. Instead he said, “David, it doesn’t matter which school you choose to go to. While I would be honored to have you attend ours, what matters is what you do while you’re in school. You could choose to just take classes here or you could go to a CC, but choose to be a member of 5 clubs, 3 of which you take leadership positions in. And if I were to look at you in four years, I’d be prouder of the latter person you chose to become.”

Capping the risks you could take

When I graduated from Berkeley, I also came out with a certificate in entrepreneurship and technology. While I still believe to this day that no class can really teach one to be entrepreneurial, I learned quite a bit of the institutionalization around entrepreneurship – what exists in the ecosystem, some of the risks involved and how to hedge those bets. Yet, my greatest lessons on entrepreneurship didn’t came from a textbook. But rather, the risks I took outside the classroom. Because each time I made one, I internalized it.

To do great things, you have to first dream big and act on those big dreams. By definition, big dreams entail high degrees of risk. High risk, high reward. And with risk, you’ll make mistakes. So one of the rules I live by is that I will force myself to make mistakes – many mistakes – more than I can count. But my goal is to make each mistake at most once. Jeff Bezos once said, “If you can’t tolerate critics, don’t do anything new or interesting.”

Equally so, there’s a joke that Andy Rachleff, founder of Wealthfront and Benchmark, shares with the class he teaches at the Stanford GSB. While it pertains to VCs, I find it analogous to founders and mistakes, “What do you call a venture capitalist who’s never lost money on an investment?”

“Unemployed.”

But, what institutionalized academia does help you with is provide you a platform to make mistakes. Without the downside. Capped downsides, but it’s up to you, the student, to realize what could be the uncapped upside. Last month I chatted with a VC, who works at a top 10 firm. Our conversation eventually spiraled into her MBA at the Stanford GSB. There she took on projects that put her on the streets talking and building products for potential customers. Her professors taught her the hustle, but it was up to her to apply her learnings. While she chose the VC path after, her experience led her to become a trusted advisor to founders while she was still in school.

In closing

Similarly, world-class entrepreneurs aren’t decided by which school they go to, or lack thereof, but how and why they choose to spend the days, weeks, and years of the short time they have on Earth. And where they practice their entrepreneurial traits.

I would be pretentious to say that you should get an MBA if you want to be founder. Or that you should dropout if you want to be one. If we’re to look at the cards on the table, MBAs are expensive. A $200K investment. Almost half of what might be your pre-seed round. But I can’t tell you if it’s a great investment or not, nor should I. For an MBA, or for that matter, any higher education. I pose the two extremes – MBA (or a PhD too) and a dropout – as I presume most of our calculi’ fall somewhere in-between. Instead, I can merely pair with you with the variables and possible parameters that may be helpful towards your decision. So, I’ll pose a question: Are there rewards you seek in the process rather than just in the outcome (of an MBA/higher education)?

In other words, are there skills, relationships, gratitude, entertainment, and/or peace of mind you build in the journey that transcend the outcome of your decision on the future of your education?

Photo by Patrick Robert Doyle 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!

Posted on

#unfiltered #40 Questions That Hone Your Emotional Fitness

As I’m gearing up for a few projects, I spent the last few weeks pondering on a number of questions. And to stress test those questions, I spent the greater half of that time asking the people around me. But in the process of doing so, I found 10 of the above questions sponsored the most self-inquiry within myself and others.

The Questions

Elad Gil, legendary angel investor, said in an interview late last year that “every startup needs to have a single miracle… If your startup needs zero miracles to work, it probably isn’t a defensible startup. If your startup needs multiple miracles, it probably isn’t going to work.” Was there a defining miracle, when preparation met opportunity, that got you to where you are today?

Similarly: Life is some percent skill and effort and some percent of luck. How much has luck contributed to get you to where you are today?

In 2005, a Yahoo! Exec once told the Alexis Ohanian, founder of Reddit, that they were a “rounding error” which Alexis then framed on the company wall as motivation. Have there been chapters of your life that were defined by strong opposition – externally or internally – and your ambition to prove them wrong?

Pat Riley, Hall of Famer basketball coach, wrote in his book, The Winner Within, “You don’t wanna be the best at what you do; you wanna be the only one who does what you do.” What skills, experience, or mental models do you have where you are the only person – or in extremely rarified air – who can do what you do?

Quoting Jerry Colonna in his book Reboot, how are you complicit in creating the conditions you say you don’t want?

Norman Vincent Peale, author of the bestseller, The Power of Positive Thinking, once said, “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.” Entrepreneurs are people who pursue impossible odds and enjoy the journey of shooting for the moon to become world-class athletes. Telling them no is like telling a 7-year old they can’t become an NBA All-Star. Odds are they’re not going to succeed, but the process of pursuing that goal makes it worthwhile. And in doing so, they become a stronger, more resilient individual than never trying to pursue it in the first place. In your life, what have you done or would you do regardless of the outcome of the pursuit?

Andy Rachleff, founder of Wealthfront and Benchmark, once said in an interview: “If we’re batting a thousand or close to a thousand, we’ve done a really poor job.” If your probability of success is really high, the likelihood of a big win is extremely low. To win and not just focus on not losing, you have to take big risks. And as per the definition of risk, you’re more likely to fail. Have you had a failure in your life that contributed the most to where you are today?

On the same token, have there been alleged setbacks turned out to be a blessings in disguise? Or, were there “misfortunes” that turned out to be fortunes?

Let’s say life is a game blackjack. If the first card you drew represents your journey prior to 2020 – face up – and the second card exemplifies your life from 2020 till now – face down, which two cards did you draw? And would you continue “hitting” knowing the hand you’re dealt?

I saw in a Quora thread once, “When you are happy you enjoy the music, but when you are sad you understand the lyrics.” When you were in your lowest of lows, were there words, phrases, or lessons that had profoundly new meaning to them?

Desmond Tutu, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, once said, “My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together.” So, to borrow his words, what are the common themes between moments you’ve given up your humanity, either individually or collectively?

What is the narrative that you find most compelling when your inner weather is the most turbulent?

Photo by Johannes Plenio 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!

Posted on

How Do We Welcome the Founder Narratives Behind the Curtains

Being a founder is one of the toughest jobs in the world. Resilience and grit are two (or one) of the indispensable traits of a 5-star entrepreneur. And most, if not all, investors establish grit as the baseline in founder selection, as opposed to the topline in various other careers. While I don’t mean to discount other career paths, all of which I have incredible admiration for, I can only speak in the world of venture where I spend most of my time in.

Yet that same persistence could very much be the same double-edged sword that makes or breaks you. In October, Ryan Caldbeck wrote about his decision to step down as CEO of CircleUp. It was and is one of the most candid pieces I’ve read about the founder journey to date. In it, one section particularly stood out. “Persistence was my superpower. But now I’ve now come to understand that persistence is a double-edged sword, and my decision not to take a break, to not take more off my plate, hurt me, my family and the company. That was the biggest mistake of my career.”

In the founder journey, there exist many moments a founder’s resilience is stress-tested. To get their first customer. To scale to a team of 10. 30. 100. To get their first investor. To raise their first institutional round. But the last thing a founding team needs is for some of their greatest evangelists – their investors – to create counterproductive friction. While it’s presumptuous of me to say that all friction is counterproductive, some friction and additional perspective is necessary to help founders make better, more informed decisions.

In his same essay, Ryan shares a feedback email he wrote to his former board member, as that member’s participation in the company had become “counterproductive”, “vindictive”, and even “destructive”. Unfortunately, these stories happen more often than I would like. It is why many founders believe investors are the gatekeepers to their startup’s success. But we’re not. We don’t have the right to be. On the same token, that’s exactly why it’s so important for founders to deeply consider founder-investor fit.

Michael Freeman found in 2017 that entrepreneurs are 50% more likely to report a mental health condition. Being a founder is lonely. But it doesn’t have to be.

Anton Ego’s words

A few weekends back, my friend and I re-watched my favorite movie. And as the movie faded into music, Anton Ego’s words echoed in my head. While it’s not the first time this quote has appeared in the venture world, it certainly won’t be the last:

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.

“Last night, I experienced something new, an extra-ordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau’s famous motto: ‘Anyone can cook.’ But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau’s, who is, in this critic’s opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau’s soon, hungry for more.”

For VCs

One of my favorite investors often says, “stay positive, test negative.” While the greatest strength an entrepreneur can have may be grit, the greatest strength an investor can have is optimism.

Optimism in the world. In markets. In startups. But especially people. That even if one venture doesn’t work out, for the people I’ve had the opportunity to stand behind, I know one of their pursuits eventually will. It’s only a matter of time and luck.

That same optimism is a leading indicator for open-mindedness. As people who build our careers at the top of the funnel, it is our obligation to cast our net outside of what is most familiar to us. There will be a number of ideas and belief systems entrepreneurs have that challenge our own. And in many ways they should, as founders are on the frontlines of innovation, they are aiming to be “right on the non-consensus“, to quote Andy Rachleff. When I first got into VC, that same investor who said “stay positive, test negative”, shared another word of advice, “Some of the best ideas seem crazy at first.“

George Bernard Shaw once said something similar as well, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Optimism isn’t only isolated to ideas, but also to the people – the “unreasonable” women and men – behind those ideas and the decisions they make. These innovators aren’t perfect, yet somehow many of us expect them to be. And that dichotomy has created this unfair dynamic that stunts innovation more than we think. I have so much respect for the funds that have set aside capital to invest in founders’ wellbeing, like Felicis Ventures, Freestyle, Crosscut, and more. And I hope many more will follow.

The stories we tell

Over the past few months, I’ve had a number of conversations with founders, friends, and readers about “mental fitness” and “emotional hygiene”. If I could borrow two of my friends’ vernacular. And I’ve learned that we humans are such amazing storytellers.

These powerful narratives has kept the human race alive all these millennia. Before the written word, it was the art of the spoken word, passed down from generation to generation, that held tales of ancestral origins of where to hunt and where to migrate to each season. The same stories have started and ended wars. They have helped us conquer impossible odds. Some narratives today are compelling enough for us to buy a new product or to end a conglomerate.

Yet these exact stories, especially the ones we tell ourselves, can cause stress, anxiety, and depression. The ones that the people we care about and respect tell us can carry even more weight. From role models, parents, managers, friends, mentors, teachers, peers, and more.

In closing

I realized, in conversation, these past few autumn months, more than ever, the power of sharing those stories. To share that we’re not alone and that together, we may learn more than the sum of our individual parts. I understand that it’s no easy task. Even for myself, I debated for the longest time whether to share that I’m not at my best right now. But I’m glad I did. The feedback from the people around me I’ve gotten since brought forth clarity and solace. Similarly, six of my friends, who publicly shared how they get through their toughest times (Pt 1, Pt 2), told me after how grateful they were to have an enormous weight lifted off their shoulders.

Top photo by Nong Vang 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!

Posted on

Before the Close – How to Increase the Chance of Raising Capital

A number of founders ask me for fundraising advice. While they come in different magnitudes, one of the common themes is: “I’ve had many investor meetings, but I still can’t get a term sheet. What am I doing wrong? What do I need to do or to say to get a yes?”

To preface, I don’t have the one-size-fit-all solution. Neither do I think there is a one-size-fit-all solution. Each investor is looking for something different. And while theses often rhyme, the “A-ha!” moment for each investor is a culmination of their own professional and life experiences. This anecdote is, by no means, prescriptive, but another perspective that may help you when fundraising, if you’re not getting the results you want. This won’t help you cheat the system. If you still have a shoddy product or an unambitious team, you’re still probably not going to get any external capital.

One thing I learned when I was on the operating side of the table is: When you want money, ask for advice. When you want advice, ask for money. It’s, admittedly, a slightly roundabout way to get:

  1. Investor interest,
  2. And reference points for milestones to hit.

But it’s worked for me. Why? Because you’re fighting in a highly-competitive, heavily-saturated market of attention – investor attention. This method merely helps you increase the potential surface area of interaction and visibility, to give you time in front of an investor to prove yourself.

Investors are expected to jump into a long term marriage with founders, while, for the most part, only given a small cross-section in your founding journey to evaluate you. It’s as if you chose to marry someone for life you’ve only met 60-90 days ago. While angels and some people have the courage and the conviction to do that, most investors like to err on the side of caution. Contrary to popular belief, venture capitalists are extremely risk-averse. They look for risk-adjusted bets. And if you can prove to them – either through traction or an earned secret – that you’re not just a rounding error, you’ll make their lives a lot easier.

So, let me elaborate.

When you want money, ask for advice.

As you’re growing your business and you want to show you are, ask investors for advice. Tell them. “So I’ve been growing at X% MoM, and I’ve gotten to Y # of users. I’m thinking about pursuing this Z as my next priority. And this is how I plan to A/B test it. What do you think?”

And if you keep these investors in the loop the entire time and ask and follow-up on their advice, at some point, they’d think and ask, “Damn, this is an epic business. Will you just take my money?”

So, what are good numbers?

The Rule of 40 is a rough rule of thumb many investors use for consumer tech markets. Month-over-month growth rate plus profit should be greater than or equal to 40. So you can be growing 50% MoM, but burning money with -10% profit, aka costs are greater than your revenue. Or you can be growing 30% MoM, but gaining 10% profit every month. And if you’ve got 10s of 1000s of users, you’re on solid ground. Better yet, one of the biggest expenses is increasing server capacity costs.

For more reference points on ideal consumer startup numbers, check out this blog post I wrote last year.

For enterprise/B2B SaaS, somewhere along the lines of 10-15% MoM growth. With at least 1 key customer logo. And 5 publicly referenceable customers.

Of course, the Rule of 40 did not age well for certain industries in 2020.

When you want advice, ask for money.

When you ask for money most of the time, investors, partners, and potential customers will say no, especially if you’re super early on and don’t have a background or track record as an entrepreneur. So when they do say no, I like to ask them one of my favorite questions: “What do I need to bring you for you to unconditionally say yes?” Then, they’ll tell me what they want to see out of our product or our business. These, especially if they’re reinforced independently across multiple different individuals in your ecosystem, should be your North Star metrics. And when you do put their advice to action, be sure to follow up with the results to their implemented advice.

  1. You either do what they recommended. And show them what happened. And what’s next.
  2. Or you don’t do what they recommended. But show that you heavily considered their recommendation. What you did instead. Why you chose to do what you did instead. And what’s next.

To take it one step further, once I ask the above question to have a reference point for growth trajectory, I ask: “Who is the smartest person(s) known to achieve X (or in Y)?” with X being the answer you got via the previous question. And Y being the industry you’re tackling.

For instance, I’d recommend:

Then, go to that person or those people and say, “Hey Jennifer, [investor name] said if there’s one person I had to talk to about X, I have to talk to you.” Feel free to use my cold email “template” as reference, if you’re unsure of what else to say.

If you use this tactic again and again, eventually you’ll build a family of unofficial (maybe even official) mentors and advisors, even if you never explicitly call them that. Not necessarily asking for money all the time. But asking for money might help you ignite the spark for this positive feedback loop.

In closing

When I was on the operating side, a brilliant founder with 2 multi-million dollar exits once told me: “Always be selling. Always be fundraising. And always be hiring.”

I didn’t really get it then. In fact, I didn’t get it the entire time I was on the other side of the table. What do you mean “Always be fundraising”? Should I just be asking for money all the time? What about the business?

It wasn’t until I made my way into VC at SkyDeck that I realized the depth of his words. Keep people you eventually want to fundraise from and hire in the loop about what you’re building. Keep them excited. Build a relationship beyond something transactional. Build a friendship.

Jeff Bezos put it best when he said:

“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.

“At Amazon we like things to work in five to seven years. We’re willing to plant seeds, let them grow and we’re very stubborn. We say we’re stubborn on vision and flexible on details.”

Photo by Frame Harirak 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!

Posted on

Fantastic Unicorns and Where to Find Them

As a venture scout and as someone who loves helping pre-seed/seed startups before they get to the A, I get asked this one question more often than I expect. “David, do you think this is a good idea?” Most of the time, admittedly, I don’t know. Why? I’m not the core user. I wouldn’t count myself as an early adopter who could become a power user, outside of pure curiosity. I’m not their customer. To quote Michael Seibel of Y Combinator,

… “customers are the gatekeepers of the startups world.” Then comes the question, if customers are the gatekeepers to the venture world, how do you know if you’re on to something if you’re any one of the below:

  • Pre-product,
  • Pre-traction,
  • And/or pre-revenue?

This blog post isn’t designed to be the crystal ball to all your problems. I have to disappoint. I’m a Muggle without the power of Divination. But instead, let me share 3 mental models that might help a budding founder find idea-market fit. Let’s call it a tracker’s kit that may increase your chances at finding a unicorn.

  1. Frustration
  2. The highly fragmented industry with low NPS
  3. Right on non-consensus
Continue reading “Fantastic Unicorns and Where to Find Them”
Posted on

Myths around Startups and Business Ideas

In a number of recent conversations with friends outside of venture and “aspiring entrepreneurs”, a couple myths, which I’m going to loosely define here as popular beliefs held by many people, were brought to my attention. 4 in particular.

  1. If I have a great idea and build it, it’ll sell itself.
  2. That idea/startup is over-hyped.
  3. The startup/venture capital landscape is over-saturated.
  4. If it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s not a good idea.

Quite fortuitously, a question on Quora also inspired this post and discussion.

If I have a great idea and build it, it’ll sell itself.

Unfortunately, most times, it won’t. As Reid Hoffman puts it: “A good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.” As a founder, you have to think like a salesperson (for enterprise/B2B businesses) or a marketer (for consumer/B2C businesses). People have to know about what you’re building. ’Cause frankly you could build the world’s best time machine in your basement, but if no one knows, it’s just a time machine in your basement. Probably a great story to tell for Hollywood one day (even then you still need people to find out), but not for a business.

That idea/startup is over-hyped.

I’ll be honest. This really isn’t a myth, more of a common saying.

Maybe so, at the cross-section in time in which you’re looking at it. But if you rewind a couple months or a year or 2 years ago, they were under-hyped. In fact, there’s a good chance no one cared. While everyone has a different technical definition of over- and under-hyped, by the numbers, time will tell if it’ll be a sustainable business or not. If it’s keeping north of 40% retention even 6 months after the hype, we’re in for a breadwinner.

Take Zoom, for example. Pre-COVID, if you asked any rational tech investor, “would you invest in Slack or Zoom?” Most would say Slack. Zoom existed, but many weren’t extremely bullish on it. Today, well, that may be a different story. As of this morning (Oct. 12, 2020), while I’m editing this post before the market opens, the stock price of Zoom is $492 (and same change). Approximately 343% higher than it was on March 17th, the first day of the Bay Area shelter-in-place. And, right now, the price of Slack is $31. Approximately 56% up from the beginning of quarantine.

Neither are startups anymore, but the analogy holds. Also, a lesson that predictions, even by experts, can be wrong.

The startup/venture capital landscape is over-saturated.

“There’s too much money being invested (wasted) on startups.”

From the outside, it may very well look that way. Every day, every week we see this startup gets funded for $X million or that startup gets funded for $YY million. According to the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), $133 billion were invested into startups last year. Yet, it pales in comparison to the capital that’s traded in the public markets.

VC funds see thousands of startup pitches a year. Per partner (most funds 2–3 partners), they each invest in 3–5 per year (aka about once per quarter). Meaning >99% of startups that a single VC sees are not getting funded by them. That doesn’t mean 99% never get funded, but it’s just to illustrate that proportionally, capital isn’t being spent willy-nilly.

If we look at it from a macro-economic perspective, if we are reaching saturation in the startup market, we should be getting closer to perfect competition. And in a perfectly competitive market, profit margins are zero. The thing is profits aren’t nearing zero in the startup/venture capital market. In fact, though the median fund isn’t returning much on invested capital. A good fund is returning 3–5x. A great one >5x. And well, if you were in Chris Sacca’s first fund, which included Uber, Twitter, and more, 250x MOIC. That’s $250 returned on every $1 invested.

If it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s not a good idea.

Finding Product-Market Fit and “Idea-Market Fit”

Revolutionary ideas aren’t meant to conform. If an idea is truly ground-breaking, people have yet to be conditioned to think that a startup idea is great or not. As Andy Rachleff, co-founder of Wealthfront and Benchmark Capital, puts it: “you want to be right on the non-consensus.” Think Uber and Airbnb in 2008. If you asked me to jump in a stranger’s car to go somewhere then, I would have thought you were crazy. Same with living in a stranger’s home. I write more about being right on the non-consensus here and in this blog post.

Frankly, you may not be the target market. You’re not the customer that startup is serving. The constant reminder we, on the venture capital side of the table, have is to stop thinking that we are the core user for a product. Most products are not made for us. Equally, when a founder comes to us pre-traction and asks us “Is this a good idea?”, most of the time I don’t know. The numbers (will) prove if it’s a good idea or not. Unless I am their target audience, I don’t have a lot to weigh in on. I can only check, from least important to most important:

  1. How big is the market + growth rate
  2. Does the founder(s) have a unique insight into the industry that all the other players are overlooking or underestimating or don’t know at all? And will this insight keep incumbents at bay at least until this startup reaches product-market fit?
  3. How obsessed about the problem space is the founder/team, which is a proxy for grit and resilience in the longer run? And obsession is an early sign of (1) their current level of domain expertise/navigating the “idea maze”, and (2) and their potential to gain more expertise. If we take the equation for a line, y = mx + b. As early-stage investors, we invest in “m’s” not “b’s”.

In closing

While I know not everyone echoes these thoughts, hopefully, this post can provide more context to some of the entrepreneurial motions we’re seeing today. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt. I’m an optimist by nature and by function of my job. Just as a VC I respect told me when I first started 4 years back,

“If you’re going to pursue a career in venture, by nature of the job, you have to be an optimist.”

Happened to also be one of the VCs who shared his thoughts for my little research project on inspiration and frustration last week.

Photo by K. Mitch Hodge 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!

Posted on

VCs = Gatekeepers?

vc gatekeepers, gate

Not too long ago, I had the fortune of chatting with a fascinating product mind. During our delightful conversation, she asked me:

Are VCs the gatekeepers of ideas?

…referencing Michael Seibel‘s recent string of tweets:

And I’m in complete accordance. I want to specifically underscore 2 of Michael’s sentences.

… and…

The only ‘exception’ to this ‘rule’ would be if investors themselves were the target market for the product. At the same time, I can see how the venture industry has led her and many others to believe otherwise. So I thought I’d elaborate more through this post.

Continue reading “VCs = Gatekeepers?”
Proudly powered by WordPress