Last week, Youngrok and I finally launched our episode together on Superclusters. In the midst of it all, we wrestle with the balance between the complexity and simplicity of questions to get our desired answer. Of course, we made many an allusion to the DGQ series. One of which, you’ll find below.
In many ways, I started the DGQ series as a promise to myself to uncover the questions that yield the most fascinating answers. Questions that unearth answers “hidden in plain sight”. Those that help us read between the lines.
Superclusters, in many ways, is my conduit to not only interview some of my favorite people in the LP landscape, but also the opportunity to ask the perfect question to each guest. Which you’ll see in some of the below examples.
Asking Abe Finkelstein about being a Pitfall Explorer and how it relates to patience (1:04:56 in S2E1)
What Ben Choi’s childhood was like (2:44 in S1E6) and how proposing to his wife affects how he thinks about pitching (1:05:47 in S1E6)
How selling baseball cards as a kid helped Samir Kaji get better at sales (45:05 in S1E8)
In doing so, I sometimes lose myself in the nuance. And in those times, which happen more often than I’d like to admit, the questions that yield the best answers are the simplest ones. No added flare. No research-flexing moments. Where I don’t lead the witness. And I just ask the question. In its simplest form.
For the purpose of this essay, to make this more concrete, let’s focus on a question LPs often ask GPs.
“Tell me about this investment you made.“
In my mind, ridiculously simple question. Younger me would call that a lazy question. In all fairness, it would be if one was not intentionally aware about the kind of answer they were looking to hear OR not hear.
The laziness comes from regressing to the template, the model, the ‘what.’ But not the ‘why’ the question is being asked, and ‘how’ it should be interpreted. For those who struggle to understand the first principles of actions and questions, I’d highly recommend reading Simon Sinek’s Start with Why, but I digress.
Circling back, every GP talks about their portfolio founders differently. If two independent thinkers have both invested Company A, they might have different answers. Won’t always be true, but if you look at two portfolios that are relatively correlated in their underlying assets AND they arrive at those answers in the same way, one does wonder if it’s worth diversifying to other managers with different theses and/or approaches.
But that’s exactly what makes this simple question (but if you want to debate semantics, statement) special. When all else is equal, VCs are left to their own devices unbounded from artificial parameters.
Then take that answer and compare and contrast it to how other GPs you know well or have invested in already. How do they answer the same question for the exact same investment? How much are those answers correlated?
It matters less that the facts are the same. Albeit, useful to know how each investor does their own homework pre- and post-investment. But more so, it’s a question on thoughtfulness. How well does each investor really know their investments? How does it compare to the answer of a GP I admire for their thoughtfulness and intentionality?
(Part of the big reason I don’t like investing in syndicates because most outsource their decision-making to larger logos in VCs. On top of that, most syndicate memos are rather paltry when it comes to information.)
The question itself is also a test of observation and self-awareness. How well do you really know the founder? Were you intentional with how you built that relationship with the founder? How does it compare to the founder’s own self-reflection? It’s also the same reason I love Doug Leone’s question, which highlights how aware one is of the people around them. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?
Warren Buffett once described Charlie Munger as “the best thirty-second mind in the world. He goes from A to Z in one go. He sees the essence of everything even before you finish the sentence.” Moreover in his 2023 Berkshire annual letter, he wrote one of the most thoughtful homages ever written.
As early-stage investors, as belief checks, as people who bet on the nonobvious before it becomes obvious, we invest in extraordinary companies. I really like the way Chris Paikdescribes what we do. “Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.”
Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence
And just like there are certain companies that can’t be described in a single sentence — not the Uber for X, or the Google for Y — their founders who are even more complex than a business idea cannot be described by a single sentence either. Many GPs I come across often reduce a founder’s brilliance to the logos on their resume or the diplomas hanging on their walls. But if we bet right, the founders are a lot more than just that.
Of course, the same applies to LPs who describe the GPs they invest in.
In hopes this would be helpful to you, personally some areas I find fascinating in founders and emerging GPs and, hell just in, people in general include:
Their selfish motivations (the less glamorous ones) — Why do this when they can be literally doing anything else? Many of which can help them get rich faster.
What part of their past are they running towards and what are they running away from?
All the product pivots (thesis pivots) to date and why. I love inflection points.
If they were to do a TED talk on a subject that’s not what they’re currently building, what would it be?
Who do they admire? Who are their mentor figures?
What kind of content do they consume? How do they think about their information diet?
What promises have they made to themselves? No matter how small or big. Which have they kept? Which have they not?
How do they think about mentoring/training/upskilling the next generation of talent at their company/firm?
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.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Recently, I’ve been chatting with a number of GPs and LPs looking to make their first hires. Many of whom hadn’t built a team prior. Now I’m no expert, nor would I ever claim to be one. But I’ve been very lucky to hire and work with some stellar talent.
They asked me how I think about interviewing, selecting, as well as onboarding. I’ll save the last of which for a future blogpost, but for the purpose of this one, if you frequent this blog, you’ll know I love good questions. And well, I get really really nerdy about them. So, as I shared my four favorite, nonobvious interview questions as of late with them (some I’ve used more than others), I will also share them with you.
I won’t cover the table stakes. Why are you excited to be here? What skills are you a B+/A- at? And what are you A+++ in? Why you? Etc.
If you had to hire everyone based only on you knowing how good they are at a certain video game, what video game would you pick?
I recently heard Patrick O’Shaughnessy ask that question to a guest on his podcast, and I found it inextricably profound. While the question was directed at Palmer Luckey, who has a past in video games, the words “video game” can easily be replaced by any other activity or topic of choice and be equally as revealing. Be it sports. Or an art form. Or how they grasp a certain topic. Even, putting them in front of a Nobel Prize winner and see how quickly they realize they’re in front of one.
The last example may be stretching it a bit, but has its origin in one of my favorite fun facts about the CRT — the cognitive reflection test. Effectively, a test designed to ask the minimum number of questions in order to determine someone’s intelligence. But in a parodical interpretation of the test, two of the smartest minds in the world, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, decided to make an even shorter version of the test to measure one’s intelligence. The test would be to see that if one were to put you in front of Amos Tversky, one of the most humble human beings out there despite his intelligence, how long it would take you to realize that the person sitting across from you was smarter than you. The shorter it took you, the smarter you were. But I digress (although there’s your fun fact for the day).
The reality is that any activity that requires a great amount of detail, nuance, resilience, frustration and failure probably qualify to be mad-libbed into that question. Nevertheless, it’s quite interesting to see what someone would suggest, and a great way of:
Assessing how deep a candidate can go deep on a particular subject,
How well they can relay that depth of knowledge to a layperson, and
How they build a framework around that.
I hate surprises. Can you tell me something that might go wrong now so that I’m not surprised when it happens?
Simon Sinek has always been one for great soundbites. And the above question is no exception. It’s a great way of asking what is one of your weaknesses. Without asking what is your weakness? Most, if not all hiring managers are probably accustomed to getting a rose-tinted “weakness” that turns out is a strength when asking the weakness question to candidates. It is, after all, in the candidate’s best interest to appear the most suitable for the job description as possible. And the JD doesn’t include anything about having weaknesses. Only strengths… and responsibilities.
At the same time, while the weakness question makes sense, when there is an honest answer, I’ve seen as many hiring managers use the associated answer to discount a candidate’s ability to succeed in the role, before given the chance. While this is still throwing caution to the wind, for one to be open-minded when asking this question, at the very least, you’re more likely to get an honest one. At least until this question becomes extremely popular.
Another version, thought a lot more subtle, is: What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?
I won’t get into the nuances here, but if you’re curious for a deeper dive, would recommend reading this blogpost. The TL;DR is that when we describe others (especially those we know well), we often use adjectives that juxtapose how we see ourselves in relation to them.
What did you do in your last role that no one else in that role has ever done?
This is one of my favorite professors, Janet Brady’s, favorite questions, and ever since I learned of it, it’s been mine as well. Your mileage may vary. Of particular note, I look for talent with entrepreneurial natures to them. Most of what I work on are usually pre-product-market fit in nature. In other times, and not mutually exclusive to the former, requires us to re-examine the status quo. What got us here — as a team, as a company, as an industry, or as a citizen of the world — may not get us there.
And there is bias here in that I enjoy working with people who push the boundaries rather than let the boundaries push them. And I love people who have asked the question “What if?” in the past and has successfully executed against that, even if it meant they had to try, try again.
What haven’t you achieved that you want to achieve?
Steven Rosenblatt has always been world-class at hiring. By far, one of the best minds when it comes to scaling teams. For a deeper dive, and some of his other go-to questions, I highly recommend checking out this blogpost.
When you’re building a world-class team, you need people to self-select themselves in and out of the culture in which you want to build. Whether it’s Pulley’s culture of move fast and ruthlessly prioritize to build a high-performance “sports team or orchestra” or On Deck’s non-values, it’s about making it clear that you’re in not because you’re peeking through rose-tinted glasses, but that you know full well, that you will be confronted by reality, yet you still remain optimistic. To do that, you need:
A tight knit team who hold the same values
And folks with a chip on their shoulder
The latter is the essence of what Steven gets at with the above question. And does one’s selfish motivation align with where the company wants to go and what the role will entail.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Last Friday, one of the greatest operators and super-connectors I know, who also moonlights as an angel investor, asked me: How do I know if I should professionalize as an investor?
Undeniably, a great question. But before I share my answer to her question, I thought it’d be best if I first elaborated on what “professionalize” means in this context. It’s a term we have used more than once here at On Deck Angels. And as a result, it has spilled over into the vocabulary I use even outside of venture. But in the context of investing, professionalize is where one would go from an amateur, part-time investor to a full-time investor. Either working at a fund, starting their own syndicate or fund, or as a full-time angel.
The thing is, to be a career startup investor, you have to be lucky. The capital required to have a seat at the poker table is high. While there are many platforms — from Republic to Wefunder to Titan Invest — that are working to democratize access, the truth, for now, still is that to access the best deals, you’re either lucky as a network leader or as a capital allocator. In other words, do you know the best and most entrepreneurial talent? And do you have a frick-ton of money?
And given that some element of luck on top of skill is table stakes, I felt the best response I could give wasn’t in the form of a statement or opinion, but in the form of five questions.
Why do you invest? What compels you to continue investing?
What are two positive adjectives you would use to describe your sibling*? What are two negative adjectives you would use to describe your sibling*?
*Or life partner, or someone you know really really well.
Have you ever laid someone off and regretted it? Why did you regret it? And at point after the event did you notice your regret?
If not… as an investor, have you ever said no to a founder and regretted it? Why did you regret it? And at point after the event did you notice your regret?
Of the five people you hang out with most, what are common traits that at least two of them have? List as many as you can.
If you were to start a fund or syndicate tomorrow, what would you call it?
So before you keep reading, I would recommend pausing. And to pull out a notepad and jot your own answers down to the questions above. It’s a useful exercise I ask myself, and evidently others as well, if you’re looking to professionalize as an investor.
When you’re ready, keep reading beyond the below image, as I’ll share my rationale behind the above questions.
*Author’s Note: Effectively, I was trying to space out the questions from the rationale of why I ask them below as much as I could, so that the below text wouldn’t influence your thinking (if you plan on doing this exercise).
Motivation – Why are you an investor? The underlying motivation matters. Are you in it for money? To pay it forward? To prove someone or some notion wrong? How fleeting is your motivation? Raising a fund is a decade-long relationship. Raising three is two-decades long of a relationship. So, the question is how deep is your motivation. Can it last multiple decades?
Strengths/weaknesses – This question is adapted from Doug Leone’s. People often describe others in comparison to themselves. For example, if I say Joanna is funny, by transitive property, I believe Joanna is funnier than I am. If I say Kai is smart, I believe Kai is smarter than I am. I often find this question to be much more useful in understanding a person than just asking for their strengths and weaknesses. After all, adjectives are, by definition, comparative words.
Standards – This question is a riff on Matt Mochary’s. If your answer to the question is no, then you don’t know your bar for excellence. Why does your bar matter? There’s a saying that A-players hire other A-players because they know just much it takes to win. B-players, on the other hand, know they’re not as good as A-players, but on average, still want to feel superior, so they hire C-players. A-players can stand B-players, but can’t stand C-players. So eventually, the A-players leave your company. Why does this matter for an investor? You need to be able to differentiate between an A-player and a B-player. The difference between a great founder and a good founder is a fine line, and most people miss it. If you want to have a chance at being a top decile investor, you need to know. After all, people often learn more from loss than from gain. For the second part of the question, being a great investor — or to be fair, a great anything — is all about the velocity in which you learn. Speed and direction.
Deal flow – This question is a proxy of where you’re going to the majority of your early deal flow, and likely who and where you’re connected the most with. The follow up would be do you get enough quality deal flow from people with these traits. In other words, if you had the capital, are you confident you could put at least $250K to use every quarter? If not, stay a scout or raise a syndicate instead of a fund. Until you can build up to this.
Legacy – Building a fund is multi-generational. Just three funds would be a 20-year relationship. And the best funds often outlive the founder(s) themselves. So the biggest question here is what kind of legacy are you trying to build? Or are you trying to build one? This legacy, founded upon your values, determines how you plan for succession and who you raise to be your firm’s next leaders.
In closing
Of course, the five questions aren’t an end-all-be-all. There’s still the ability to think through fund strategy and portfolio construction. There’s fund admin. The back office. Tech stack. Picking strategic markets where you have an unfair advantage. That said, if you can answer the above questions well, you’ll have a compelling narrative to either fundraise from LPs or join a larger fund.
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, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
“Readily available quantitative information about the present is not gonna give you they key to the castle. […] If everyone has all the company data today and the means to massage it, how do you get a knowledge advantage?
“The answer is you have to either:
Somehow do a better job of massaging the current data, which is challenging; or you have to
Be better at making qualitative judgments; or you have to
Be better at figuring out what the future holds.”
Those are the words of the great Howard Marks on a recent Acquired episode.
When most of us first learned economics — be it in high school or college, we learned of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. In short, if you had access to both public and private information, you would be capable of generating outsized returns that outperformed the market.
The truth is that reality differs quite a bit. And that’s especially in early-stage investing. Investors often make investment decisions with both public and private information at their disposal. There is admittedly still some level of asymmetric information, but that depends on deep of a diligence the investors do. Yet despite the closest thing to a strong efficiency, there’s still a large delta between the top half and bottom half of investors. The gap widens further when you compare with the top quartile. And the top decile. And the top percentile. Truly a power law distribution.
Massaging the data
I’m no data scientist, although I am obsessed with data. But there are people who are, and among them, people I deeply respect for their opinion.
There’s been this relentless, possibly ill-placed focus on growth (at all costs) over the last two years. Oftentimes, not even revenue growth, but for consumer startups, user growth.
I want to say I first heard of this from a Garry Tan video. The job of a founder pre-product-market fit (pre-PMF) is to catch lightning in a bottle. The job post-PMF is to keep lightning in that bottle. Two different problems. Many founders ended up focusing on or were forced to focus on (as a function of taking venture money) scale before they caught lightning in that bottle. They spent less time on A/B testing to find a global maximum, and ended up optimizing for a local maximum.
Today, or at least as of September 2022, there’s this ‘new’ focus on retention and profitability (at all costs). But there’s no one-size-fit-all for startups. As a founder, you need to find the metric that you should be optimizing for — a sign that your customers love your product. Whether it’s the percent of your customers that submit bug reports and still use your product or if you’re a marketplace, the percent of demand that converts to supply. Feel free to be creative. Massage your data, but it still has to make sense.
From a fund perspective, equally so, it’s not always about TVPI, IRR, and DPI, especially if you’re an emerging fund manager. Or in other words, a fund manager who has yet to hit product-market fit. You probably have an inflated total-value-to-paid-in capital (TVPI) — largely, if not completely dominated by unrealized return. The same is true for your IRR as well. In the past two years, with inflated rounds and fast deployment schedules, everyone seems like a genius. So many investors — angels, syndicate leads, and fund managers — found themselves with IRRs north of 70% for any vintage of investments 2019 and after. Although an institutional LP that I was chatting with recently discounts any vintage of startups 2017 and after.
So the North Star metrics here, for fund managers, isn’t IRR or TVPI. It’s other sets of data. I’ll give two examples. For a fund manager I chatted with a few weeks ago, it was the percent of his portfolio that raised follow-on capital within 24 months of his investment because it was more than twice as great as the some of the best venture firms out there. Another fund manager cited the number of his LPs who invested in his fund’s pro rata rights through SPVs.
Making qualitative judgments
In this camp, these are folks who have an extremely strong sense of logic and reasoning. When a founder has yet the data to back it up, these investors go back to first principles.
In my experience, these investors are incredible at asking questions, like how Doug Leone asks a founder for their strengths and weaknesses. But more than just asking questions, it’s also about building frameworks and knowing what to look for when you ask said questions.
For instance, every investor knows grit is an important trait in a founder. More than knowing at a high level that grit is important, what can you do to find it out? For me, it boils down to two things.
Past performance. In other words, prior examples of excellence that they worked hard to get.
Future predictors. I ask: Why does this problem keep you up at night? Or some variation. Why does this problem mean so much to you? Why are you obsessed? Are you obsessed? Why is this your life’s calling? And I’m not looking for a market-sizing exercise here.
While I don’t claim to hold all the truths in this world, nor can I yet count myself in the highest echelons of startup investing, the most I can do here is share my own qualitative frameworks for thinking:
One of my favorite thought pieces on the internet is written by a legendary investor, Mike Maples Jr. of Floodgate fame. In it, he illuminates a concept he calls “backcasting.” To quote him:
“Legendary builders, therefore, must stand in the future and pull the present from the current reality to the future of their design. People living in the present usually dislike breakthrough ideas when they first hear about them. They have no context for what will be radically different in the future. So an important additional job of the builder is to persuade early like-minded people to join a new movement.”
Early-stage investors must have the same genetics: the ability to see the future for what it is before the rest of humanity can. And they back founders who are capable of willing the future into existence and create reality distortion fields, a term popularized by Bud Tribble when describing Steve Jobs.
When I first jumped into venture, one of the first VCs I met — in hindsight, a futurist — told me, “Some of the best ideas seem crazy at first.” A visionary investor is willing to take the time to detect brilliance in craziness. Paul Graham, in a piece titled Crazy New Ideas, proposed that it’s worth taking time to listen to someone who sounds crazy, but known to be otherwise, reasonable because more than anyone else, they know they sound crazy and are willing to risk their carefully-built reputation to do so.
For 10x founders and investors alike, the more you hear them out, the more they make sense. That said, if they start making less and less sense the more you listen, then your time is most likely better spent elsewhere.
In closing
As you may already know, a great early-stage investor requires a different skillset than a great public equities trader or a hedge fund investor. You’re more likely to work with qualitative data than quantitative data. Regardless of what archetype of a venture investor you are, you have to believe that we are capable of reaching a better future than the one we live in today. It is then a question of when and how, not if.
Of course, I don’t believe that these three archetypes are mutually exclusive. They are more representative of spectrums rather than definitive traits. Think of it more like an OCEAN personality test than a Myers-Briggs 16 personalities.
To sum it all, I like the way my friend describes venture investors: pragmatic optimists. Balance the realities of today with how great the future can be.
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, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
“Two of our biggest clients pulled the rug on us. They just cut their budgets, and can’t pay us anymore.”
“My co-founder had to leave. His wife just lost her job, and he needs to find a stable job to support the family.”
“I don’t think we’ll make it, David. How do we break it to our team?”
It was June 2020. The above were three of a dozen or so calls I had with founders so far who couldn’t make it through the pandemic. But most of the founders who called me weren’t looking for any solutions. In fact, half of them had already decided on their ultimatum before calling me. I could hear the pain in their voices over the phone. Yes, we called on the phone. Neither them nor I had the luxury of beautifying or blurring our backgrounds on Zoom or to try to look presentable. The only thing we had between us was the raw reality of the world.
Those conversations inspired me to compile a list of hard-won insights and advice from some of the best at their craft. A Rolodex of tactical and contrarian insights that a founder can pull from any time, so that you are well-equipped for times in the startup journey in which you’ll need them. I don’t know when you will, or even if you will, but I know someone will. Even if that someone is just myself.
Below are bits and pieces of insights that I’ve selectively collected over several months that might prove useful for founders. As time went on, I found myself to be more and more selective with the advice I add on to this list, as a function of my own growth as well as the industry’s growth.
I also often find myself wasting many a calorie in starting from a simple idea and extrapolating into something more nuanced. And while many ideas deserve the nuance I give them, if not more, some of the most important lessons in life are simple in nature. The 99 soundbites below cover everything, in no particular order other than categorical resonance, including:
Some might be more contrarian than others. You might not use every single piece of advice now or for your current business or ever. After all, they’re 100% unsolicited. At the end of the day, all advice is autobiographical. Nevertheless, I imagine they’ll be useful tools in your toolkit to help you grow over the course of your career, as they have with mine.
Oh, why 99 tips, and not 100? Things that end in 9 feel like a bargain, whereas things that end in 0 feel like a luxury. We can thank left-digit bias for that. Dammit, if you count this tip, that’s 100!
To preface, none of this is legal 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.
On fundraising…
1/ Some useful benchmarks and goals for stages of funding:
<$1M: pre-seed
Find what PMF looks like and how to measure it
$1-5M: seed
$2-4M – you found PMF already and you’re gearing up to scale
$5M – you’re ready for the A
$5-20: Series A *timestamped mid-2021, your mileage may vary in different fundraising climates
2/ If you’re a hotly growing startup, time to term sheet is on the magnitude of a couple of weeks. If not, you’re looking at months*. Prepare your fundraising schedule accordingly. *timestamped mid-2021, your mileage may vary in different fundraising climates
3/ On startup accelerators… If you’re a first-time founder, go for the knowledge and peer and tactical mentorship. If you’re a second- or third-time founder, go for the network and distribution.
4/ Legal fees are often borne by founders in the first priced round. And are usually $2-5K at the seed stage. $10-20K at the A. Investor council fee is $25-50K. So by the A, may come out to a $75-100K cost for founders.
5/ If you’re raising from VCs with large funds (i.e. $100M+), don’t have an exit slide. It may seem counterintuitive, but by having one, you’ve capped your exit value. Most early stage investors want to see 50-100x returns, to return the fund. And if their expected upside isn’t big enough, it won’t warrant the amount of risk they’re going to take to make back the fund. With angels or VCs with sub-$20M funds, it doesn’t matter as much.
6/ “Stop taking fundraising advice from VCs*. Would you take dating advice from a super model? In both cases, they’re working with an embarrassment of riches and are poor predictors of their own future behaviors. Advice from VCs is based on what they think they want versus what they want.” – Taylor Margot, founder of Keys *Footnote: Unless they’ve been through the fundraising process – either for their fund or previous startup.
7/ These days, it’s incredibly popular for founders to set up data rooms for their investors. What are data rooms? A central hub of a startup’s critical materials for investors when they do due diligence. Keep it on a Google Drive, Dropbox, Docsend, or Notion. Usually for startups that have some traction and early numbers, but what goes in a pre-seed one, pre-revenue, or even pre-product?
Pitch deck + appendix slides
Current round investment docs
Use of funds
Current and proforma cap table
Pilot usage data, if any
References + links to everyone’s LinkedIn:
Key members of management
1-2 customers, if any
1-2 investors, if any
Financials: annual + YTD P&L + projections
Slightly controversial on projections. Some investors want to see how founders think about the long term, plus runway after capital injection. Some investors don’t care since it’s all guesswork. Rule of thumb at pre-seed is don’t go any further than 2-3 years.
List of all FAQ investor questions throughout the fundraising process
Press, if any
Legal stuff: Patents, trademarks, IP assignments, articles of incorporation
8/ If you’re a pre-seed, pre-revenue, or even pre-product, you don’t need all of the above points in tip #7. Just stick to pitch deck/appendix, investment docs, use of funds, and current/proforma cap table.
9/ Investors invest in lines not dots. Start “fundraising”, aka building relationships, early with investors even before you need to fundraise. Meet 1-2 investors every week. Touch base with who would be the “best dollars on your cap table” every quarter. With their permission, get them on your monthly investor update. So that you can raise capital without having to send that pitch deck.
10/ Don’t take more money than you actually need when fundraising. While it’s sexy to take the $6M round on $30M valuation pre-product and will guarantee you a fresh spot on TechCrunch and Forbes, your future self will thank you for not taking those terms to maintain control and governance and preserve your mental sanity. Too many cooks in the kitchen too early on can be distracting. And taking on higher valuations comes with increased expectations.
11/ If you’re getting inbound financing, aka investor is reaching out to you, decide between two paths: (a) ignore, or (b) engage. If you choose the first path (a), when you ignore one, get comfortable ignoring them all – with very few exceptions i.e. your dream investors, which should be a very short list. Capital is a commodity. Your biggest strength is your focus on actually building your business. For undifferentiated VCs, understand speed is their competitive advantage. Fundraising at that point, for you the founder, is a distraction. If you choose (b) engage, set up the process. As you get inbound, go outbound. Build a market of options to choose from. Inspired by Phin Barnes.
12/ If you haven’t chatted with an investor in a while (>3 months), remind them why they (should) love you. Here’s a framework I like: “Hi, it’s been a minute. The last time we chatted about Y. And you suggested Z. Here’s what I’ve done about Z since the last time we chatted.“
13/ If you have a business everyone agrees on, you don’t have a venture-backable business. Alphas are low in perfect competition and businesses that are common sense. You’re going to generate a low 2-5x return on their capital, depending on how obvious your idea is.
Strive for disagreement. Be contrarian. Don’t be afraid to disagree in your pitch. Trying to be a people pleaser won’t get you far. If your investor disagrees with your insight, either you didn’t explain it well or you just don’t need them on your cap table. If the former, go through the 7 year old test. Are you able to explain your idea to a 7-year old? If that 3rd grader does understand, and you have sound logic to get to the insight, and your investor still disagrees, you need to find someone who agrees with strategic direction forward.
It’s not worth your time trying to convince a now-and-future naysayer on a future they don’t believe in. Myself included. There will be some ideas that just don’t make sense to me. While part of it might be ’cause of poor explanation/communication, the other part is I’m just not your guy. And that’s okay.
14/ If a VC asks your earlier investors to give up their pro-rata, and forces you to pick between your earlier investors and that VC, it’s a telltale sign of an unhealthy relationship. If they’re willing to screw your earlier investors over, they’ll have no problem screwing you over if things go south. To analogize, it’s the same as if the person you’re dating asks you to pick between your parents who raised you and them. If they have to force a choice out of you, you’re heading into a toxic relationship where they think they should be the center of the universe.
15/ You can really turn some heads if your pitch deck doesn’t have the same copy/paste answers as every other founder out there. Seems obvious, but this notion becomes especially tested on two particular slides: the go-to-market (GTM) and the competitorslides.
16/ If you want to be memorable, teach your investor something they didn’t know before. To be memorable means you’re likely to get that second meeting.
17/ Focus on answering just one question in your pitch meeting with an investor. That question is dependent on the plausibility of your idea. If your idea is plausible, meaning most people would agree that this should exist in the market, answer “why this.” If your idea is possible, meaning your idea makes sense but there’s not a clear reason for why the market would want it, answer “why now.” If your idea is preposterous, answer “why you.” Why you is not about your X years of experience. It’s about what unique, contrarian insight you developed that is backed by sound logic. That even if the insight is crazy at first glance, it makes sense if you dive deeper. Inspired by Mike Maples Jr.
18/ Beware of investor veto rights in term sheets. Especially around future financing. The verbage won’t say “veto rights,” but rather “no creation of a new series of stock without our approval” or “no amendments to the certificate of incorporation without our approval.”
19/ 99% of syndicate LPs like to be passive capital, since they’re investing 50 other syndicates at the same time. Don’t expect much help or value add from them. But if they’re also a downstream capital allocator, you can leverage that relationship when you go to them for bigger checks in future rounds.
20/ Don’t count on soft commitments. “We will invest in you if X happens.” Soft commitments are easy to make, and don’t require much conviction. X usually hinges on a lead investor or $Y already invested in the startup. Investors who give soft commits are not looking for signal in your business but signal via action from other investors. Effectively, meaning they don’t believe in you, but they will believe in smart people who believe in you.
21/ Just because they’re an A-lister doesn’t mean they’ll bring their A-game. Really get to know your investor beforehand.
22/ If you’re an outsider of the VC world, first step is to accept you are one and that you will have to work much harder to be recognized. “You will be work for investors. The data doesn’t support investing in you. The game is not fair at all. It will be a struggle.” Inspired by Mat Sherman.
23/ Mixing your advisors and investors in the same slide is a red flag for potential investors, unless your advisors also invested. Why? It gives off the impression that you’re hiding things. If the basis of an investment is a 10-year marriage, doubt is the number one killer of potential investor interest.
24/ Too many advisors is also a red flag. “Official” and “unofficial“. Too many distractions. Advisors almost always invest. If they don’t, that’s signaling to say you need their help, but they don’t believe in you enough to invest.
25/ There are also some investors don’t care about your advisors at all, at least on the pitch deck. The pitch deck should be your opportunity to showcase the team who is bleeding and sweating for you. Most advisors just don’t go that far for you. The addendum would be that technical advisors are worth having on there, if you have a deeply technical product.
26/ “Find an investor’s Calendly URL by trying their Twitter handle, and just book a meeting. With so many investor meetings, it’s easy to forget you never scheduled it. Just happened to me and it was both frightening and hilarious.” – Lenny Rachitsky
27/ If you want money, ask for advice. If you want advice, ask for money.
28/ Don’t waste your energy trying to convince investors who strongly disagree to jump onboard. Your time is better spent finding investors who can already see the viability of your vision.
29/ Higher valuations mean greater expectations. You might want to raise for a longer runway, and I’ve seen pitches as great as 36 months of runway, but most investors are still evaluating you on a 12-month runway upon financing round. Can you reach your next milestones (i.e. 10x your KPIs) in a year from now? Higher valuations mean your investor thinks you are more likely and can more quickly capture your TAM at scale than your peers.
30/ As founder, you only need to be good at 3 things: raise money, make money, and hire people to make money. Every investor, when going back to the fundamentals, will evaluate you on these 3 things.
31/ A good distribution of your company’s early angel investors include:
32/ “All investor questions are bad. They are a tell tale sign of objections politely withheld until you are done talking.” Defuse critical questions by incorporating their respective answers into the pitch. For instance, if the question that’ll come up is “How do you think about your competition?”, include a slide that says “We know this is a competitive space, and here’s why we’re doing what we’re doing.” Inspired by Siqi Chen.
33/ “‘Strategics’ (aka non-VCs) may care less about ROI, and more about staying close for competitive intel and downstream optionality.” – Brian Rumao
On managing team/culture…
34/ Align your vacation with when the core team takes their vacation. (i.e. if you’re a product-led team, take your vacations when your engineers and product teams go on vacation)
35/ Please pay yourself as a founder. Some useful founder salary benchmarks:
Seed stage – lowest paid employee
Series A or when you find product-market fit (PMF) – lowest paid engineer
When you hit scale – mid-level engineer
When you’ve reached market dominance – market rate pay for CEOs
If growth slows or stops or hard times hit – cut back to previous compensation, until you grow again
36/ Measure twice, cut once. If you’re going to lay people off, do it once. Lay more people than you think you need to, so you don’t have to do it again. Keep expectations real and don’t leave unnecessary anxiety on the table for those that still work for you.
One of my favorite examples is that, at the start of the pandemic, Alinea, one of the most recognizable names in the culinary business, furloughed every full-time employee, giving them $1000 and paid for 49% of their benefits and health care, eliminated the salaries of owners completely, and reduced the business team and management’s salary by 35%. Not only that, they emailed all their furloughed employees to level expectations and to understand the why. In normal situations, the law states that furloughed employees shouldn’t have access to their work emails, but Nick said “I will break the law on that because this is the pandemic.” For more context, highly recommend checking out Nick’s Medium post and his Eaterinterview, time-stamped at the start of the pandemic.
37/ Take mental health breaks. I’ve met more venture-backed founders who regretted not taking mental health breaks than those who regretted taking them.
38/ Build honesty into your culture, not transparency. And do not conflate the two. Take, for example, you are going through M&A talks with one of the FAAMGs. If you optimize for transparency, this gets a lot of hype among your team members. But let’s say the deal falls through. Your team will be devastated and potentially lose confidence in the business, which can have second-order consequences, like them finding new opportunities or trying to sell their shares on the secondary market. I’ve quoted mmhmm‘s Phil Libinbefore, when he 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.” Very similarly, full transparency sounds great in theory but will often distract your team from focusing on their priorities.
39/ When in doubt, default to Bezos’ two-pizza rule. Every project/team should be fed by at most two pizzas. In the words of David Sacks, even “the absolute biggest strategic priority could [only] get 10 engineers for 10 weeks.” Don’t overcomplicate and over-bureaucratize things.
40/ Perfect is the enemy of good. Have a “ship-it” mentality. Give yourself an 10-20% margin of error. Equally so, give your team members that same margin so that they’re not scared of making mistakes. It’s less important that mistakes happen, and they will, but more important how you deal with it.
41/ James Currier has a great list of ways to compensate your team and/or community.
Value of using the product (e.g. utility, status, cheaper prices, fun, etc)
Cash (e.g. USD, EUR)
Equity shares (traditional)
Discounted fees
Premier placement and traffic/attention
Status symbols
Early access
Some voting and/or decision making, ability to edit/change
Premier software features
Membership to a valuable clique of other nodes
Real world perks like dinner/tickets to the ball game
Belief in the mission (right-brain, intrinsic)
Commitment to a set of human relationships (right-brain, intrinsic)
Tokens (fungible)
Non-Fungible Tokens
42/ Have Happy Hour Mondays, not on Thursdays and Fridays. Give your team members something to look forward to on Mondays.
43/ “Outliers create bad mental models for founders.” – Founder Collective
44/ Once you break past product-market fit and hit scale, you have to start thinking about your second act. It’s about resource allocation. The most common playbook for resource allocation is to spend 70% of your resources on your core business, 20% on business expansion, and 10% on venture bets.
45/ The top three loads that a founder needs to double down or back on when hitting scale. “You have to stop being an individual contributor (IC). Stop being a VP. And you gotta hire great [VPs]. The sign of a great VP… is that you look forward to your 1:1 each week. And that plus some informal conversations are enough. Otherwise you’re micromanaging.” – Jason Lemkin.
46/ If you could write a function to mathematically approximate the probability of success of any given person on your team, what would be the coefficients? What are the parameters of that function? Inspired by Dharmesh Shah.
47/ The team you build is the company you build. And not, the plan you build is the company you build. – Vinod Khosla.
48/ “The output of an organization is equal to the vector sum of its individuals. A vector sum has both a magnitude and a direction. You can hire individuals with great magnitude, but unless they were all pointed in the same direction, you’re not going to get the best output of the organization.” – Pat Grady summarizing a lesson he learned from Elon Musk.
49/ “The founder’s job is to make the receptionist rich.” – Doug Leone
50/ “The amount of progress that we make is directly proportional to the number of hard conversations that we’re willing to have.” – Mark Zuckerberg quoting Sheryl Sandberg.
52/ Hire for expertise, not experience. The best candidates talk about what they can do, rather than what they did.
53/ A great early-stage VP Sales focuses on how fast they can close qualified leads, not pipeline. Also, great at hiring SDRs. It’s a headcount business.
54/ A great early-stage VP Marketing focuses on demand gen and not product or corporate marketing.
55/ Kevin Scott, now CTO of Microsoft, would ask in candidate interviews: “What do you want your next job to be after this company?” Most of your team members realistically won’t stick with the same company forever. This is even more true as you scale to 20, then 50, then 100 team members and so on. But the best way to empower them to do good work is to be champions of their career. Help them level up. Help them achieve their dreams, and in turn, they will help you achieve yours.
56/ When you’re looking to hire people who scale, most founders understand that a candidate’s experience is only a proxy for success in the role. Instead, ask: “How many times have you had to change yourself in order to be successful?” Someone who is used to growing and changing according to their aspirations and the JD are more likely to be successful at a startup than their counterparts. Inspired by Pedro Franceschi, founder of Brex.
57/ The best leading indicator of a top performing manager is their ability to attract talent – both externally and internally. “The ability to attract talent, not just externally, but also internally where you’ve created a reputation where product leaders are excited to work not just with you, but under you.” Inspired by Hareem Mannan.
58/ When you’re hiring your first salespeople, hire in pairs. “If you hire just one salesperson and they can’t sell your product, you’re in trouble. Why? You don’t know if the problem is the person or the product. Hire two, and you have a point of comparison.” Inspired by Ryan Breslow.
59/ The longer you have no team members from underestimated and underrepresented backgrounds and demographics, the harder it is to recruit your first.
On governance…
60/ You don’t really need a board until you raise the A. On average, 3 members – 2 common shareholders, 1 preferred. The latter is someone who can represent the investors’ interests. When you get to 5 board seats (around the B or C), on average, 3 common, 1 preferred, and 1 independent.
61/ As you set up your corporate board of directors, set up your personal board of directors as well. People who care about you, just you and your personal growth and mental state. Folks that will be on your speed dial. You’ll thank yourself later.
62/ You can’t fire your investor, but investors can fire you, the founders. That’s why it’s just as important, if not more important, for founders to diligence their investors as investors do to founders. Why for founders? To see if there’s founder-investor fit. The best way is to talk to the VC’s or angel’s portfolio founders – both current and past. Most importantly, to talk to the founders in their past portfolio whose businesses didn’t work out. Many investors will be on your side, until they’re not. Find out early who has a track record for being in for the long haul.
63/ Echoing the previous point, all your enemies should be outside your four walls, and ideally very few resources, if at all, should be spent fighting battles inside your walls.
64/ Standard advisor equity is 0.25-1%. They typically have a 3-month cliff on vesting. Founder Institute has an amazing founder/advisor template that would be useful for bringing on early advisors. You can also calculate advisor equity as a function of:
(their hourly rate*) x (expected hours/wk of commitment) / (40 hours) x (length of advisorship**) / (last company valuation) *based on what you believe their salary would be **typically 1-2 years
65/ Have your asks for your monthly investor updates at the top of each email. Make it easy for them to help you. Investors get hundreds every month – from inside and outside their portfolio. I get ~40-50 every month, and I’m not even a big wig. Make it easy for investors to help you.
66/ Monthly/quarterly investor updates should include, and probably in the below order:
Your ask
Brief summary of what you do
Key metrics, cash flow, revenue
Key hires
New product features/offerings (if applicable)
67/ In his book The Messy Middle, Scott Belsky quotes Hunter Walk of Homebrew saying, “Never follow your investor’s advice and you might fail. Always follow your investor’s advice and you’ll definitely fail.”
68/ While you’re probably not going to bring on an independent board member until at or after your A-round, since they’re typically hard to find, once you do, offer them equity equivalent to a director or VP level, vested over two to three years (rather than four). Independent board members are a great source for diversity, and having shorter schedules, possibly with accelerated vesting schedules on “single trigger”, will keep the board fresh. Inspired by Seth Levine.
69/ “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.” – Ashmeet Sidana. This seems like obvious advice, but you have no idea how many founders I’ve met started off incredible, then relied on their VC’s brand to carry them the rest of the way. Don’t rely solely on your investors for your own success.
70/ “Invest in relationships. Hollywood idolizes board meetings as the place where crucial decisions are made. The truth is the best ideas, collaboration, and feedback happen outside the boardroom in informal 1:1 meetings.” – Reid Hoffman
71/ When your company gets to the pre-IPO stage or late growth stages, if you, as the founding CEO, are fully vested and have less than 10% ownership in your own company, it’s completely fine to re-up and ask your board for another 5% over 5 years. No cliffs, vesting starts from the first month. Inspired by Jason Calacanis.
72/ A great independent board member usually takes about 6-9 months of recruiting and coffee chats. You should start recruiting for one as early as right after A-round closes. In terms of compensation, a great board member should get the same amount of equity as a director of engineering at your current stage of the company, with immediate monthly vesting and no cliff. Inspired by Delian Asparouhov.
73/ If your cap table doesn’t have shareholders with equity that is differentiated (i.e. everyone owns the same size of a slice of the pie), then their value to the company won’t be differentiated. No one will feel responsible for doing more for the business. And everyone does as much as the lowest common denominator. It becomes a “I only have to do as much as [lowest performer] is doing. Or else it won’t be fair.”
74/ “If you ‘protect’ your investor updates with logins or pins, you will also protect them from actually being read.” – Paul Graham
On building communities…
75/ Every great community has value and values. Value, what are members getting out of being a part of the community. Values, a strict code of conduct – explicit and/or implicit, that every member follows to uphold the quality of the community.
76/ Build for good actors, rather than hedge against the bad actors. I love Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales‘ steak knives analogy. Imagine you’re designing a restaurant that serves steak. Subsequently, you’re going to be giving everyone steak knives. There’s always the possibility that people with knives will stab each other, but you won’t lock everyone in cages to hedge against that possibility at your restaurant. It’s actually rather rare for something like that to happen, and we have various institutions to deal with that problem. It’s not perfect, but most people would agree that they wouldn’t want to live in a cage. As Jimmy shares, “I just think, too often, if you design for the worst people, then you’re failing design for good people.”
77/ If you’re a consumer product, Twitter memes may be the new key to a great GTM (go-to-market) strategy. (e.g. Party Round, gm). As a bonus, a great way to get the attention of VCs. There’s a pretty strong correlation between Twitter memes and getting venture funding. Community, check. Brand, check. Retention and engagement, check.
On pricing…
78/ For B2B SaaS, do annual auto-price increases. Aim for 10% every year. Why?
Customers will try to negotiate for earlier renewal, longer contract periods.
When you waive the price increases, customers feel like they’re winning.
You can upsell them more easily to more features.
79/ If you’re a SaaS product, you shouldn’t charge per seat. Focus on charging based on your outcome-based value metric (# customers, # views per video), rather than your process-based value metric (e.g. per user, per time spent). If you charge per seat, aka a process-based value metric, everything works out if your customer is growing. But incentives are misaligned when your customer isn’t. After all, more users using your product makes you more sticky, so give unlimited seats and upsell based on product upgrades.
80/ Charge consumers and SMBs monthly. And enterprises annually. The former will hesitate on larger bills and on their own long-term commitment. The latter doesn’t want to go back to procurement every month to get an invoice approved. Equally so, the latter likes to negotiate for longer contracts in exchange for discounts. Inspired by Jason Lemkin.
On product/strategy…
81/ Having a launch event, like Twitchcon, Dreamforce, Twilio’s Signal, or even Descript’s seasonal launch events, aligns both your customers and team on the same calendar. Inspired by David Sacks’ Cadence. For customers, this generates hype and expectation for the product. For your team, this also sets:
Product discipline, through priorities, where company leaders have to think months in advance for, and
Expectations and motivates team members to help showcase a new product.
82/ Startups often die by indigestion, not starvation. Exercise extreme focus in your early days, rather than offering different product lines and features.
83/ “Epic startups have magic.” Users intuitively understand what your product does and are begging you to give it to them. If you don’t have magic yet, focus on defining – quantitatively and qualitatively – what your product’s magic is. Ideally, 80% of people who experience the magic take the next step (i.e. signup, free trial, download, etc.). Inspired by John Danner.
84/ To find product-market fit (PMF), ask your customers: “How would you feel if you could no longer use our product?” Users would have three choices: “Very disappointed”, “Somewhat disappointed”, and “Not disappointed”. If 40% or more of the users say “very disappointed”, then you’ve got your PMF. Inspired by Rahul Vohra.
85/ For any venture-backed startup founder, complacency is cancer. As Ben Horowitz would put it, you’re fighting in wartime. You don’t have the luxury to act as if you’re in peacetime. As Reid Hoffman once said, “an entrepreneur is someone who will jump off a cliff and assemble an airplane on the way down.”
86/ Good founders are great product builders. Great founders are great company builders.
87/ To reach true scale as an enterprise, very few companies do so with only one product. Start thinking about your second product early, but will most likely not be executed on until $10-20M ARR. Inspired by Harry Stebbings.
88/ Build an MVT, not MVP. “An MVP is a basic early version of a product that looks and feels like a simplified version of the eventual vision. An MVT, on the other hand, does not attempt to look like the eventual product. It’s rather a specific test of an assumption that must be true for the business to succeed.” – Gagan Biyani
89/ Focus on habit formation. “Habit formation requires recurring organic exposure on other networks. Said another way: after people install your app, they need to see your content elsewhere to remind them that your app exists.” And “If you can’t use your app from the toilet or while distracted—like driving—your users will have few opportunities to form a habit.” Inspired by Nikita Bier.
90/ “Great products take off by targeting a specific life inflection point, when the urgency to solve a problem is most acute.” – Nikita Bier. Inflection points include going to college, getting one’s first job, buying their first car or home, getting married, and so on.
91/ You’re going to pivot. So instead of being married to the solution or product, marry yourself to the problem. As Mike Maples Jr. once said about Floodgates portfolio, “90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.”
92/ Retention falls when expectation don’t meet reality. So, either fix the marketing/positioning of the product or change the product. The former is easier to change than the latter.
93/ To better visualize growth of the business, build a state machine – a graph that captures every living person on Earth and how they interact with your product. The entire world’s population should fall into one of five states: people who never used your product, first time users, inactive users, low value users, and high value users. And every process in your business is governed by the flow from one state to another.
For example, when first time users become inactive users, those are bounce rates, and your goal is to reduce churn before you focus on sales and marketing (when people who never used your product become first time users). When low value users become high value users, those are upgrades, which improve your net retention. Phil Libin took an hour to break down the state machine, which is probably one of the best videos for founders building for product-market fit and how to plan for growth that I’ve ever seen. It’s silly of me to think I can boil it down to a few words.
94/ When a customer cancels their subscription, it’s either your fault or no one’s fault. If they cancel, it is either because of the economy now or you oversold and underdelivered. So, make the cancellation (or downgrading) process easy and as positive as the onboarding. If so, maybe they’ll come back. Maybe they’ll refer a friend. Inspired by Jason Lemkin.
On market insight and competitive analysis…
95/ To find your market, ask potential customers: “How would you feel if you could no longer use [major player]’s product?” Again, with the same three choices: “Very disappointed”, “Somewhat disappointed”, and “Not disappointed”. If 40% or more of your potential customers say “not disappointed”, you might have a space worth doubling down on.
96/ Have a contrarian point of view. Traits of a top-tier contrarian view:
People can disagree with it, like the thesis of a persuasive essay. It’s debatable.
Something you truly believe and can advocate for. Before future investors, customers, and team members do, you have to have personal conviction in it. And you have to believe people will be better off because of it.
It’s unique to you. Something you’ve earned through going through the idea maze. A culmination of your experiences, skills, personality, instincts, intuition, and scar tissue.
Not controversial for the sake of it. Don’t just try to stir the pot for the sake of doing so.
It teaches your audience something – a new perspective. Akin to an “A-ha!” moment for them.
Backed by evidence. Not necessarily a universal truth, but your POV should be defensible.
It’s iterative. Be willing to change your mind when the facts change.
97/ Falling in love with the problem is more powerful than falling in love with the solution.
98/ If you’re in enterprise or SaaS, you can check in on a competitor’s growth plan by searching LinkedIn to see how many sales reps they have + are hiring, multiply by $500K, and that’s how much in bookings they plan to add this year. Multiply by $250K if the target market is SMB. Inspired by Jason Lemkin.
99/ Failures by your perceived competitors may adversely impact your company. Inspired by Opendoor’s 10-K (page 15).
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.
Last week, I had an incredible fireside chat with GC’s Niko Bonatsos, who has played a key role in some incredible investments, from Livongo Health to Snap to Wag! and most recently, Saturn. In all honesty, I took much of that experience to scratch my own itch. As always, we ran out of time before we ran out of topics. But I was lucky enough to ask one of which I happened to be losing sleep over. “How do you balance speed and diligence in the increasingly competitive market of venture?”
COVID changed us
In the midst of the pandemic, COVID became a forcing function for investors to deploy capital without ever meeting founders in-person. Frankly, they couldn’t meet anyone in-person. Even if they wanted to, investors, like everyone else, was subject to a series of lockdowns, curfews, and eventually the vaccine.
Yet, as life returns to a sense of normality, many investors have gotten comfortable investing virtually. And for a handful, only virtually. At the same time, in today’s increasingly competitive venture market, capital’s become more of a commodity. And I’ve heard a number of LPs find speed to be a competitive advantage. As a product of speed, investors compete on shortened timelines. It’s a given for angels and super angels out there who have to have conviction on a fairly limited set of data. But how do top-tier funds compete in that same market yet maintain the same discipline as before?
I got my answer from Niko.
“We try to pre-empt the stuff we really care about. It basically translates to us being prepared, having frontloaded a lot of the diligence for the companies and opportunities we care about. We have a more educated conversation with the founders, and are the first ones to get to a term sheet than anyone else. That’s something we do a lot more often. And we’ve leaned into seed, which is the new series A.”
Moreover, with all the diligence they do prior to sourcing, funds, like General Catalyst and Founders Fund, have started to incubate startups where they couldn’t find solutions to problems they found.
Slowing things down
Earlier this week, over a lunch, I posed the same question to Fort Ross‘ Ratan Singh, from whom I got a slightly different variation. “VCs are doing their homework before every meeting and going in with a thesis so that they can deploy fast. VCs used to play catcher and do all their homework after the meeting. But now it’s changed, so they can say yes faster.
“While speed is a differentiator, things are moving too fast today. I met every founder I’ve invested in in-person. Even during the pandemic, I invested in seven founders, and every single one I’ve met in-person.”
To which, I had to ask, “What do you find out from meeting a founder in-person that a virtual meeting lacks in?”
Without missing a beat, Ratan said, “It’s in the small things. The way they interact with their teammates. The way they treat each other. As we finish our chat and walk back to the car, are they still an intelligent being outside of the script? A Zoom call is a 30-minute scripted call. There’s a deck. There’s the presentation they prepared. An in-person interaction is more than that.”
Ratan’s comment reminded me of something Sequoia’s Doug Leone said in his interview with Harry Stebbings recently. “It takes about thirty minutes for someone to relax, which is why I refuse to interview someone for thirty minutes.” Similarly, while a 30-minute coffee chat may just be 30 minutes, the time it takes to shake hands, order your cup of coffee, have the conversation, finish it, and walk back to your car or wait for your Uber helps anyone, not just a VC, understand so much more depth to your character.
— Ruben Harris – rub3nharris.eth (@rubenharris) October 13, 2021
As if he didn’t drop enough mics in our lunch, Ratan left me with one last hot take, “In VC, you’re either asked to stay, or you’re asked to leave.” In today’s ever-changing climate, having deep domain expertise and pre-empting diligence keeps you if not ahead, at least on the curve of evolution. And for many investors, it’s one of their best bets to be asked to stay – either by the firm’s senior partners or your LPs.
Thank you Niko and Ratan 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!
“Use three adjectives to describe your sibling. And describe yourself in comparison.”
I heard this question weeks ago from Doug Leone, Sequoia Capital‘s Global Managing Partner, on Harry Stebbings’ 20VC podcast. Known for having some of the best questions in venture and having led incredible investments into Meraki, Nubank, ServiceNow, and more, Doug loves to ask this question to founders he’s meeting for the first time. My initial response was “this doesn’t make any sense.” But in the podcast, he reveals why he loves the afore-mentioned question.
Before writing a check, an early-stage investor’s job is to answer three questions. Why now? Why this? And why you? The ‘why you’ question is admittedly one of the hardest questions to answer. Even for myself, I struggle from time to time to understand why I should scout a one founder over another over the same idea.
In a short 30 minute conversation, there’s only so much an investor can understand about a founder. There’s fundamentally a level of information asymmetry. Founders want to convince investors to take a bet on them. Yet, investors need more information to be comfortable making an asymmetric bet on them. We see echoes of a similar dilemma when recruiters interview applicants for jobs. Or when a property manager interviews a potential tenant.
Generally, recruiters, like most others, regress to questions like: “What are three of your strengths? Three weaknesses?” Having been asked so bluntly, interviewees, on the other hand, often have their guards up. They pick three strengths that would make them look the best. Equally so, they pick three weaknesses that show just enough honesty and vulnerability where they don’t get disqualified from the candidate pool. All of which exemplify pre-scripted answers.
Conversely, Doug found a way to do so without arming the interviewee’s, in this case, the founder’s, defenses. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?
As Doug shares, “In a law of diversity, two siblings are less likely to be alike than two strangers. And so, how they usually describe their siblings is usually opposite of how they describe themselves. It’s a self-awareness question.”
You might realize the same principle holds when you describe a friend or a colleague or your spouse. The way you describe them often contrasts with your own disposition. “My friend is really curious.” Implicitly, you’re saying you’re not as curious.
So, the next time you talk about someone else, it’d be an interesting thought experiment to see how those same words relate or contrast with you.
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.
