“The line that sits for me is you got to pick well, you got to coach well, and then you got to finance well – and the financing includes the exit.” – Jeff Rinvelt
Jeff Rinvelt is a partner at Renaissance Venture Capital an innovative venture capital fund of funds. Jeff’s diverse background in venture capital and technology and his experience working in various start-up ventures uniquely position him to advise startups. In addition, Jeff is quite active in the Michigan start-up community, volunteering his time to mentor young entrepreneurs, judge pitch competitions, and guest lecture student classes and organizations. Through Jeff’s work on the Fund, his volunteer efforts, and his role as the chair of the Michigan Venture Capital Association’s board of directors, his passion for fostering a productive environment for venture capital investment in the State of Michigan is evident.
[00:00] Intro [02:28] When Jeff went from engineering to finance [06:26] An introvert in an extroverted industry [07:42] Jeff’s transition from founder to investor [11:06] The need for a fund of funds in Michigan [13:54] Why start a fund of funds instead of joining another fund [15:32] The minimum viable fund size for a fund of funds [21:46] Renaissance’s portfolio construction [24:15] Why Renaissance measures GP performance by net IRR [28:18] How does Jeff assess a GP’s portfolio construction model? [31:20] Jeff’s stance on reserves [34:39] Who is the exit manager? [37:22] Should VCs be public market investors? [42:43] What would Jeff do if he had evergreen capital? [44:01] Do the best GPs in Jeff’s portfolio send the deck first or have the meeting first? [45:11] Why is Jeff trying to break your heart? [48:32] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [49:33] If you enjoyed the episode, please do share this episode with ONE other person you think would enjoy it.
“Net IRR is the one that’s probably going to work. It takes a while for it to bake though – 5 or 6 years in.” – Jeff Rinvelt
“The line that sits for me is you got to pick well, you got to coach well, and then you got to finance well – and the financing includes the exit.” – Jeff Rinvelt
On portfolio construction models… “We are not in the Monte Carlo simulation game at all; we’re basically an excel spreadsheet.” – Jeff Rinvelt
“A lot of those skills [to be a fund manager] are already baked in. The one that wasn’t baked in for a lot of these firms was the exit manager – the ones that help you sell. […] If you don’t have it, there should be somebody that it’s their job to look at exits. ” – Jeff Rinvelt
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.
Back when I was still swimming competitively, one of the drills our swim coach always had us do was a set of hypoxic drills. The two that left the most indelible marks were:
10 sets of 100 yards, broken down by 25 yards. Lap 1, breathe every 5 strokes. Lap 2, every 3 strokes. Lap 3, every 7 strokes. And Lap 4, every 9 strokes.
20 sets of 55 yards. You start with a flip turn into the wall. First 25 yards (Lap 1), no breaths allowed. Second 25 (Lap 2), you’re allowed to only take one breath.
Naturally, those drills usually left me the most exhausted. Not only did I find myself catching my breath, we also had to swim those on specific intervals, which left less than five seconds of rest at best, while swimming at 80% our max speed.
All that to say, it was a set of exercises that trained us to hold our breath. We had less oxygenated blood. Naturally, it was harder to exert our max strength and endurance. But it tested our ability to weather exhaustion.
Just like today.
Our venture ecosystem needs oxygen. The whole industry is holding their breath. For IPOs. like Stripe’s. Which may be unlikely to happen in the near future given Sequoia’s recent share acquisition. Software acquisitions have also hit an all-time low, leaving LPs starved for liquidity from the major private market exit paths.
And of the few “acquisitions” that are happening, they’re done to circumnavigate anti-trust laws. As Tomasz points out, “they hire the core team [in other words the founding team], license the technology, but the majority company continues to operate as a separate entity.” In addition, a number of companies also need to get re-priced in the market, having raised in 2020 and 2021 on over three-year runways. Which to their credit, was the common advice given by VCs during that era.
Election season does not make this Mexican standoff any less strenuous. How will it impact the global economy? And who’s the last to hold the bag with all these hot AI deals? We all know AI has low margins and requires and immense amount of compute to deliver the results that we expect, but how much longer will this need to go on?
Who knows?
At least until we get to breathe again. The consensus seems to be Q1 2025. But until we have oxygen again, this is the hypoxic training that our world will have to endure for the foreseeable future.
In the words of my coach, “focus on distance per stroke.” In other words, executional discipline. Do more with less.
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.
Eight years back, at least at the time of publishing this blogpost, Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft, shared one of his favorite interview questions.
“I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 100. You can guess. After each guess, I’ll tell you whether high or low. You get it the first guess, I give you five bucks. [Second guess], four bucks. Three. Two. One. Zero. You pay me a buck. You pay me two; you pay me three… And the question is, do you want to play or not? What’s your answer?”
While he didn’t go too much in depth on all the answers he’s gotten to it over the years, I imagine different people would have given different proposals on how the game might be played. Of course, the classic engineer is likely to approach it was as an expected value problem.
Most people will lose money. There are far more numbers to guess on which one loses than wins. The question really comes down to… do you know the odds of the game you play?
I find it interesting as an investor to hypothetically ask to founders and/or GPs. That said, I never did. But equally so, I usually spend the first conversation with an entrepreneur (whether the product be software or a fund model) trying to understand a person’s motivations. And, if they understand the rules of the game.
Those who don’t understand the rules will often jump head first in, and take care of the consequences later. Asking for forgiveness than for permission. An attitude that is more excusable in a startup founder than a fund manager.
Those who do understand will take a more measured approach. It’s interesting how little some people understand the game they’re playing. Be it in a two-year financial projection that encapsulates all their assumptions, or a portfolio construction model to understand the enterprise value to return the fund 3X.
For the former, it’s less so of how accurate a financial projection slide is. Hell, your guess is as good as mine. But I always ask founders to unpack it to understand how they’re thinking about the future as a function of their reality today.
For the latter, it’s to understand the true power of the power law, no pun intended. For instance, if you have a $10M fund, writing 20 checks of $500K for 5% ownership. Obviously, I’m assuming a bunch of things for the sake of keeping the math simple. No fees, no recycling, no reserves, and so on. You need to return $50M to 5X your fund. Accounting for 80% dilution, you’ll own 1% on exit. So you need $5B in enterprise value. Given the power law, one of out of the 20 companies should get to at least $3-4B in exit value.
Then again, those who understand the game too well will never take the risk necessary for serendipity to stick.
There’s an interesting blogpost an LP shared with me for my blogpost on evergreen content that VCs and LPs consume. A piece written by the legendary Graham Duncan. “The Playing Field.” A piece I highly recommend reading, even if to shape your own thinking about how the game you play evolves over time. In it, a line worth underscoring.
“[I]t’s the way you learn to play the cards you’ve been dealt, rather than the hand itself, that determines the worth of your participation in the game.”
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.
I use this question quite often as a discovery tool. My job as an early-stage investor is to find crazy, interesting people building interesting things. By the time things look less crazy (at least at face value, without digging), I’m likely too late.
To founders who are fundraising, I often ask this question with respect to VCs. Most VCs default to the usual.
Tell me about your company.
How much revenue do you have? Growth rate?
Tell me about your 2-year plan. Your financial projections.
Tell me about your competitors.
How much are you raising?
Who else is investing?
And I’ve probably missed a plethora of usual suspects when it comes to questions VCs ask founders. But I love people who ask different sets of questions. People who think different, see different, and as such ask different. How are they slicing the cake differently? What might these people be seeing that most others are not? And then, I go back and reflect… is there alpha in that way of thinking.
But first, it’s about the questions. Some examples of such… here, here, here, and here, and also here and here.
So when I ask, “What’s the most interesting question you’ve been asked so far?” to founders, they can help me uncover new VCs I may not have noticed before. Probably investing in ways the industry has not seen before. And probably also investing in companies uncorrelated with most others. At least in the early stages. When I ask it to GPs, I can find LPs whose portfolios may look different from others. Or at the very least, will have arrived at their conclusion differently than their peers.
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.
Last week, I was chatting with an LP about decision-making processes at institutional LPs, whether a large family office or a pension or an endowment. And I asked her:
“When you come across a new investment opportunity, do you often find yourself starting from a yes and working to find ways to disprove yourself to get to a no? Or do you start from a no, then spend the next few years working your way to get to a yes?”
(To be honest, I could have phrased the question. But alas, you get the gist.)
She gave a light chuckle. Thought for a moment. And said, “In the first conversation I have with a GP, I either get to a quick no or a tentative yes. And in the next few months, I try to find signs of why this investment could be a no. But if I don’t find any strong disproving evidence in that exploration, that’s when we choose to invest.”
Of course, she’s not alone. I haven’t actively gone out to measure the distribution. But out of 20 or so LPs I’ve asked, I’d say anecdotally, it’s about half who start from a yes, and half who start from a no.
There’s no hard and fast rule here. But what I seemed to notice is that it depends heavily on how easily people get to conviction.
Some people are more prone to saying yes. They get easily excited about new opportunities. The feeling of love at first sight. As such, their investment process accounts for that by delaying gratification and impulse purchases. The discipline of their investment process allows to take time to find clues that may either prove or disprove their intuition.
Among thousands, if not tens of thousands of opportunities, for others, it’s easier to say no. Most LPs don’t have a time horizon they have to commit capital before, barring fund of funds, and potentially some large institutions who act as fiduciaries for others’ capital. Unlike a GP whose mandate is potentially stage-specific, to most LPs, a Fund I commitment versus a Fund II or a Fund III is virtually the same to them. If a pre-see-only fund says no at the pre-seed, they lose that window of opportunity because they’re not allowed to invest net new checks at seed or Series A.
For LPs, this takes the possibility of a near-term transactional relationship out. Then as the relationship matures over time, one might stumble across something about a GP that gets them over the activation energy to dig deeper. And eventually, when enough evidence is collected, they’ll pull the trigger. More often than not, it’s not “enough evidence,” but rather enough time to realize the one or two brilliant things about a GP.
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.
“We overcomplicate almost nothing as LPs. And this is a criticism of myself. And I think we oversimplify almost everything. Because by definition, we’re the customer of the end product. […] LPs watch the movie, but don’t read the book.” – Ben Choi
We’re doing a three-part series with some of our fan favorites over the last three seasons on the LP perspective of succession-planning and VC firm-building.
Lisa Cawley is the Managing Director of Screendoor, a highly respected LP of GPs, investing in firm-builders by firm-builders, with a unique model for partnering with allocators to access the emerging manager ecosystem.
Ben Choi manages over $3B investments with many of the world’s premier venture capital firms as well as directly in early stage startups. He brings to Next Legacy a distinguished track record spanning over two decades founding and investing in early-stage technology businesses.
Jaclyn Freeman Hester is a Partner at Foundry. Jaclyn helped launch Foundry’s partner fund strategy, building the portfolio to nearly 50 managers. Bringing her unique GP + LP perspective, Jaclyn has become a go-to sounding board for emerging VCs.
[00:00] Intro [02:00] Questions Ben asks GPs to see if they’re thinking long-term [06:50] Questions Jaclyn asks GPs to assess long-term thinking [09:45] What does leverage look like for a GP? [20:13] The role of AI internally at a firm [21:06] Advice to people looking to take junior VC roles [25:33] Questions Lisa asks GPs to assess long-term thinking [29:19] When does a fund turn into a firm? [31:26] Lisa: What do LPs often oversimplify vs overcomplicate about firm-building? [35:31] Ben’s answer to oversimplification vs overcomplication [41:00] What do emerging and established GPs oversimplify and overcomplicate? [45:06] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [46:07] If you can’t wait for Part 3 of this conversation, leave us a like or comment!
“How do you get the most out of the least amount of people? […] I don’t think getting more bodies solves it. I think getting high leverage from a smaller set of resources is better.” – Jaclyn Freeman Hester
“If I hire someone, I don’t really want to hire right out of school. I want to hire someone with a little bit of professional experience. And I want someone who’s been yelled at. […] I don’t want to have to triple check work. I want to be able to build trust. Going and getting that professional experience somewhere, even if it’s at a startup or venture firm. Having someone have oversight on you and [push] you to do excellent work and [help] you understand why it matters… High quality output can help you gain so much trust.” – Jaclyn Freeman Hester
“What’s your right to win? Why are you going to be a founder and talent magnet? Why does the world need you as a firm? Why does the world need you as a VC? And how do you define success?” – Lisa Cawley
“We overcomplicate almost nothing as LPs [about the firm building process]. And this is a criticism of myself. And I think we oversimplify almost everything. Because by definition, we’re the customer of the end product.” – Ben Choi
“LPs watch the movie, but don’t read the book.” – Ben Choi
“Ultimately, Job #1 as an emerging GP is to be a great investor. We want you to be a great investor that lasts the test of time. But if you’re a mediocre investor that lasts the test of time or a great investor that doesn’t last the test of time, we prefer the second.” – Ben Choi
“There’s this amazing, amazing commercial that Michael Phelps did, […] and the tagline behind it was ‘It’s what you do in the dark that puts you in the light.’” – Lisa Cawley
We’re doing a three-part series with some of our fan favorites over the last three seasons on the LP perspective of succession-planning and VC firm-building.
Lisa Cawley is the Managing Director of Screendoor, a highly respected LP of GPs, investing in firm-builders by firm-builders, with a unique model for partnering with allocators to access the emerging manager ecosystem.
Ben Choi manages over $3B investments with many of the world’s premier venture capital firms as well as directly in early stage startups. He brings to Next Legacy a distinguished track record spanning over two decades founding and investing in early-stage technology businesses.
Jaclyn Freeman Hester is a Partner at Foundry. Jaclyn helped launch Foundry’s partner fund strategy, building the portfolio to nearly 50 managers. Bringing her unique GP + LP perspective, Jaclyn has become a go-to sounding board for emerging VCs.
[00:00] Intro [02:03] The job that goes unseen by others at a VC firm [09:01] The psychology of curiosity [11:12] The story of Charlie Munger and Robert Cialdini [14:17] Lisa’s perspective on the intangibles of firm-building [17:41] Heidi Roizen and why glassblowing builds relationships [21:09] The people you surround yourself with [23:06] Jaclyn’s perspective on the intangibles [26:23] Examples of how to communicate strategy drift [27:34] Ben’s perspective on the intangibles [33:19] The metric many LPs don’t use but should use to evaluate GPs [36:16] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [37:17] If you enjoyed Part 1, and want to see Part 2 and 3 sooner, leave a like or a comment!
“The job and the role that goes most unseen by LPs and everybody outside of the firm is the role of the culture keeper.” – Ben Choi
“You can map out what your ideal process is, but it’s actually the depth of discussion that the internal team has with one another. […] You have to define what your vision for the firm is years out, in order to make sure that you’re setting those people up for success and that they have a runway and a growth path and that they feel empowered and they feel like they’re learning and they’re contributing as part of the brand. And so much of what happens there, it does tie back to culture […] There’s this amazing, amazing commercial that Michael Phelps did, […] and the tagline behind it was ‘It’s what you do in the dark that puts you in the light.’” – Lisa Cawley
“At the end of the day, the job is to take a pile of money from your LPs and give them a bigger pile. And giving them back a really big pile is the legacy thing. […] And consistently insane returns are hard. That, to me, are the firms that go down in history.” – Jaclyn Freeman Hester
“In venture, LPs are looking for GPs with loaded dice.” – Ben Choi
I went shoe shopping with my partner the past two weekends, and I’ll be the first to plead ignorance to the difference between the B and D suffix for shoe sizes. And even after two weekends, I’m still learning.
I’ve never looked much into shoes. Having spent much of my early life bathed in chlorine (so much that at one point, my hair was brown with blond tips. FYI, for those I’ve never met in person before, I sport naturally black hair.), I’ve spent more time choosing the right $300-400 swimsuit than what I’d wear on my two lower appendages the other eight hours of the day. All that to say, I’m ill-equipped to speak the language of sneakerheads and running shoe geeks.
But just as I’m still learning how shoe geeks around the world understand the finer nuances of heel to toe drop impacting ankle versus knee strain, most founders who haven’t spent the time understanding the nuances of VCs think all money is green. In fact, just last month, I spoke with a founder I randomly met at an event who said, “Money is money.”
And he’s not completely wrong. There is some truth to it. At the end of the day, as investors, we sell money. Moreover, most investors who promise to be helpful are not. As well-intentioned as they are at the time of investment, most fall short of being truly helpful. There are multiple studies that show that founders believe a huge majority of their investors are not helpful.
That said, one of my investor buddies said something quite interesting to me earlier this week. Many founders see investors as saviors not partners. A source of capital to save them when they’re near the gates of hell, but not while they’re building their stairway to heaven. All that to say, as someone who’s been an operator, now a “VC”, but also someone who invests in other VCs, here are some of the nuances I’ve really come to appreciate over the years that I overlooked when I first stepped into the world of entrepreneurship.
Consensus and conviction-driven decision making
Some firms are consensus-driven. Others are conviction-driven. The former requires majority or unanimous buy-in. The latter doesn’t. Neither is universally better than the other, but knowing how decisions are made is extremely helpful. Not only to know who else you need to convince on the team, but also to know how the firm will help you post-investment.
The former is usually a firm where carry is split equally among all partners, so all partners are theoretically incented to see every portfolio company succeed. So as a founder, if you want to rely on the expertise and network of the collective partnership, these are the firms you should pursue. The latter, the conviction-driven ones, are most helpful if you really want one specific partner’s experience. They’ll be the person who takes the board seat. Opportunistically, they may ask for 1-2 junior team members to also have board observer seats. The downside is when and if this partner leaves the firm, there may be a gaping hole in governance as well as interest in the continued success of your company. But otherwise, this will be the partner you will have on speed dial.
I shared a presentation I made recently on LinkedIn. Of which, I share that three kinds of friends in the world. When shit hits the fan at 3AM in the morning…
There’s the friend you call. They see the call. And they go back to sleep.
There’s the friend you call. They see the call. And begrudgingly pick up.
And there’s the friend you call. And as they’re picking up the phone, they’ve got their pants on already and are running out the door with their keys.
Conviction-driven firms, where the partner that pounds the table for you will likely be on you board, or even if not, they’re going to be the third friend. At consensus-driven firms, and I’m clearly being reductive here, you’re more likely — not always — to have the reluctant one or sleepers.
Then it comes down to how the team is compensated. Not something most founders can find out or ask out, but how carry is distributed for each fund matters.
Disagreeableness
I’ve realized a lot of the best investors are quite disagreeable. They have their opinions and are quite vocal about them.
A lot of them quite often score incredibly low on investor review sites. Of course, some just score low on NPS purely because their assholes. But I want to caveat. Assholes are often disagreeable, but not all disagreeable people are assholes.
But it takes a lot of courage to have a contrarian viewpoint that one can back up. You don’t have to agree with it. But it matters. More often than not, these folks will also have negative references. For an LP evaluating VCs, that’s ok. Negative is always better than neutral references. The latter means you’re easily forgettable.
Regardless of whether you agree with these investors or not (equally, if not more true, in great founders), they make you stop and think. And that pause to think makes you a more well-rounded professional, and makes your own opinions more robust when you choose to adopt or not adopt said piece of advice.
There’s a great Steve Jobs line, which I think is quite applicable here. “Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
Great investors are troublemakers. In a good way.
P.S. To the three verified troublemakers I know who are reading this blogpost, can’t wait for your debut.
Small talk
Small talk was definitely one of those things I was rather dismissive of earlier in my career. Who da hell cares about the weather? Or what you did over the weekend?
But over the years, I realize some of the best investors are remarkably good at this. Not in the sense that they know how to ask great weather questions, but they learn how to build rapport early and quickly. And even better, they get a founder comfortable, honest, and candid about where they are at.
No one’s perfect. Every investor gets that. Most founders often pretend that they are. But a great investor is great at helping a founder realize they don’t have to be, and also get to understand a founder from a personal level. Not jumping straight into the pitch. Or give me your metrics. Or how much are you raising at how high of a valuation?
Radical candor
Borrowing this phrase from the amazing Kim Scott, the best investors are upfront with expectations. They don’t waste your time. Some even go as far as to share what their incentives are. And the harsh reality that they may be wrong many times before they’re right. They don’t beat around the bush. They don’t delay the inevitable. They’re great at ripping bandages off quickly, so they can prioritize their focus on other matters that require more attention. They have tough conversations early and synchronously. The last thing one can ever say about them is that they aren’t thoughtful. It seems remarkably simple, but most cannot do just that.
To be fair, it’s sometimes easier said than done. Even for myself, and I would not even dare to put myself in the category of great, I’ve been berated, gaslit, and shamed (haha!) for giving and attempting to give honest feedback to founders and investors. In fact, I was introed to a fund manager recently for the purpose of giving feedback. When I realized a couple red flags about her fund (namely her raising a $100M fund with no track record), I asked if she wanted feedback. To which, she replied with something to the effect that she only takes feedback from people who invest and that I didn’t deserve to give her feedback.
So I can see why some managers are averse to giving any.
Raising junior talent
I was reminded of this in my recent episode with Rick Zullo. And I noticed Rick is really good at giving credit and lifting up his team. In a soon-to-be-released episode, Eric Bahn from Hustle Fund does the same. I’ve asked him to speak at events before and he’s often referred one of his junior team members to the event. Not as a “I don’t want to do this, so someone else should”, but as a “I believe XX person will be a great future leader of this firm, and I believe others need to hear her insights.” And he’s been right every time.
Building an institutional firm takes more than one person. It takes a village. To build a legacy also requires more than one generation. I often see great investors taking less credit and giving a lot more to their team. Those often hidden from the limelight.
Discipline
Every great investor I know does something consistently every day. They set ground rules and while it’s less so for others, they hold themselves accountable to do so. Whether it’s a cup of coffee brewed from home every morning, or going to the gym on a daily basis or quality time with family or calling their significant other at a set time every day, I have yet to meet an investor who can’t keep to a promise they made to themselves consistently.
Venture capital is a long game, and it’s very possible for these multi-decade games, to be lucky at least once. Good investors, at some point, hit a unicorn. Great investors can discover many before others do. But any more than twice requires extreme discipline and the ability to say no to things that are good to make room for the great. And it’s so much harder than one might think.
And the simplest proxy to an investor’s ability to do so is their ability to fulfill promises to themselves when no one else is looking.
In closing
At the end of the day, not all shoes are the same. Just like not all VCs are. But if all you need is to get from Point A to Point B, and you don’t care for what kind of support you get along the way, VCs, like shoes, may all be the same.
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.
Felipe Valencia is one of the co-founders of Veronorte, a venture capital investment firm based out of Colombia. In the first decade, Veronorte focused on managing Corporate Venture Programs for some of the largest Corporations in Latam.
These days, they’re diving into a Fund of Funds investment strategy in the Venture Capital space. For the last 12 years, Veronorte has invested in over 25 startups across the U.S., India, Europe, Mexico, and Colombia, and in more than 12 Venture Capital funds, primarily in the U.S.
With over 20 years of experience under his belt, Felipe has dabbled in various fields like robotics, the internet, international trade, and infrastructure project management.
Felipe graduated summa cum laude with a Mechanical Engineering degree from EAFIT University. He also holds a Master’s in Web Communication from the European Institute of Design in Rome and an MBA from the University of Chicago, where he focused on entrepreneurship and finance.
Felipe’s journey has taken him all over the world: He worked for AVG – Robotics in Los Angeles, did research and development in Mechatronics at Siemens in Germany, and was the Commercial and Strategic Director of Indexcol in Colombia. He also served as the Commercial Attaché at the Colombian Embassy in China and led the Proexport office there. Most recently, he was involved in business development at Pierson Capital in Beijing and managed infrastructure projects in Mexico.
[00:00] Intro [02:54] Felipe’s teenage years under a life of terror [10:01] How Medellin has changed over the years [13:12] Tales from Felipe’s travels across 10 cities in 4 continents [17:53] How did Felipe made his foray into VC? [22:46] How did Felipe meet his co-founding partner Camilo? [26:31] How Felipe pitched a VC fund without a track record [39:16] How did Felipe and Camilo think about compensation in Fund I? [47:40] How did Veronorte transition from a VC fund to a fund of funds? [55:14] The Monte Carlo simulation of fund of funds strategies [1:03:04] How much better does a venture fund need to do than public markets? [1:05:46] How did Veronorte get into top tier established funds? [1:12:00] What coffee brand did Felipe bring on his visits to the US? [1:13:38] How did Veronorte close Latam family offices in their fund of funds? [1:17:04] How does Veronorte communicate with their LPs? [1:23:58] The difference between an emerging firm and a frontier firm [1:28:55] Portfolio construction at Veronorte [1:34:50] What podcasts does Felipe listen to? [1:38:19] Felipe’s advice for the wanderlust [1:43:39] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:44:39] If you enjoyed this episode, albeit longer, please do leave a like and share it with one friend who’d enjoy this episode!
“Diversification is a good way to control dispersion of returns.” – Felipe Valencia
“Every time they go to a meeting, they go with a present.” – Felipe Valencia, on building relationships
“This is an access class, not an asset class. And to show access, you need to bring these established firms. It’s not that we will invest in any shiny name, and we have passed on amazing firms that have an amazing brand because they don’t fit in our strategy.” – Felipe Valencia
Ben Ehrlich is the founder and General Partner of First Momentum Capital, where he helps seed a new generation of venture capital firms. He is also the Director of Strategy at the Long Term Stock Exhange. Previously Ben worked across the venture ecosystem supporting companies in the Canadian Technology Accelerator, OutCast Communications and Cribspot (YC 15). In his free time Ben takes his Irish setter doodle hiking and enjoys watching the University of Michigan football team (mostly) win.
[00:00] Intro [03:43] The origins of the Out of the Crisis podcast [06:54] Ben’s advice for rookie podcasters [08:35] How did Ben first meet Eric Ries? [11:46] The play-by-play for Ben’s interview with LTSE [13:36] What do decisions and conversations look like at LTSE? [16:23] Building trust among team members [18:29] How does Ben build trust with GPs? [25:14] How did First Momentum Capital start? [30:42] What was the pitch to close First Momentum’s first fund? [33:54] How does Ben underwrite Fund I managers? [36:42] How does Ben measure a GP’s future deal flow (as opposed to today’s)? [45:40] What does a “No” from Ben look like? [57:50] Thoughts on fund governance [1:05:57] What is the role of serendipity in Ben’s life? [1:08:17] Commisso Bakery in Toronto [1:10:35] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:11:35] If you enjoyed the episode, I’d appreciate it if you could share it with one friend!
“Make sure to pay the government, doctors, and podcast producers on time.” – Ben Ehrlich
“If you want to build trust with someone [on your team], if they screw up, you have to be okay with them screwing up because you put them in the situation.” – Ben Ehrlich
“We’re looking for concentrated, non-correlated bets.” – Ben Ehrlich
