I recently read Mark Suster‘s 2018 blog post about startups on “Remind me why I love you again?”. As an extremely active VC, he specifically detailed why, unfortunately, by meeting 2, 3, and so on with a founder, he may forget the context of reconnecting and why the founder/startup is so amazing. And, simply, he calls it “love decay”.
Mark Suster’s graph on ‘Love Decay’
The longer it has been since a VC/founder’s last meeting, the harder it is to recall the context of the current meeting. Though I may not be as over-saturated with deal flow as Mark is, it is an unfortunate circumstance I come across in meeting 5-10 founders and replying to 100+ emails a week.
Friday last week, I jumped on a phone call with a founder who reached out to me after checking out my blog. In my deep fascination on how she found and learns from her mentors, she shed some light as to why she feels safe to ask stupid questions. The TL;DR of her answer – implicit trust, blended with mutual respect and admiration. That her mentors know that when she does ask a question, it’s out of curiosity and not willing ignorance – or naivety.
But on a wider scope, our conversation got me thinking and reflecting. How can we build psychological safety around questions that may seem dumb at first glace? And sometimes, even unwittingly, may seem foolish to the person answering. The characteristics of which, include:
A question whose answer is easily Google-able;
A question that the person answering may have heard too many times (and subsequently, may feel fatigue from answering again);
And, a question whose answer may seem like common sense. But common sense, arguably, is subjective. Take, for example, selling losses and holding gains in the stock market may be common sense to practiced public market investors, but may feel counter-intuitive to the average amateur trader.
We’re Human
But, if you’re like me, every so often, I ask a ‘dumb’ question. Or I feel the urge to ask it ’cause either I think the person I’m asking would provide a perspective I can’t find elsewhere or, simply, purely by accident. The latter of which happens, though I try not to, when I’m droning through a conversation. When my mind regresses to “How are you doing?” or the like.
To fix the latter, the simple solution is to be more cognizant and aware during conversations. For the former, I play with contextualization and exaggeration. Now, I should note that this isn’t a foolproof strategy and neither is it guaranteed to not make you look like a fool. You may still seem like one. But hopefully, if you’re still dying to know (and for some reason, you haven’t done your homework), you’re more likely to get an answer.
Last week I spent some time with my friend, who joined me in my recent social experiment, brainstorming and iterating on feedback. Specifically, how I could host better transitions between presentations. She left me with one final resonating note. “Maybe you would’ve liked a creative writing class.”
I’ve never taken any creative writing courses. I thought those courses were designed for aspiring writers. And given my career track, I never gave it a second thought. Well, until now. I recently finished a brilliant fictional masterpiece, Mistborn: The Final Empire written by #1 New York Times bestselling author, Brandon Sanderson. So, that’s where I began my creative journey.
In my homework, I came across his YouTube channel. One of his lectures for his 2020 BYU writing students particularly stood out. In it, he shares his very own Sanderson’s Laws.
The three laws that govern his scope of worldbuilding are as follows:
Your ability to solve problems with magic in a satisfying way is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.
Flaws/limitations are more interesting than powers.
Before adding something new to your magic (setting), see if you can instead expand what you have.
Outside of his own books, Sanderson goes in much more depth, citing examples from Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and more. So, if you have the time, I highly recommend taking one and one-fifth of an hour to hear his free class. Or if you’re more of a reader, he shares his thesis on his First Law, Second Law, and Third Law on his website.
But for the purpose of this post, the short form of the 3 laws suffices.
The First Law
Your ability to solve problems with magic in a satisfying way is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.
The same is true in the world of entrepreneurship. Your ability to successfully fundraise is directly proportional to how well the investor understands your venture. Or more aptly put, how well you can explain the problem you are trying to solve. This is especially true for the 2 ends of the spectrum: deep tech/frontier tech startups and low-tech, or robust anti-fragile products/business models. Often times, the defensibility of your product comes down to how well people can understand what pain points you’re trying to solve. You may have the best product on the market, but if no one understands why it exists, it’s effectively non-existent.
Though not every investor will agree with me on this, I believe that too many founders jump straight into their product/solution at the beginning of their pitch deck. While it is important for a founder to concisely explain their product, I’m way more fascinated with the problem in the market and ‘why now?’.
You’re telling a story in your pitch. And before you jump into the plot (the product itself), I’d love to learn more about the setting and the characters involved (the underlying assumptions and trends, as well as the team behind the product). As my own NTY investment thesis goes (why Now, why This, why You, although not in that particular order), I’m particularly fascinated about the ‘why now’ and ‘why you’ before the ‘why this’. And if I can’t understand that, then it’s a NTY – or in millennial texting terms, no thank you.
My favorite proxy is if you can explain your product well to either a 7-year old, or someone who knows close to nothing about your industry. Brownie points if they’re excited about it too after your pitch. How contagious is your obsession?
The Second Law
Flaws/limitations are more interesting than powers.
Investors invest in superheroes. The underdogs. The gems still in the rough. And especially now, at the advent of another recession and the COVID crisis, the question is:
How much can you do with what little you have?
And, can you make the aggressive decisions to do so?
I realize that this is no easy ask of entrepreneurs. But when you’re strapped for cash, talent, solid pipelines, are you a hustler or are you not? Can you sell your business regardless? To investors? New team members? Clients/paying users?
On the flip side, sometimes you know what you need to do, but just don’t have the conviction to do so, especially for aggressive decisions. You may not want to lay off your passionate team members. Or, let go of that really great deal of a lease you got last year. You may not want to cut the budget in half. But you need to. If you need to extend what little you have to another 12-18 months, you’ve got to read why you should cut now and not later. Whether we like it or not, we’re heading into some rough patches. So brace yourselves.
But as an investor once said to me:
“Companies are built in the downturns; returns are realized in the upturns.”
The Third Law
Before adding something new to your magic (setting), see if you can instead expand what you have.
And finally consider:
Can you reach profitability with what you have without taking additional injections of capital?
Can you extend your runway by cutting your budget now?
But if you need capital to continue, do you need venture capital funding? I’m of the belief, that 90% of businesses out there aren’t fit for the aggressive venture capital model.
How scrappy are you? How creatively can you find solutions to your most pressing problems? And maybe in that pressure, you may find something that the market has never seen before.
In closing
Like a captivating fantastical story, your startup, your team, your investors, and especially you yourself, need that compelling narrative. The hardest moments in building a business is when there’s no hope in sight – when you’re on the third leg of the race. In times of trial, you need to convince yourself, before you can convince others. To all founders out there, godspeed!
And as Sanderson’s Zeroth Law goes:
Always err on the side of what’s awesome.
If you’re interested in the world of creative writing or drawing parallels where I could not, check out Brandon Sanderson’s completely (and surprisingly) free series of lectures on his YouTube channel.
As much as investors love founders with passion (or obsession) and grit, they also want to invest in founders who have the capacity to grow as individuals as much as their startup grows. And that boils down to how curious and open-minded they are. In other words, how coachable are they? In the past 2 weeks, I’ve had the fortuity to talk to 2 brilliant angel investors – each with their own respective formula for measuring founder coachability.
Formula #1: Assessing Peer Coachability
Last year, I shared a post about the importance of all three levels of mentorship – peer, tactical, and veteran. With the most underappreciated one being peer mentorship. For the sake of this post, let’s call the first angel, Marie. Similarly, Marie finds that peer coachability acts as a useful proxy for founder coachability. And she approaches peer coachability in a very unique way:
What do you and you co-founder(s) fundamentally disagree on?
Following that question, usually 1 of 3 scenarios ensue:
The co-founders can state what they disagree on. And by follow-up question, share how they resolved that disagreement, then how that applies to their framework for resolving future disagreements.
They figure it out on the spot. Better sooner than later.
They say, “Nothing.” And quite possibly, the worst answer they could provide. ‘Cause that means they just don’t understand each other well enough. It’s highly unlikely that given how complex human beings are, that there can be two ambitious individuals who have the exact same outlook on life. Even twins have variations in their perspectives.
Knowing what co-founders disagree on assesses not only how well founders know each other, but also, how they’ve learned from each point of friction. Whether intentionally or not, they become each other’s coaches and push each other forward.
Formula #2: Assessing VC-Founder Coachability
Jerry, on the other hand, tests the waters by offering a controversial opinion about building a business or an insight into the industry, but one he has conviction and experience in. Then, he waits to see how the founder responds. The founder(s) can either:
Disagree, and subsequently walk through where the dissent starts and offer a sequence of data and analyses as to why he/she believes in such a way.
Agree, but still offer how he/she reached the same conclusion.
In either case, Jerry is looking for how mentally acute a founder is and how much room for discussion there is between them. On the other hand, the strike-outs regress to 2 categories:
Disagree, and spend time trying to convince Jerry why he is wrong, rather than working to persuade Jerry to possibly see a bigger picture he might not have considered before. And sometimes, this bigger scope includes a marriage of Jerry and the founder(s) insights.
Agree or disagree, but unfortunately, is unable to substantially back up their claim. Becoming a yes-man/woman in the former, or an argumentative troll in the latter.
The Mentorship Parallel
Unsurprisingly, just like how VCs use these methods to assess founder coachability, I’ve seen mentors use similar methods to assess potential mentees. Many aspiring mentees seek mentorship for its namesake – that metaphoric badge of honor. Not too far from the apple tree when people start a business or come to Silicon Valley to be called a CEO or for their company to be ‘venture-backed’. A category of folks we designate as “wantrapreneurs”.
And unfortunately, many aspiring mentees find bragging rights to be the mentee of [insert accomplished individual’s name]. Yet they don’t actually mean to learn anything meaningful, much less accept constructive criticism. Realistically, no mentor wants to go through that mess. “If you want for my advice, you better take it seriously,” as my first mentor once told me.
In closing
A great VC’s goal is to be the best dollar on your cap table, but they can’t be that Washington if you don’t let them be one. And though it doesn’t call for your investors or board members to micromanage, it does mean you are expected to be candid in both receiving and using (or not using) feedback.
Three moons ago, I jumped on a call with a founder who was in the throes of fundraising and had half of his round “committed”. And yes, he used air quotes. So, as any natural inquisitive, I got curious as to what he meant by “committed”. Turns out, he could only get those term sheets if he either found a lead or could raise the other half successfully first. Unfortunately, he’s not the only one out there. These kinds of conversations with investors have been the case, even before COVID. But it’s become more prevalent as many investors are more cautious with their cash. And frankly, a way of de-risking yourself is to not take the risk until someone else does.
I will say there are many funds out there where as part of the fund’s thesis, they just don’t lead rounds. But your first partner… you want them to have conviction.
Just like, no diet is going to stop me from having my mint chocolate chip with Girl Scout Thin Mints, served on a sugar cone. I’m salivating just thinking about it, as the heat wave is about to hit the Bay. An investor who has conviction will not let smaller discrepancies, including, but not limited to:
Crowded cap table,
No CTO,
College/high school dropout,
Lower than expected MRR or ARR,
No ex-[insert big tech company] team members,
Or, no senior/experienced team members,
… stop them from opening their checkbook. And just like I’ll find ways to hedge my diet outlier, through exercise or eating more veggies, an investor will find ways to hedge their bets, through their network (hiring, advisors, co-investors, downstream investors), resources, and experience.
So, what is that telltale sign of a lack of conviction?
I will preface by first saying, that the more you put yourself in front of investors, the more you’ll be able to develop an intuition of who’s likely to be onboard and who’s likely not to. For example, taking longer than 24 hours to respond to your thank you/next steps email after that pitch meeting. Or, on the other end, calling someone “you have to meet” mid-meeting and putting you on the line.
It seems obvious in retrospect, but once upon a time, when I was fundraising, I just didn’t let myself believe it was true. That investors just won’t have conviction when they ask:
Who else is interested?
A close cousin includes “Who else have you talked to?” (And what did they say?). If their decision is contingent – either consciously or subconsciously – with benchmarking their decision on who else is going to participate (or lead), you’re not talking to a lead (investor). And that initial hesitation, if allowed manifest further, won’t do you much good in the longer run, especially when things get bumpy for the company. Robert De Niro once said, in the 1998 Ronin film,
“Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt.”
You want investors who have conviction in your business – in you. Who’ll believe in you through thick and thin. After all, it’s a long-term marriage. Admittedly, it takes time and diligence to understand what kind of investor they are.
In closing
Like all matters, there are always other confounding and hidden variables. And though no “sign” is your silver bullet for understanding an investor’s conviction. Hopefully, this is another tool you can use from your multi-faceted toolkit.
From spending time with some of the smartest folks on both sides of the table and from personal observations, even if it’s anecdotal, the sample size should be significant enough to put weight behind the hypothesis. And, if I ever find myself wanting to ask that question, I aim to be candid, and tell founders that I’m not interested.
It’s been a trying time for founders to fundraise in these turbulent times. On one end, you have investors who took a U-turn on plans to invest this year. On the other, you have investors still deploying or looking to deploy capital. The latter further breaks down into: (a) investors who are taking more calculated bets – raising the bar for the kind of startup that gets the capital, and (b) investors who find the opportunity to invest in the down markets. The latter cohort of the latter cohort seems to hold truer at and prior to the pre-seed stages among microfunds and angel groups.
The Tightening of the Market
Disregarding the investors who aren’t deploying capital anymore, it’s been harder than ever to raise. Here’s why:
Anecdotally, more startups are looking to fundraise. Many have pushed up their fundraising schedules.
The standard is much higher now than before. And that includes a stronger consideration for the problem you’re addressing. Is it anti-fragile? Is it recession-proof? If your numbers are down now, will they eventually ‘flip’ back on track post-quarantine?
Valuations are taking a hit. Where before your startup may have been overvalued (especially in Silicon Valley), many startups are facing “more realistic” round sizes. And flat or down rounds are more prevalent.
When investors can’t meet founders in-person, they’re resorting to data, data, data. Investors no longer have the luxury to benchmark a gut check over Zoom/email, as they would have in noticing micro-gestures and other situational context clues. Anecdotally, investors are spending much more time and putting much more weight on diligence than before.
And, that’s why founders, more than ever, should (re)consider fundraising strategies. This was something that I learned when I was on the operating side and at one point, working on the fundraising front for Localwise.
Much like when high school students apply for college, founders should have a three-tiered list – SMR, as I like to call it:
Safety,
Meet,
And, reach.
Safety
Safety investors are those that are definitely going to take the meeting. And will most likely invest in you (i.e. at the idea stage, this mostly comprises of family, friends, and colleagues, maybe even early fans via crowdfunding). Admittedly, they can only contribute small sums of money. Each check also carry little to no strategic weight on the cap table.
Meet
Meet investors are investors that will most likely take the first meeting, but you’ll need to do a little leg work to get them to invest. Many of these will most likely stick to being participants than leads in any round. They carry some strategic weight on the cap table – in the capacity of their network, their brand, or advice.
Reach
Your reach investors will be your greatest sponsors. The people who have the highest potential to get you hitting the ground running. These folks usually have crowded inboxes already. And you’ll need to figure out how to best reach them. Unless they reach out to you, you will most likely fall just short of their gold standard. But once you stget these onboard, your relationship will set you up for reaching your next milestone better than any other individual partnership. At the same time, they will be the ones who are most likely going to have true conviction behind your product, your market insight, and your team. They typically lead rounds, and carry great strategic value to your startup (i.e. top tier investors, SMEs, product leaders in your respective vertical). For lack of better words, your ‘dream girl’ or ‘guy’.
Your Priorities
When pitching (and practicing your pitch), go for a bottom-up approach. Safety, then meet, then finally reach. And ideally, by the time you’re pitching to your ‘dream girl’ or ‘guy’, you’d have refined your pitch that best fits their palate.
When prioritizing time and effort, go top-down. Since you have limited bandwidth, spend the most time doing diligence on your reach investors. Then meet. And if you still have time, safety.
Diligence and Reaching Out
During your diligence process, look at their team, their individual and collective experience. Is their partnership, especially the checkwriters, diverse? Were they former operators? Or career VCs? And based on what they have, what do you, as a founder, need the most right now? Also, to better understand the marriage you’ll be getting in to, talk to their portfolio startups and investors that have worked with them before. Pay special attention to the the venture bets that didn’t work out. Was there a break up? If there was, what was it like? How did the investor help them navigate tough times?
It’s easy to be positive and cohesive when things are working out, but how does that investor react when things aren’t going as expected?
After talking to the (ex-)portfolio founders, if you feel like they have a good grasp on what you’re working on and are excited for you, ask them for an intro. Focus on those founders who have gone through the idea maze in your respective vertical, or an adjacent one. If you’re defining a new vertical, or that investor has just never invested in your vertical, but has expressed public interest of pursuing investments in yours, ask founders who have the same or a similar business model to yours. After all, that’s going to be the kind of solid warm intro you want.
In Closing
Though there are other ways to get in front of investors (some more questionable and/or gutsy than others), including, but not limited to:
Warm intros from friend/mutualLinkedIn connection,
Cold email/DM,
Reaching out to a more junior team member (scout/analyst/associate/principal),
Presenting at accelerator/incubator Demo Days,
Presenting at a hot conference, like TC Disrupt or SXSW,
Volunteering at the same non-profit as them,
Auditing their lecture at Stanford,
Or, squeezing into their elevator (although most VC offices are pretty lateral)…
… anecdotally, it seems many founders overlook the means of getting an intro from a VC’s portfolio.
This is embarrassing to admit, but 6 years ago, I barely knew what a resume was. As a hint of my ignorance, my first ‘resume’ was 3 pages long, double-spaced, and included two lines explaining a babysitting license I got back in middle school. So, within 10 seconds of it going up, I signed up for the resume workshop. In my hurry, I signed up for the first spot with the first “critique-er” I saw.
When the fateful day arrived, he didn’t show up at our appointed time. After waiting 15 minutes and asking the workshop leads, it turned out he was stuck in the depths of traffic.
But hell, I wasn’t going to go home empty-handed. So, I went around the bustling room, catching each “critique-er” there whenever they had a break, to ask them to look over my sad excuse of a resume. By the end of the two-hour workshop, I had taken notes about the flaws of my resume from every alumni there – half of whom ran through various interview questions with me – except for one. The one I had initially signed up with.
After hearing gossip and rumors from the alumni of how brutally honest he was, I had to meet this mysterious fellow. Eventually, he arrived. And luckily, the alumni invited me to join them for a late dinner. And that night, he left me with one sentence: “If you want my advice, you better take it seriously.” Not in the sense that I need to follow exactly what he tells me, but that I won’t hear then forget it the next morning.
Over the years, I’ve truly appreciated the analytical mind he brought to temper my creative mind. His advice saved my neck saved my neck at multiple crossroads of my career. He was able see around the corner when I couldn’t – a tactical mentor. Though I didn’t use his advice every single time, I always came back to him with the post-mortem.
How did I use his advice?
If I did, what was its impact?
If I didn’t, what was my internal calculus for choosing so?
He never pressured me to use his advice, nor did he ask that I report back to him each time. But I did. Over the years, I’ve been there for his highs and lows, just like he has been there for mine. Before we became mentor and mentee, we realized we had become friends. Ironically, to this day, he still hasn’t seen my resume.
The Bigger Picture
You might call it availability bias, but over the 6 years since then, I’ve reached out to many people – punching above my weight class, inspired to seek mentorship. But out of all the 20+ people that I asked for mentorship on the get-go, not a single one was willing to take on the responsibility for a stranger. And rightly so. Like any other relationship, mentorship requires time and commitment. Without any precedence, it’s hard to make that decision with asymmetric information.
The Venture Parallel
Even as investors, who notoriously have to be willing to not only mentor others through “just a pitch”, but also commit dollars to where their mouth is at, each round of startup funding takes at least 60-90 days of diligence and working together, before we invest. Our goal is to be ‘the best dollar on your cap table‘.
In a literal sense, a dollar is a dollar. Whether you get it from your parents as an allowance when you were 7 years old or from your managerial salary at 27 years old, it’s the same. But, in venture, there’s ‘dumb money’ – money in its most literal sense. And there’s ‘smart money’ – money that comes with advice, resources, social and professional networks, and help.
In most cases, an early-stage founder wants ‘smart money’. In that frame of mind, you want the investor(s) that have the best networks, the best resources, the best expertise, and possibly, the best brand, at your stage of a business. So your pitch should be hyper-specific. As with any ask in the world, nothing is ever guaranteed. But, to increase your chances of a “yes”, the best founders build that relationship before they need to fundraise.
Circling Back
For any other person out there, whose day job isn’t to take measured capital risk, you’ll have to work even harder to convince someone to take that leap of faith with you.
When you ask for mentorship, or advice, in general, follow through with it. Make it known that it is valued. And, show your progress after having tried it out. No person speaks hoping to reach deaf ears. So, if you don’t think you’ll have the mental and physical bandwidth to turn advice into action, don’t ask for advice. And definitely, don’t ask for mentorship. It’s not worth your time or theirs.
As a footnote to myself and to others who may be seeking advice, even with this mindset, there’s no silver bullet. Be curious. Be mindful. And, be creative. My favorite creative ‘ask’ so far is “I will pay you to work for you”.
One of my buddies and his team recently successfully raised their Fund I, luckily before this recent downturn. Moreover, their fund is geared towards investments into frontier tech. And the Curious George in me couldn’t help but ask about his findings and learnings. In the scope of mega versus micro-funds, our conversation also spiraled into:
the current state of private markets,
VC-LP dynamics,
and, operators-turned VCs.
Here’s a snapshot of our conversation, which could act as a cognitive passport for newly-minted and aspiring VCs. For the purpose of this blog, I’ll call him Noah.
The Snapshot
David: How do you think the private markets will change in this pandemic?
Noah: In a way starting a fund is a lot like starting a company. It’s definitely a humbling process to be on the ‘other side’ of the table and feel what it’s like to be an ‘entrepreneur’ and fundraise.
Yeah the impact on the private market side is something i’m trying to figure out yet. I think it’s still a little early to denote the true extent of the impact. But nonetheless, in the short term, funding activity is bound to go down, people are speculating the duration of this event and waiting for prices to come down. We’re lucky to have closed some money before this happened but it’ll be extremely tricky for the next wave of new fund managers to raise their funds.
It’ll be an especially rough time for founders especially if it goes on for long enough, most VCs will probably try to cut losses by dedicating their attention to portfolios that have the highest chance of survival. This crisis is also different in the sense that it’s a virus which prevents people from regrouping quickly if it carries on.
David: And it’s partly due to a recent function of LPs under-allocating towards the VC asset class as a whole, with longer fund cycles (10 years [6-7 years now] + 2-year extensions). Before all this, the market had been performing rather well in the past few years (a solid 17-18% return YoY on the public markets, or these self-imposed liquidity events, versus venture where only the top quartile of VCs make better than market return). I believe the 2018 number for the top quartile annual IRR was 24.98%, which is, what, 3x in 5 years, but even then, its not enough to convince many LPs.
Although you have the rise in a new sort of private investor in both the secondary markets, as well as VC-LP functions, where firms LPs either invest directly, or VCs are now investing in other micro-funds, like Sapphire. With VCs writing more discovery checks, and so many recent exits in tech, syndicates, via SPVs (special purpose vehicles), has helped them develop relationships with founders early on and relatively no strings attached.
Noah: I think one metric that really stands out that everyone is thinking about is in terms of liquidity. Not only are companies staying private for longer, more and more new alternative asset classes are rising. Interestingly enough, a lot of the endowments or larger institutions we’ve talked to are over allocated in venture. For example, Duke has nearly 1/3 of their money allocated to VCs. One obvious way that VCs are tackling this is in the secondaries market, selling off equity earlier and earlier, so lower potential return profile but LPs generally love early indications of a good DPI.
And yep, microfunds is definitely a big trend as well. It’s simply not sustainable for half a bill/billion dollar early stage funds to exist. Some of the returns of these mega funds have been made public and they’re not looking too great, even if it’s still early for them. On the flip side, smaller funds are a lot easier to return and generally where the best performing vehicles can be found. Moreover, the traditional endowments and institutions have locked in to the Sequoias and Andreessens already, so new FoFs (fund of funds) and relatively newer endowments are always looking for who are the next best alternatives. It just so happened that we’re also seeing a wave of ex-operators coming into the world of VCs and starting new funds. They might not have the acumen to build a long-standing mega fund yet, but their technical expertise makes them a good candidate for more verticalized funds.
David: I totally agree with your sentiment that operators should go do specialized funds, that could be vertically aligned, or could be functionally aligned (i.e. marketing, growth, dev, design, etc.). I’ve had this long standing belief, and let me know what you think. If you’re a great VC, run a mega fund. But if you’re a good-to-okay VC, run a micro fund or an alternative funding vehicle.
As someone who’s good-to-okay, it’s more important to (1) hedge your bets, aka diversify your portfolio, and (2) collect data. Most newly-minted VCs don’t have the experience, like you said, on the other side of the table. Just because you’ve been a good student doesn’t mean you’ll be a good teacher. As someone starting off or just don’t have a stable track record for doing well (aka one shot wonders or the lagging 75% if not more, of the industry), you gotta collect data, to do better cohort/portfolio/deal flow analysis.
Whereas if you’re a great VC, you need the capital to commit to the best investments of your portfolio. So megafunds, plus growth funds, make sense. Although, admittedly great VCs are far and few between.
Noah: My two cents is that the trend of larger and larger fund sizes is ultimately the result of VCs becoming too competitive. It’s no longer enough that VCs have a platform team to help support portfolio companies because more and more other VCs are amassing large support teams too. Therefore as you mentioned, the true way for them to stand out is to have a multi-billion dollar fund that spans across multiple stages. So unlike an early stage fund that can only guarantee committing maybe up to, let’s say, $10MM in capital during their seed and series A, these new beasts can support you in the growth rounds as well, all the way to IPO, and more and more VCs are doing so.
The problem is that this is a recent trend that happened within the past decade, and it’s still quite early to judge the capabilities of some of these new mega funds and whether they’re qualified to manage such a large fund. Nonetheless, you do still see that some of the best funds out there are very disciplined in keeping a consistent fund size (e.g. USV, Benchmark, First round, etc.) simply because it’s so much harder to return a billion dollar fund versus a $250MM vehicle. Microfunds is another interesting trend. On one hand a lot of these newly-minted VCs simply don’t have the capability to raise a >$100MM+ fund in the first place. But there are also cases where the GPs are more than capable but still choose to keep it at a <$100MM vehicle. I’m guessing a lot has to do with the competitive environment we’re in nowadays. When you don’t have as high ownership targets because of your smaller fund, you’re more flexible with minority stakes and can thus co-invest and get into better deals.
What does this mean for founders?
In these trying times, the public discourse around venture financing has been that there’s still quite a bit of capital that has yet to be deployed and that investors are still looking to invest. Yet it is neither entirely true nor entirely false. There are still financings going on today. Admittedly, most of these started their conversations 2-3 months ago.
The goal is cash preservation over growth for many verticals and companies, and it’s no less true for private companies. In that theme, most investors’ first foremost focus is the wellbeing of their portfolio. And because of that priority, many investors are slowing their investing schedule for now. This is especially true for megafunds, where, as ‘Noah’ mentioned, requires much more to return the fund, much less make a profit.
On the flip side, I’ve seen smaller funds and angel syndicates still actively deploying in this climate. I’ve also heard concerns where this pandemic and downturn is going to affect their fundraising schedule for Fund II and Fund III, so they’re pressured with making bets now from their LPs.
Anecdotally, it shouldn’t be harder to raise funding now than before. Some of the greatest companies came out of the past few downturns (2000 and ’08). A caveat would be if you overvalued in a previous round and are still looking to maintain the valuation trajectory (up round over down round).
So keep hacking! Measure well! And stay safe!
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!
I was chatting with a founder yesterday about why she was getting so many “maybe’s”, a few “no’s”, but no “yes’s”, where a “yes” needs to come along with a term sheet, or else it’s as good as a “maybe.” Her product was hitting most of the check boxes for a startup ripe for the seed round, but she just wasn’t getting any traction from investors. There were a few KPIs she was missing here and there, but most startups don’t fit in the cookie cutter rubric anyway. So why?
It was and is the secret sauce. Others might call it the X-factor. It’s what uniquely sets you, as a founder, and your team and product apart from the rest of the competition. Like I mentioned in my thesis, what did you catch that makes money, which everyone else underestimating or missing entirely? It could be an insight; it could be a business model; it could be a specific money-generating collective customer insight. And how will this secret sauce continue to help you gain traction, at the minimum, for next few years. Moreover, at an early stage, pre-product-market fit (pre-PMF), it really only has to be one thing. It doesn’t have to be a list of the five ‘unfair advantages,’ like they teach in B-school. It’s not the chart with you having all the check boxes checked and everyone else having less checks than you do. It’s more often than not, not the up and to the right graph that you have in your slide deck. Because let’s be honest, every startup’s graph is up and to the right. Left side – antiquated. Right side – revolutionary. Bottom side – slow. Top side – fast. Or some cousin of that. Not that any of these advantages, charts and graphs are wrong, but what they represent most likely isn’t as unique as a founder might think. VCs see thousands of pitches in their inbox, pitches at events, and pitches in person. What you think is unique may be the 50th time a VC sees the exact same value proposition. As one of my 6th grade teachers once put it into perspective for me, “Think of a hundred really, really creative ideas. Throw them all away because all of them are unoriginal. Now think of your next hundred, and you are finally entering where no one has tread before.”
Just one thing. One thing I, as a scout, or another as partner, can bring to a partner meeting and say: This one thing is why we should invest. The more intuitive, yet exclusive to you, the better. Investors only have so much bandwidth to entertain ideas. There is a huge sum of okay ideas. Many good ideas. A few crazy ideas. And an even smaller handful of crazy good ideas. And the secret sauce is to prove to anyone exactly why you are one of the crazy good ones.
Now the secret sauce gets more nuanced here. You and your startup not only need that secret sauce, but you need to make sure the investor that you’re talking to is the “best dollar on your cap table,” as Roy Bahat of Bloomberg Beta (yes, the link redirects to a Github link, and they might be the only investors out there that does that) puts it. Why is it the perfect fit for the investor you’re chatting with (or going to chat with)? And why is that investor, and no one else, uniquely suited to help your business flourish at this stage? For example, I can cook up the meanest mushroom dish ever, slather it with my widely-accepted secret sauce (which has white pepper in it), and give it to my brother. No matter how good it actually is, he will without a doubt throw it in the trash or flush it down the toilet. Because he’s just not into mushrooms. The same can be said with investors. If they can’t or don’t know how to appreciate, savor and help you build on that delicious mushroom recipe, you’d just be wasting time barking on the wrong tree.
All in all, the secret sauce is just when your unique recipe for success meets someone with the means and experience to love it.
