In the wonderful world of venture, an investor takes a different kind of bet with each stage as a function of industry. For instance, a pre-seed SaaS product, it’s a distribution risk. Can this founder sell this product to others? In general, the angel or pre-seed round is often a founder bet. Can this founder or founding team pull off their vision? And subsequently, if they’re able to achieve their milestones in the funding window, will those milestones excite downstream capital?
One of the greatest byproducts in starting my career in venture as a scout — sending seed and Series A deals to those respective investors — was that I learned what archetypes of deals interested them. And what didn’t. As I moved even earlier in the funnel, so, pre-seed and seed, I could help founders and their teams set themselves up for the subsequent round.
Admittedly, that became a bit harder to do in the hoorah of 2020 and 2021 — with insane multiples and raises coming together as a function of FOMO.
When looking at the present day, mid-February of 2023, one in three or four deals in my inbox is a company raising a bridge. The bet here is an execution bet. Now before I get into the questions I consider when a founder pitches a bridge fundraise, I think it’ll be helpful to consider bridge rounds as a function of good and bad markets. And why they make more sense in a bull market, for better or worse, than in a bear market.
Bridge and venture debt
In a bull market, bridge rounds — or preemptive rounds, pick your nomenclature — and pay-to-play rounds make sense. The promise of capital within six months is extremely likely. Interest rates are low enough, where equity instruments have greater return potential than debt instruments. In a similar way, the same can be said for the premise behind venture debt. Venture debt (I am but an armchair expert at best, but have been lucky to query some of the best) is debt that is issued with the expectation of another round. At the same time, the warning label here is in a few-fold:
Many VCs prefer not to have investors higher than them on preference stack.
Subsequent equity raises are used to pay back venture debt first.
You have a 36-month repayment period usually, after if you decide to use the capital within the first 12 months or not.
There are usually warrants that ask for additional ownership in the company on top of the loan.
But I digress. In a bear market, bridge markets make less sense for an investor. Bridge rounds usually occur when teams miss expectations. They’ve missed milestones. Their burn rate was higher than expected. And their runway is naught but less than a year. It’s way the most common recommendation VCs gave their portfolio companies in 2022 was have at least a 24-month runway. You have more wiggle room to prove assumptions and get to an inflection point.
In a bull market, missing expectations is almost impossible. Sky high valuation multiples and funding rounds made capital cheap. When capital’s cheap, founders are more likely to spend with less discipline than otherwise. Moreover, consumers felt richer. Their net worth appreciated in a good economy. Interest rates lag inflationary signs. And the money is out of the pocket before it has time to warm up. Consumers also not only spend more, but they invest more. Companies saw greater revenue numbers and market cap growth, leading to more liberal spending habits. Greater market budgets to acquire customers. That spending led to high burn multiples.
This all led to a virtuous flywheel, that though growth and revenue numbers hit, the cost to get there also exponentially grew. The quality of businesses declined, as consumers and companies got used to the spending habits of the good times. Those same habits, unfortunately, don’t work in a recessionary market. And when founders are unable to part with their multiple in a boom market, and for many, the spend during that same market, they go to raise a bridge round instead of offering new equity, hoping they’ll, in some way, “make it work.” And yes, that’s the exact wording some founders used.
If investors have the chance to place new shots on goal, a lot of investors today are willing to bear the opportunity cost of passing on a bridge round.
Inflection points and lack thereof
Each new round is raised on the assumption your company is at an inflection point. Right as your second derivative shifts from negative to positive. To some businesses, that’s a market inflection. A (lucky) black swan event. A technological release. Or a regulatory easing. To others, it’s a traction inflection. Users just love your product. And to another cohort, not mutually exclusive to the afore-two inflections, is an insight inflection. You’ve learned something that’s going to catapult you so much further. For Duolingo in 2012, it’s the realization of going mobile. For Zynga, in 2010, it was its partnership with a rising class of platform usage, social media, namely Facebook.
On the other hand, for Airbnb, in 2011, its major competitor abroad, Wimdu raised $90 million to focus on its European expansion. That meant if Airbnb didn’t expand outside of the US, they would lose access to a whole market of Europeans but also Americans whose vacation destinations were one of the seven continents. To the Airbnb team, in the words of Jonathan Golden, their first PM, it was the realization that “marketplaces are normally winner-take-all markets” and “when competition comes after you, move ridiculously fast.” And they did.
Bridge rounds often don’t carry that same drive or momentum. It’s not raised at an inflection point, but rather in efforts to get to one. Usually it’s not proving a new assumption but last round’s assumptions. As I mentioned at the top, it’s an execution bet. And as such, it begs the question: How much conviction do I have that a founder is going to be a great steward of capital?
Fortunately or unfortunately, unlike most other early-stage round constructions, there are multiple data points. Have they used capital to date efficiently and effectively? If so, do I believe this founder will 10x their KPIs within this funding window?
Usually the funding window I allude to is 12 to 18 months. In the scenario of a bridge, that timeline becomes six months. The expectations are less forgiving and more aggressive. What are you building to in half a year? Do you have the discipline to execute on that goal? Does your track record corroborate? Do you have a detailed plan to get there?
In closing
IVP’s Tom Loverrorecently shared, “A half measure is usually something a management team lands on because it’s easy. If a decision is easy, it’s probably a half measure. If it’s hard, if it’s really damn hard… if it’s controversial, you’re probably doing enough of it. The other thing is a half measure often doesn’t have an end result or goal in mind. If you have a really specific goal, and implementing that goal is difficult, that’s probably doing your job. That’s probably what’s necessary.”
A bridge round, more often than not, is a half measure.
He goes on to say, “If it’s a good company, give them a lot of capital. If not, zero.”
This past week, I chatted with three institutional LPs, and three more venture investors about this topic. In five out of six conversations, one phrase made its appearance. “Don’t put good money after bad.” And while anecdotal, all six — every single one having participated in bridge rounds at some point in their investing career — concluded money was better spent in new investments than in bridge rounds. The caveat from these conversations was that it may work if you are either leading the round or setting the terms. Then again, that’s favorable for an investor, and may not be as much for the founders.
That said, I’m sure there’ll still be great companies raising bridges. But who knows… I await the day, not just in outliers, that we see bridge rounds trend otherwise. For that to happen, I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to see a lot more discipline from the average founder.
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.
“Magic is just spending more time on a trick that anyone would ever expect to be worth it.” —Penn & Teller
Five years ago, back in 2018, I would have never guessed. But I fell in love with the soles of another person’s feet. And I knew this was going to be one of the most tenacious people I’d ever meet.
I was introduced to “Ben” by a dear friend with one line, “No one can outhustle him.” “Ben” grew up with an insatiable appetite to learn, in a village located on the outskirts of Cairo. He would spend many days and nights in conversation with village experts and the village library, until one day he noticed he learned all he could have.
It just so happens that there’s a two-hour bus to Cairo that comes once a week. And that was how he found the libraries in Cairo, where he realized his interest in AI. But due to the bus’ odd schedules, instead of riding it, Ben chose to instead walk ten hours to Cairo every week. He’d then download, read, and print (to bring back to his village) as many Stanford PhD research papers on AI as possible. Sleep overnight at the bus stop. Then the next day, walk ten hours back to his village, where he’d continue with his reading for the week with all the loose leaf papers he had.
Needless to say, he had the feet to show for it.
I shared that story with a friend two days ago at the perennially-packed Superhot. We were chatting about the traits we look for in founders we back and the questions we ask to get there. The latter of which I’ve written about before. And at the early stages, the chief thing we look for is grit. There’s a tweet I stumbled on this week summarizes that rather nicely:
The problem is it’s so hard to see if a founder has the qualities of a “white belt who never quit” in just one meeting, even a few meetings. So, instead of sharing what questions we ask founders — most of which I know are designed to be reveal tells of grit, and are at least to my friend and his team, proprietary to some degree — I’ll share why grit matters, not just as a founder trait, but as a variable in the fundraising process, and a story that I hope will inspire you.
Candy versus the meal
One of the frameworks I love thinking about is the difference between how people think and what people talk about. This is by no means original. I actually stumbled across this when watching Malcolm Gladwell on Masterclass. For instance, when people watched the most recent Avatar movie, they didn’t say “Here’s the plot of the movie.” They talk about their favorite scenes or how great the performance capture was for underwater sequences. Neither is all-encompassing of the movie, but it gets people excited. That’s what word of mouth is.
Malcolm Gladwell calls it the meal and the candy, respectively. The meal is how people think — what people take home. They sit down with it and take time to process. The candy is what people talk about. The parts of the narrative that are easiest to share and remember.
From a go-to-market presentation I did earlier this year
Candy without the meal is clickbait. A meal without the candy means no one will talk about the good work you do. So you need both.
Similarly, in the world of venture, when I, like most other investors get excited about a deal, assuming it’s a good one, don’t talk about the whole pitch deck. Neither do I get super excited about sharing the one-liner unless it’s actually something unique. Like when a bike-sharing company pitched their one-liner as “We make walking fun.”
What I talk about is what’s cool and what stands out. That’s the investor’s word of mouth. And that’s how you fill a round. Or get people excited to help you find investors who will. Things I shared before include:
“That startup that hit 130% net retention.”
“Customers literally write love letters to the founders.”
“That founder cold emailed a Disney exec for 300 days straight to inevitably close their first enterprise deal.”
“This founder started a podcast as a growth engine to 1/ secure his first 10 customers, 2/ bring on one of the best advisory board I’ve seen to date.”
As you might notice, it’s almost impossible to guess what each company does above with just what I shared. And it sure as hell doesn’t get investors to conviction with just that. But they’re powerful enough for investors to take a second look at and talk about. Among the above, the absolute favorite thing investors love to talk about with each other is a founder’s ability to hustle. And subsequently, their Herculean efforts that demonstrate grit.
Years later, my friend on Wednesday was still talking about a founder he backed who waited in the cold outside an exec’s office until he got a meeting. Then found unique ways to turn 20 minutes into 30 minutes into hours into their first enterprise client.
The thing is it’s rare to see this. Most people promise that they will, but the best founders have demonstrated this grit time and time again before, against seemingly impossible odds. And they’re only “impossible” if you’ve set lofty goals in the past and you did nothing short of your best to try and achieve it. I’ll give another example. One that I knew if he was to start another business, you knew he was going to make it happen.
Spoiler alert: He did.
From losing everything to acquisition
I first met Anthony at 1517 Fund’s quincentennial “anniversary” summit back in 2017, designed to bring together the world’s most divergent thinkers.
The first thing you notice about Anthony is that he had a small frame. A demeanor that belied his life experiences and the courage it took for him to share them. Yet, he has a way to command the attention of his audience.
He started his business back in freshman year of college delivering food to his fellow classmates at USC. It started off as a side hustle to earn some spare change. Something he didn’t expect would become something greater, until one day Mark Cuban came to USC to give a talk.
As the fireside chat ended sooner than expected, Mark polled the audience, “What if we did a live Shark Tank?” Anthony explained that while unsure if it’ll work, but not wanting to let a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity go, he decided to pitch this idea he’d been working on — which at that point, was not even an app, but just a series of text messages between friends who ordered food and friends who were willing to deliver them.
To his surprise, Mark loved it. Soon that snowballed into Anthony dropping out of school to focus on the business full-time. They got into 500, and he became a Thiel fellow. But one spring later, amidst the hype of a party in Vegas, he miscalculated a dive into the pool. Fractured his spine. And became paralyzed from the neck down.
In the ensuing months, his top priority was not to grow what became EnvoyNow, but to breathe, to drink water — to survive. His co-founders had promised him they would look after the business and that he should focus on recovery. So he did. Months passed. And while Anthony still sat in the occasional company meeting, he was focused on mobility and feeding himself.
A few more months passed by, and one day, his co-founders decided to visit him while he was still focused on recovering. And they broke the news. The business was stalling. Investors had lost faith. Moreover, both his co-founders had already lined up new opportunities and wanted to close the business down.
As I sat listening, I couldn’t help but wonder what I’d do in that situation. Anthony instead decided to go back full-time to the business and win back his remaining team and investors. He said, “I went back to our investors. I shared where we were at, which wasn’t good. And asked them to believe in me once more. They did once before, and as long as I showed I was still passionate about the business, I was banking on the hope that some will still continue to support us.” Luckily, a small handful did.
With renewed drive and determination, and a tough situation to get out of, within the year, they expanded to 16 schools and employed 1500 students around the nation. The rest is history. They sold to JoyRun. And Anthony went on to found more companies, including his current one, Vinovest, which he started 2019 and raised an A in 2021.
If you’re curious about the additional details to the story, there’s also a great 2017 Fortune piece cataloging his journey. I love the line Blake Masters, President of the Thiel Foundation, shared in that piece, “Good luck finding something that will hold [Anthony] back.”
In closing
There’s a fun little thought exercise a couple investors I know used to do (maybe still do). They first posed the question to me when I first jumped into venture, which is:
If you had two young founders… One went to MIT, graduated with a 4.0 GPA in computer science, and was summa cum laude. The other is a high school graduate, and instead of paying over $200,000 over 4 years, took every single MIT computer science course on Coursera in one year. All else held equal, who would you invest in?
Naturally, the answer biases towards the latter. Yet, in the past few years, or at least since I’ve been in the world of VC, there’s been a bunch of logo shopping and chasing the idea of “signal.” While no one says is explicitly, logos have become more important than the hustle.
Today, we’re in a tough market. One where we haven’t seen the light at the end of the tunnel. Hell, we don’t even know when we’re at the trough yet. Or at least, the lagging indicator that we are is a massive slowdown or lack of layoffs. Yet, we recently saw Google, as well as Microsoft and Amazon, go through cuts.
And so, it no longer matters who you’re backed by or where you’ve come from. As Engineering Capital’s Ashmeet Sidana said, “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.”
What matters is that you can make it out the other side. What matters is that you’re inventive and creative, that you can tighten your belt and put the pedal to the metal, and do what looks in retrospect as superhuman.
And that requires perseverance and the ability to learn. That requires spending more time on something than anyone would ever expect to be worth it. As you do so, you embark on what VCs call — insight development.
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.
“‘Mutation’ is simply the term for a version of a gene that fewer than 2 percent of the population has. […] Imagine enough letters to fill 13 complete sets of Encyclopaedia Britannica with a single-letter typo that changes the meaning of a crucial entry.” A fascinating line from David Epstein. One that makes you pause and think. I apologize that this is where my mind wanders to every time I read something that stops me cold in my tracks. The world of startups, at least in fundraising, is no different.
Let me elaborate.
While this is rather anecdotal, the average VC I know takes 10 or less first meetings in any given week. As an average of 500 emails land in their inbox every week, that’s a 2% chance of having your cold message land you a meeting. And that’s not even counting the heavy bias towards warm intros. In other words, to get noticed, you have to stray from the norm. A variant. A mutation.
The good news about being a mutated monkey with two left ears and an overbite hosting two dozen fangs is that unlike in nature, you can genetically modify and give birth to a mutated product of your choosing. While I probably could’ve used more floral language, I realize I’m also not writing a rom com, but a documentary capturing the cold realities of an investor’s virtual real estate. That has more eyes trying to peer into it than it has time, space, and most importantly, attention to open doors.
Your appearance on that stake of land is your debutante ball. The question is how will you grace the ballroom floor among a sea of people who have access to the same town tailors, dressmakers, and dance instructors as you do. A name. A subject line. And at most 50 characters to make a first impression.
The short answer is you don’t.
I also understand that in writing a piece on how to stand out in an investor’s inbox, I run the risk of sounding like every other Medium article who’s covered this topic before me. So, instead of sharing the five steps to get every investor to open your email, I’m going to share three examples, starting with some initial frameworks of how and some of my favorite thought leaders think about narratives.
As a compass for the below, I’ll share more about:
For the purpose of this essay, I’ll focus on cold emails, rather than warm intros. But many of the below lessons are transferrable.
The investor product
Blume’s Sajith Pai recently wrote a great piece detailing on what he calls the investor product. And how that is different from the content product — what customers see and hear — and the internal comms product — what your team members see and hear. Even in my own experience, I see founders often conflate at least two. They bucket it into the internal story… and the external story — bundling, ineffectively, the investor and content product.
In short, the investor product is the narrative that you tell your investors. A permutation of your personality and your vector in the market in a sequence you think investors find most compelling. That narrative, while not mutually exclusive, is different from the story you tell your customers. For customers, you are the Yoda to their Luke Skywalker. For investors, you’re the Anakin to the Jedi Order. The future.
Not all pitches are created equal
Just like expository writing differs from persuasive writing which differs from narrative writing, there are different flavors of fundraising pitches as well. Kevin Kwokboils it down to three.
Narrative pitches: What could be. What does the future look like?
Inflection pitches: New unveiled secrets. In Kevin’s words, for investors, “now is the ideal risk-adjusted time to invest.” Why is the present so radically different? Why is the second derivative zero?
Traction pitches: Results and metrics. How does the past paint you in glorious light? Admittedly, people rarely index on the past. So, traction pitches are on decline. It’s akin to, if someone were to ask, “What is your greatest accomplishment?” You say, “It has yet to happen.”
The truth is most early-stage founder pitches are narrative pitches, focused on team and vision. But the most compelling ones for VCs are inflection ones. One of my favorite investor frameworks, put into words by the an investor in the On Deck Angels community, is:
Do I believe this founder can 10x their KPIs within the funding window?
The funding window is defined as usually 12 to 18 months after the round closes. And usually the interim time before a venture-scale company goes out to raise another round. In order to 10x during the next 12 to 18 months, you have to be on either a rising market tide that raises all boats, or more importantly, the beginnings of the hockey stick curve in your product journey. Do you have evidence that your customers just love your product? For instance, for marketplaces, that could be early organic signs as demand converts to supply. In other cases, it could be the engagement rate post-reaching the activation milestone.
What channel does the pitch land in
While the message — the narrative — is important, the channel in which the pitch is received is just as, if not more important. As Reid Hoffmanonce wrote, “the cold and unromantic fact is that a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.”
The truth is that email is a saturated channel.
While Figma’s Naira Hourdajian notes that this applies to any form of communications, not just politics, she put it best, “Essentially, when you’re working in politics, you have your earned channels, owned channels, and your paid channels.”
Owned — Anything you control on your own channels. Your website, blog, your own email, and in a way, your own social channels.
Paid — Anything you put out into the world using capital. For instance, ads.
Earned — Because others are not willing to give it to you and that it is their real estate, you have to earn it. Like press and in this case, others’ email inboxes.
On an adjacent point, the thing is most founders don’t spend enough time and effort on owned and earned channels when it comes to the content product. Both are extremely underleveraged. Many think, especially outside of the context of fundraising, and within go-to-market strategies, think paid is the only way to go. While powerful, it is the channel that carries the most weight post-product-market fit. Not pre-.
In the context of fundraising, I always tell founders I work with to always be fundraising, just like they should always be selling. There’s a saying that investors invest in lines, not dots. But the first time you pop up in someone’s inbox is, by definition, just a dot. Nothing more, nothing less. Rather, you should start your conversations with your future investors before you kickstart your fundraising. Ask for advice. Host events that you invite them to. Interview them on a podcast or a blogpost. Feature them in a TikTok reel. (Clearly, I spend the bulk of my time with consumer startups).
As you might have guessed, sometimes it has to be outside of the inbox. To get their attention, there are two ways you can pick your channel:
Target powerful channels in an innovative way,
Target powerful, but neglected channels,
And, target new and upcoming channels.
As such, I’ll share an example for each.
Powerful channel used in an innovative way: Email
In one of Tim Ferriss’ 5-Bullet Friday newsletters recently, I found out that Arnold Schwarzenegger handwrites all his emails.
Source: Tim Ferriss’ 5-Bullet Friday — Jan 13, 2023
It’s brilliant. Genius, I might say. I don’t know how much intentionality went into why Arnold does so, but here’s why I think it’s brilliant.
If you’re sending it to someone who owns a Gmail, you’ve just given yourself 100% more real estate (albeit ephemeral) in their inbox. If their inbox is set on Gmail’s default view. Additionally, via the attachment name, that’s 10-15 characters more of information you can share at just a glance. Or at the minimum, if they’re reading via the compact view, an extra moniker that most emails do not have. A paper clip. To a reader’s eyes, it draws the same amount of attention as a blue check mark on Twitter or Instagram.
Once they click open the email, instead of plain text, your reader, your investor, sees font that stands out from all the other email text. A textual mutation that leads to curiosity. Something that begs to be read.
Powerful, but neglected channel: Physical mail
When I started in venture, I didn’t have a network, but I knew I needed one. Particularly, with other investors. After all, I didn’t know smack. I quickly realized that email and LinkedIn were completely saturated. One investor I reached out to later told me that he doesn’t check his LinkedIn at all, since he got 200 connection requests a day. So, it begged the question: Where must investors spend time but aren’t oversaturated with information?
Well, the thing is they’re human. So I walked through every step of what a day in the life of an average human being would go through, then guesstimated if there were any similarities with an investor’s schedule. Meal time, time in the bathroom, when they were driving or in an Uber (but I don’t run a podcast they’d listen to). And, like every other human being, they check their physical mail. Or someone close to them, checks them.
I knew they had to check their mail for their bills (a surprising number of investors haven’t gone paperless). But it couldn’t seem sales-y because they or their spouse or assistant would immediately throw it out. That’s when I decided I would write handwritten letters to their offices.
The EA is the one who usually sorts through the stack, and is someone who also doesn’t get the attention he/she deserves. Nevertheless, I believed:
Handwritten letters are going to stand out among a sea of Arial and Times New Roman font.
The envelope had to be in a non-white color to stand out against the other white envelopes. So, I went to Michael’s to buy a bunch of blue and green envelopes. Truth be told, I thought red was too much for me, and often carried a negative connotation.
The EA or office manager has to deem it not spam or marketing, so including a name and return address is actually a huge bonus, AND a note that doesn’t seem market-y on the envelope (i.e. thank you and looking forward to catching up).
At the end of the letter, I’d write I’d love to drop by and meet up with them in the office. Then I’d show up at their office within the week, and say, “I’m here to see ‘Bob.'”
The EA would ask if I had an appointment, and I would say that he should’ve received a letter in earlier in the week that let him know I would be here. Then, the EA would go back and ask if ‘Bob’ was free. If not, I’d wait in the lobby until they were, without overstaying my welcome. If they weren’t in the office, I’d ask to “reschedule” and book a time with them via the EA. Which would then officially get me on their calendars.
New and upcoming channel: Instacart
In a blogpost I wrote in 2021, I recapped how Instacart got into YC:
Garry Tan and Apoorva Mehta have bothshared this story publicly. Apoorva, founder of Instacart, back in 2012, wanted to apply to Y Combinator. Unfortunately, he was applying two months late. So he reached out to all the YC alum he knew to get intros to the YC partners. He just needed one to be interested. But after every single one said no, Garry, then a partner at YC, wrote: “You could submit a late application, but it will be nearly impossible to get you in now.”
For Apoorva, that meant “it was possible.” He sent an application and a video in, but Garry responded with another “no” several days later. But instead of pushing with another email and another application, Apoorva decided to send Garry a 6-pack of beer delivered by Instacart. So that Garry could try out the product firsthand. 21st Amendment’s Back in Black, to be specific. In the end, without any precedent, Instacart was accepted. And the rest is history.
In the above case, Instacart in and of itself was the emerging platform of choice. The application portal and email here were both saturated and had failed to produce results. What I missed in the above story is that the 6-pack arrived cold, which meant that the product worked and could deliver in record time. A perfect example of a product demo, in a way the partners were least expecting it.
In closing
Siddhartha Mukherjeeonce wrote: “We seek constancy in heredity — and find its opposite: variation. Mutants are necessary to maintain the essence of ourselves.”
Variation — being different — is necessary for the survival of our species. That’s what evolution is. That said, what worked yesterday isn’t guaranteed to work tomorrow. ‘Cause that same mutation that enabled the survival of a species has become commonplace. The human race, just like any other species, replicates what works to ensure greater survival.
The same is true for great ideas. A great idea today — even the above three — will be table stakes at some point in the future. Thus, requiring the need for even newer, even more innovative ideas. Hell, if it’s not via my blog, it’ll come from somewhere else. With the rise of generative AI — ChatGPT, Midjourney, Dall-E, you name it, if you’re average, you’ll be replaced. If you don’t have a unique voice, you’ll be replaced. Some algorithm will do a better and faster job than you will. As soon as more people start using the afore-mentioned tactics, the above will no longer be original. As such, I don’t imagine the case studies will age well, but the frameworks will. That said, the only unsaturated market is the market of great. To be great, you must be atypical. You must go where no one has gone before.
For those interested in startup pitches that stand out, specifically how to think about compelling storytelling, I highly recommend two places that inspire much of my thinking on the topic:
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.
“A true friend is one who stabs you in the front.”— Oscar Wilde
Many years ago, in what seemed like another lifetime, I made a girl cry. Nothing to boast about. In fact, even today, I’m quite embarrassed that I did so. In a negotiation where I prioritized one small committee in a club’s priorities above the priorities of other committees, I felt that I was right in every way. I conceived a million reasons why rationally I was right — cost, our future members’ preferences, down to the stable marriage algorithm. I fell prey to pride and ego. And she broke down. Instead of apologizing, I walked away, asserting that the data supported my case.
The next day, I found solace among classmates and friends. They told me I didn’t do anything wrong. That they would’ve done the same thing. That the facts proved I was right. Until that evening, a good friend and someone I’d known since middle school, said, “You’re fucking stupid.”
He told me to drop everything and to go apologize in person right that instant. To hell with data and facts. He said that I forgot the very first principle of any negotiation… that there was a human being on the other side. And I didn’t treat her as one. He was the one person who opened my eyes up to the ego I was blinded by. So I did. In my realization, I felt terrible and even worse for needing someone else to tell me that I had to. But that’s the friend I needed. That’s what I needed to hear.
Something you might have realized if you’re a frequent visitor to this small piece of virtual real estate is that I’m not perfect. Nor do I pretend to be. The above example is evidence of that.
I was reminded of that when I was listening to Jonathan Abramson Venture Unlocked earlier this week. Where they brought up the topic of being founder friendly — a term that indubitably carries a lot of baggage. From the VC side, it’s jargon that’s been thrown around so much over the past decade, it’s lost its luster and meaning. From the founder side, many founders frankly just don’t get what it means. Why? Because no one actually defines it.
Over the years, I’ve seen and heard explicit and implicit definitions, including:
Not firing the CEO (even when they don’t do a good job)
Helping the founder grow as the company and CEO job description grows
Having answers to every question the founders ask
Asking (good) questions
Telling the founders what to do
The thing is, all the above are right and wrong at the same time. It’s situationally dependent. Ok, maybe except the last one. That one’s wrong all the time. Something you realize pretty quickly is that the investor is not in the driver’s seat. At best, we sit shotgun.
So, what does “founder friendly” mean?
Jonathan Abrams and the 8-Bit team says, “Do no harm.”
Fred Wilson says, “Saving your company from yourself may well be founder friendly.”
To YC, it’s being honest, transparent, responsive, and acting in the best interests of the company, shareholders, employees, and founders.
The truth is everyone has a different, but similar definition. Like product-market fit, it’s hard to measure and an amorphous term. It’s obvious in hindsight. But mysterious in foresight. Yet, as a founder, there are still many telltale signs on how helpful an investor actually will be.
Leading indicators to helpfulness
One of the reasons I love working with smaller checkwriters — be it angels or emerging fund managers — is that they often punch above their weight class. They’re insanely responsive. And are often more helpful than their check size. They may not be able to single-handedly fill the round, nor can their check get you to profitability, but they’re there when you need them. In other words, they hit high on the check size-to-helpfulness ratio, which I’ve written about before.
The first meeting
Interestingly enough, the first meeting is quite telling of how helpful investors are — regardless of the decision outcome. It could be in the form of investor intros, strategic advice, hard questions to consider, or key hires to make. In fact, they’ll make you feel like you got back days if not weeks, out of a 30-minute meeting. If you, as the founder, get nothing out of the first meeting, then you likely won’t get much when they are on your cap table. The most helpful investors don’t waste time. Not theirs. But more importantly, not yours either. They know that each time you meet with them is time away from building. And they’ll make that time worthwhile.
As an investor, the golden standard should be to be helpful in every meeting. And I don’t mean ending the conversation with “Let me know how I can be helpful.” That’s reactive.
For one of my good friends, that means that if he takes a meeting with you — whether he chooses to invest or not, he will write a 3-5 page bug report on your product. For some of my other friends, it’s that if they take a meeting, they’ll nine out of ten times set up an intro. Instead of asking “How can I be helpful?”, one should ask “What do you need help on?” or “What are the biggest obstacles that prevent you from reaching your 6-12 month goals?” Then, proactively trying to find some way to help.
That said, the afore-mentioned investors’ bar for taking a meeting is rather high.
Response rate
Another proxy for helpfulness is how fast they reply to your emails. Many of the investors who I know are insanely helpful have a system to respond to founders quickly. Moreover, if the decision is a ‘No’, they don’t shy away from sharing that and why they decided to pass. Of course, the latter is not possible for every inbound pitch. But at the very minimum, are table stakes if you’ve already jumped on an initial live conversation with them.
Here, within 24 hours is epic. 48-72 hours is great. And anything longer becomes a dime a dozen.
Inactive founders sing them high praise
It’s always important to do your homework on your investor. One of such ways is talking to other founders they backed, especially the ones who are no longer founders or no longer pursuing the original idea they were backed on. Active portfolio companies are likely to still give lip service to their investors, especially when they are a large portion of their cap table. So, when you ask, “Was this investor helpful?”, you’re likely to get an overly politically correct answer. Rather, the question I recommend asking is:
“If you were to start a new company, who are the three investors — big or small — on your current cap table that you would kill to have back on?”
Conversely, if you talk to former portfolio founders, they’re likely to be a lot more honest as they don’t have a currently active relationship with the investor. Or if they still do, the investor must have done something right.
Lagging indicators to helpfulness
While not the intended purpose of this blogpost, I can’t help but shed some additional context for investors out there. In my recent conversations with GPs and LPs, I noticed a common thread among the GPs who are capable of raising a fund even in a down market. It’s that the founders they back who went on to raise A, B rounds, or greater, come back to invest in their early believers. The people who made a difference in these founders’ lives.
So, whenever I meet an emerging GP asking for fundraising advice, one of the first questions I ask, outside of these five questions which determine if they’re ready to start a fund, is:
Have any of the founders you backed before committed to your fund?
Goodwill and helpfulness builds flywheels. When your founders go on to win, if you’ve been helpful, they’ll want to pay it back.
Tangentially, it’s why the team at Ludlow Ventures says, “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.” So, getting deal flow from founders you pass on means, either:
They still want something from you; or
You were really helpful that they want to send all their best founder friends to you.
Hopefully, it’s the latter.
In closing
At the end of the day, no one’s perfect. Not the founders. Not the investors. No one. And it’s okay.
In the current world of chaotic down markets, high interest rates, and more, this is the time to build goodwill. This is the time to be truly founder friendly. If you have less liquidity, you can always help in many ways outside of pure capital. After all, capital for founders is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Sometimes it’s just being honest, candid, and transparent with the founder.
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.
This year I learned a lot. From the fact that most of my readers love to read my blogposts on Wednesday 2PM Pacific to how I could get general partners — some of the smartest people in VC — to be vulnerable and candid to how to set up an SPV from scratch (without the help of any platform). It’s been a rollercoaster. And I loved every second of it.
My blog grew modestly. No hockey-stick curve. And that’s okay. I enjoyed inking each word. To me, that’s what makes this blog worth it.
I’ve written 87,000 words, with over a third fewer posts than last year. I want to say I was busy. And I was. But another equally true reason was that I was scared to disappoint. I wasn’t content publishing half-baked ideas. And it sucks when I know I wanted to write more. How? Because as of today, I have 53 drafts just sitting in my WordPress folder. With 245 total published essays, that’s a sixth of my thoughts I withheld or postponed because I thought: “They’re not good enough.”
Comfort is powerful. And earlier this year I found myself resigning to habitual cycles I had developed in the year prior. A fear manifested into reality. So I made a promise to myself to escape the clutches of complacency.
But while I hesitated on the writing front, I chose to take risk elsewhere. I took big bets. For one-way door decisions, bets I didn’t wait for a 100% conviction on. And just jumped when I got to 70%. As a function, I had many firsts.
It’s the first economic downturn I’m living and working through (2008 and the dot com era don’t really count as I was still in grade school).
For the first-time I broke my streak of writing weekly since the inception of this blog. While I can blame servers and bugs, the reason was simple. I just wasn’t prepared enough.
I set up my first SPV (special purpose vehicle) from scratch. With a s**tload of help, but yes, from incorporating to legal docs to setting up bank accounts, and so on.
I started interviewing LPs in fireside chats — something I never imagined I would end up love doing or be capable of doing.
I hosted my first social experiment-like event paid for and sponsored by investors for investors, rather than my usual audience of thrill seekers. Based on the feedback, I’d say it was a success. Many learnings and an indispensable village helping behind the scenes. A handful of things that could have been better. But a night of surprises. And I learned — something I hope to share more in the future (as I have larger sample sizes) — events, just like books, movies, shows, podcasts, and so on, are stories. And stories have settings, character developments, plots, a climax, and an end where the audience can imagine no other (to steal a line from Robert McKee).
Additionally, I…
Took my first vacation, not touching any work at all, in six years;
Went to my first traditional Vietnamese wedding; hell, travelled to Southeast Asia for the first time;
Successfully made fruit chips en masse;
Realized my favorite photo mode is portrait mode;
Built my first PC;
Put together my first career manifesto — my professional raison d’être.
And it’s still not enough.
But I digress. While I wrote far fewer posts, 2022 was the year I wanted to make things count. As Muhammad Ali once said, “Don’t count the days; make the days count.” The below, while I wish I had a longer list, are the blogposts that counted.
2022’s Most Popular
The below are the essays that I published during 2022, and generated the most views, ranked from most to 5th most:
The Emerging LP Playbook – I never expected this one to take the top spot this year. Borne out of a personal curiosity and an attempt to better understand the black box industry of LP investing, ever since Andrew Gluck put “emerging” and “LP” back-to-back on a Zoom call, I had to learn more about it. The truth is I only knew a handful of known LPs at the time, but I’m happy this piece has expanded the horizon for not only myself, but everyone else out there who’s read this curious piece. It answers just one nexus question: For a first-time LP, where do you start?
99 Pieces of Unsolicited, (Possibly) Ungoogleable Startup Advice – I’m a collector. And have been so for a while. Specifically, a collector of quotes. I have journals dedicated to them. When the pandemic hit, I had a thought, what if I collected 99 soundbites (some albeit my own) about being a founder? All tactical. And each will share an actionable lesson. And I shared them. I didn’t know how long it’d take, but I knew that 99 sounded like a good number.
What Does Signal Mean For An Early-Stage Investor? – The word ‘signal’ has been thrown around quite a bit in the last two years — 2020 and 2021, if you’re a time traveler and reading this in the future. For instance, an investor would look for ‘signal’ before investing in a deal. In the above blogpost, I break down exactly what ‘signal’ means. And I imagine, in whatever time period governed by FOMO (fear of missing out), ‘signal’ will rhyme.
99 Pieces of Unsolicited, (Possibly) Ungoogleable Advice For Investors – Just like the one I wrote for founders, soon after, I thought I’d put a list of 99 soundbites for investors. And as I jumped at the opportunity to work with the brilliant team at On Deck Angels, I was living and breathing everything about investors — from angel investing to fund investing. Of course, you can sense my heavy bias towards to latter.
All-Time Most Popular
The funny, yet in hindsight, unsurprising, thing, is that the below are perfect examples of the power law, collectively generating 90% of the views ever on my blog. The below ranked in view count popularity:
The Emerging LP Playbook – I wrote this piece for myself and other investors looking to be LPs. Unsuspectingly so (at least in foresight), this piece generated a huge amount of excitement not only with my initial intended audience — who, I thought, was a niche audience — but also among many VCs and angels out there. I rarely write in hopes to change people’s minds. I’m not much of a persuasive writer, but rather I hope my words offer oases for people searching for answers in a desolate desert. But of the feedback I’ve gotten, it has surprisingly changed a number of people’s minds about LPs, as well as about different asset classes to invest in.
10 Letters of Thanks to 10 People who Changed my Life – To this day, it still baffles me how this is the most perennially popular essay I’ve written. The SEO keywords I’ve optimized for here are all related to Thanksgiving, yet the fact that search engines bring me new readers every single week without fail is an enigma I’m still unravelling. That said, I am thankful to everyone who’s given me and the 10 people I am deeply thankful for that year the attention and time out of your busy schedule.
How to Pitch VCs Without Ever Having to Send the Pitch Deck – Teach them something new. Many founders who’ve worked with me can attest that that’s been my favorite line to lead with when they ask for fundraising advice. This blogpost and the person behind it (who’ll stay anonymous for now) is the reason for that.
#unfiltered #30 Inspiration and Frustration – The Honest Answers From Some of the Most Resilient People Going through a World of Uncertainty – (Part two of which you can find here.) Interestingly enough, I knew this one would stand the test of time. Something we learn in Econ 101 is that business cycles come in booms and busts. And they oscillate between great times and bad times. The human emotion, our daily lives, and our careers are no exception. Collectively, I queried 42 world-class professionals about their greatest motivators. What keeps them going? I ask them two questions, but the catch is they’re only allowed to answer one of them. These pieces are a gentle reminder that bad times, like good times, never last.
Most Memorable Pieces in 2022
In writing each of the below, I felt the needle move forward. Not for the world or for the people immediately around me. But for me. That I myself took one small essay forward, but a disproportionately giant leap in the way I thought about the world around me. Each is the culmination of not just a few hours of writing, but of many things more. Provocative conversations. Research deep dives. And generous people.
In no particular order, if I were to hide pieces of my 2022 soul and mind in Horcruxes, they would be in the below:
The Emerging LP Playbook – You’ll realize that this blogpost appears in all three lists. The first two are outside of my control. But the reason it appears here is this piece catalyzed a spark that’ll come more into fruition in 2023. A spark that emerged from realizing the massive information asymmetry between LPs and GPs. Hell, even between LPs.
How to Develop Intuition as a Rookie Startup Investor – This dates as far back as 2017, when I first inked the thought in my notebook. The thesis was simple. Intuition — one’s sixth sense was a subconscious function of the mastery of the other five senses. But then, I felt ill-equipped to explicitly describe what other investors were feeling, and over time, what I was feeling as a function of what I was thinking. In it, I share each of the questions I consider and their respective answers that inform each of my senses (sight, hearing, taste, etc.).
How do You Know if You Should Professionalize as an Investor? – I love asking questions. To the point, and I don’t mean this in a tongue-in-cheek way, that often the best way to answer a question is with another question. I’ve gotten the above question many a time this past year, and this piece is a permutation of what helps me get to first-principles thinking when it comes to: Should you raise a fund… or stay an angel?
Five Tactical Lessons After Hosting 100+ Fireside Chats – I love hosting interviews. I really do. Part of it is due to the fact I love asking questions. The other half is… well… the average coffee chat is 30 minutes long. Half of it disappears after exchanging pleasantries. So, the big question is: How do you get more time with people you respect? One answer among many is by giving them a stage. That said, as I was doing my homework to be a better MC, the information out there is either paltry or too generic. So I made a promise to myself that as I do more myself I’ll share all the non-obvious lessons I learn. So that others can do better than me. And I hopefully, get to learn from them as they get better.
When Should You Sell Your Shares As An Investor? – Selling is really an art more than science. Like investing, often obvious in hindsight, but painfully scary in foresight. And to be a great investor, you have to distribute your earnings. And in order to earn, you have to turn something illiquid into something liquid. This piece was one of my first explorations behind what makes selling hard and how some of the best do it.
Quirks That Just Make Sense – Maybe there’s a bit of recency bias here, but this is something a few of my friends have known about me for a while. I just never had a good excuse to talk about it publicly. (Weird that I thought I ever needed an excuse to). But my good buddy Matt brought me out of my shell a few weeks back. And together we put together a piece about the quirks we carry and the origin story of each. Coincidentally enough, just watched Garry Tan’s video yesterday about a similar topic.
In closing
Cheers to a year of life lessons, friendships, skills and experiences acquired that were well worth the ride! And many more to come! If there’s ever any topic you would like me to write about in the future, don’t hesitate to let me know. I have two nominations already.
To peruse one of Kurt Vonnegut‘s lessons, I hope to continue to use your time in a way that you feel is not wasted.
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.
It’s not often I get to work with someone I deeply respect on the content front. In fact, in the history of this blog, I’ve never done so before. But there are a rarified few in the world that if I was ever given the chance to work with them, I’d do so in a heartbeat. Tom White is one of them. As someone who I had the chance to work briefly with when our time at On Deck overlapped, he is someone I’ve been continually enamored with — both in how he commands the English language and in how intentional and thoughtful he is as an investor.
So when Tom reached out to collaborate on a blogpost for the Stonks blog, it was a no-brainer. And, the below is that product on how founders can own their fundraising process.
David’s note: Tom never ceases to amaze me on his ability to meme anything.
It’s a tale as old as time.
After a good meeting and a great pitch, the VC across the table (or on your screen in this day and age) offers a forced smile and utters: “Thanks again for making the time. Let me circle back internally and we’ll get back to you if we’re interested.”
If you have ever fundraised as a founder — hell, if you’ve ever fundraised, period — you have heard those fatal few words many more times than you care to remember. Though frequently said, the pangs of disappointment and frustration that they impart seldom fade away.
Fear not fellow founders!
To ensure you never hear those dreaded words again, we turned to the one and only David Zhou. A “tenaciously and idiosyncratically curious” writer and investor per LinkedIn, David pens the inimitable, brilliantly-named Cup of Zhou, scouts for a number of VCs, and helps run the On Deck Angel Fellowship.
Your ability to raise capital is directly proportional to your ability to inspire confidence in potential investors.
I’ll get into that, however, first a brief aside.
One of my favorite lines in literature comes from the seventh book of the Harry Potter franchise: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Inscribed on the golden snitch is a simple, but profound phrase: “I open at the close.”
In many ways, that line alone echoes much of the world of entrepreneurship. Whether backcasting from the future as Mike Maples Jr. puts it (i.e. great founders are simply visitors from the future) or breaking down your TAM to your SAM then SOM, the greatest founders — no, storytellers — start from the end. They share the future that they wish to see and distort today’s reality to fit into that predestined mold. Without further ado, my five tips on willing the future you want to see via successful fundraising.
1. Measure Founder-Investor Fit
Before you dive into talking with every investor under the sun, you must first understand there are more investors out there than you possibly have time for. You will never pitch every single one, nor should you. You need to be judicious with your time.
As you raise your first institutional round, you’re seeking out early believers. Julian Weisser — an investor with whom I’m lucky enough to work — calls this belief capital. You’re selling a promise, a vision.
And let’s be honest, at pre-seed there is no amount of traction that will convince any investor with numbers alone.
You see, it’s all about narrative building.
More on that below, but for early investors, it’s about whether they not only believe, but are also willing to fight for the future you collectively desire.
2. Close the First Meeting
I recommend that many founders with whom I work ask a two-part question heavily inspired by my conversation with Hustle Fund’s Eric Bahn for my emerging LP playbook: “Critical feedback is important to me in my journey to grow as a founder and a leader. So I hope you don’t mind if I ask, given what you know about my startup and myself: On a scale of one to ten, how fundable am I?”
To be honest, the number they give is inconsequential. That said, if they give you a ten, get a term sheet on the spot.
The more important question is the following one: “Whether I didn’t share it yet or don’t have it, what would get me to a ten? What would make this startup a no-brainer investment?”
Collect that feedback.
Put it in your FAQs.
Incorporate it into your next pitch.
Test and iterate.
I was listening to Felicis Ventures’ Aydin Senkut on Venture Unlocked recently and he mentioned that he iterated on his fund pitch deck every single time he got a no. And by the time he received his first yes from an investor, he was on the 107th version of the pitch deck.
As such, the answer to the second question should help you preempt and address concerns—explicit or implicit—in future pitches.
I discovered the below courtesy of the amazing Siqi Chen. Per a 2015 Harvard study, most people believe that people make decisions by:
Observing reality
Collecting facts
Forming opinions based on the facts collected
Then, making a rational decision.
But the reality is, people do not. People aren’t rational and investors are no exception.
Like everyone else, investors:
Are presented with facts.
Fit facts into existing opinions.
Make a decision that feels good.
Most of these opinions are not explicit. It’s neither on the website nor laid out in the firm’s thesis.
The good news is that most investors will share the same reservations. If one investor hesitates about something, another will likely do so. The best thing a founder can do is to address it before it comes up.
For example, if an investor tells you that if you have a better pulse on the competitive landscape, you would then be a ten. In the next version of the pitch, you might say “You might be thinking that this space is highly competitive, and you’re right. At a cursory glance, we all look like we tackle the same problem and fight over the same users. But that’s when this space deserves a double take. Company A is best in class for X. Company B is second to none in Y. But we are world-class in Z. And no one is offering a better solution for Z. Not only that, customers are begging for solutions for Z. One in every five posts on Z’s subreddit asks for a solution like ours. But if you look at the responses, no one has a perfect solution for it. In fact, people are duct taping their way across this problem. Not only that, in the past three months, since we shared our product on the subreddit, we’ve had 10k signups to the waitlist with 500 of them paying a deposit to get early access to our product.”
On that note, I don’t think it’s worth trying to change the original investor’s opinion after they share such feedback. Most of the time, you’ve unfortunately lost your window of opportunity. If it takes X amount of information for an investor to form an opinion about you, it takes 2-3X the amount of effort and time — if not more — for him/her to change said opinion and form a new one.
Lastly, per Homebrew’s Hunter Walk: “Never follow your investor’s advice and you might fail. Always follow your investor’s advice and you’ll definitely fail.”
3. Schedule the Second Meeting during the First
Say the vibes are right and you get the impression that the investor really loves your product and/or your problem space and/or you as a person. When you’re raising your first institutional round, it’s either a “Hell yes” or a “No.”
Open up your calendar at the end of the first meeting and schedule your next meeting there and then, but be sure to give the VC enough time to talk with his/her team and also suggest where their firm might want to dive deeper. Give three options for topics to dive into the next meeting. For instance:
The team and future hiring plans
The vision and financial projections
The product, demo, and team’s current focus
From there, have the investor pick one of the above before your next meeting. If they don’t, say something along the lines of: “During this conversation, you seemed to love to hear about the product, so we’d love to dive deeper into the product the next time around unless you prefer one of the other two options.”
Also, start tracking which paths seem to convert investors faster. For example, if 30% of the investors you talk to jump into diligence after hearing the vision, but only 15% convert after the product path, lead with the vision one first next time. “Most of our investors fall in love with us after hearing about the vision, and would love to share more on that at the next meeting.”
The moral of the story is simple: make it easy for your investor to say yes to the next meeting.
4. Realize that ‘No’ is merely a ‘Yes’ in Disguise
If you get the feeling that it may be a no, ask the investor, “What firm/investor do you think I should talk to who might be a better fit for what I’m working on?”
Do not ask for introductions. An introduction will come naturally if an investor is really excited about you. Additionally, even if the investor who passed does introduce you, a natural question will be: “Why didn’t you invest?”
This sets you up for failure because the other investor’s first impression of you will be negative. The only exceptions are if the reason is outside of your control. For instance, they’re raising their next fund since they don’t have any more to deploy out of the current fund, or they’ve recently changed their investment thesis away from what you’re building.
But I digress. What you should do instead is collect a Rolodex of names.
Never ever run out of leads. You never want to be in the position to beg someone who turned you down for money.
When a certain investor gets mentioned more than once — ideally at least three to four times — that’s your cue to reach out to them. “Hey Tom, we haven’t met before, but I’m currently fundraising for David’s Lemonade Stand. And four investors highly recommended I chat with you on the product, given your experience in food-tech and how you helped Sally’s Lemonade Bar grow from 10 to 500 customers.”
5. Use Investor Updates
Send interested investors weekly investor updates during your fundraise and monthly ones after its conclusion. Share important learnings, key metrics, and your fundraise’s progress.
Be sure to induce FOMO in your updates. Not in the sense that your round is closing soon, rather, that you’re at an inflection point right now in both your product and the market. Two example prompts:
Why are you within the next 12-18 months “guaranteed” (I also use this word hesitantly) to 10x against your KPIs?
Is the blocker right now a market risk (which leaves a lot for debate, and most investors will choose to wait for a future round) or an execution risk?
How have you de-risked your biggest risks?
Taking this a step further, you need the courage to “fire” an investor. If an investor doesn’t get back to you after two emails, it could just be that they’re busy. If they don’t get back to you after eight or nine emails, they’re just not interested. My rule of thumb is always three emails each a week apart for each investor. I have seen founders who have done more, but I would not recommend any fewer.
Regardless, whatever number you decide on, the last email ought to try to convert them. For examples:
“Since you haven’t gotten back to me yet about your interest, I assume you’re not interested in investing. As such, this will be our last investor update to you. If we are wrong, please do let us know.”
Interestingly enough I’ve seen more investors start conversations by this last email than by the very first. Remember to treat your fundraise like a sales pipeline; A/B test different copy and see which lands the best.
Concluding Thoughts
Remember, fundraising is a lot like life: it’s simple, but far from easy. It requires grit, determination, and a healthy dose of elbow grease. Despite current market conditions, forge ahead! Follow Jim Valvano’s lead and “Don’t give up. Don’t ever give up!”
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.
“If you look at all big human achievements, like flying to the moon, for instance, it’s all based on large scale cooperation. How did humans get to the moon? It wasn’t Neil Armstrong flying there by himself. There were millions of people cooperating to build the spaceship, to do the math, to provide the food, to provide the special clothing, and the funding.
“The big question becomes: why are we capable of cooperating on such a large scale when chimpanzees or elephants or pigs can’t?
“It’s the ability to invent and believe fictional stories.”
For any big achievement, and I’m specifically reminded of the recent news with FTX — for FTX to get as large as it did at its peak — it was a monumental achievement. It was the work of many, rather than a single individual. It was the result of many buying into this narrative that Sam Bankman-Fried shared. That includes his team. His customers. His investors, from Sequoia to Tiger to Softbank to Coinbase. Many of whom are smart people who gave into the velocity of the market the last two years.
Source: Sequoia article on FTX While I’m not sure how I feel about founders playing games during the meeting, I can’t deny the vision isn’t compelling.
To be fair, and this is not to condone the wrongdoings of the FTX team, every founder’s job is to distort reality. To put the human race on a fast track towards a future that is non-fiction to the founder, but fiction to everyone else. A world that isn’t false, but has yet to come. As author William Gibson once said, “The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed.”
I also love the thesis of Alexia‘s fund, Dream Machine. We make science fiction non-fiction.
Founders pitch their answer to: What will the world look like? Investors, customers, and talent then make bets with their time and money on which future they would like to see happen and the likelihood of it happening.
FTX is no exception. The fine line is when a founder does get creative, it is imperative for them to have a moral compass, which seems like SBF didn’t have. And of the million and one things they’ve done wrong (no board, giving loans using customer money, fraud, etc. and some more that are more questionable in nature, like political donations, etc. — none of which from what little I know are things I would ever endorse), I have to say they nailed their marketing and messaging. They got a lot of people excited about it fast. It’s easier to get people excited about the future of money than the future of fintech or the future of crypto.
The past week has been an insane week for crypto, namely when FTX filed for bankruptcy. And while there are many different angles to it, I took it upon myself to revisit a podcast episode from two months back where Nathaniel Whittemore, FTX’s former Head of Marketing, shared his marketing insights. Namely, around their 2021 Super Bowl ad.
A Super Bowl ad two years since its founding date. If nothing else, that’s impressive. Moreover, they got Larry David who has been known to never appear on ads to do it for them.
But what I found to be very powerful is Nathaniel breaks down why they chose to do a Super Bowl ad in the first place:
“People always focus on how much [an ad] costs. ‘This ad costs X.’ Which in a vacuum seems so high. […] What I think that analysis doesn’t take into consideration:
“The number of people actually watching those ads. If you’re gonna get X people with an ad that costs a $100,000, but then, 50x that with an ad that costs $5 million, that’s the same ratio.
“But the more important piece is that at least in America, the Super Bowl is the literal one moment each year that people not only are not annoyed with ads, but it is an active part of the experience that they’re having and they’re excited.”
He also does caveat that it doesn’t mean a Super Bowl is good for every kind of marketing campaign. But more so for brand-building, as opposed to product marketing or lead gen.
To echo that, David Sacks wrote a great piece on the importance of having an operating philosophy which I’ve referenced on this blog before. In it, he finds it incredibly powerful for companies to aggregate product updates and marketing campaigns in four big “lightning strikes” (each quarter) rather than have tidbits of information floating around every week.
Of course, companies like Twitch, Salesforce, Apple, and Google have taken it a step further by having a large launch event once a year. As Sacks mentions, “It’s not just about the external marketing value. There’s a huge internal benefit from setting dates and deadlines in order to hit a public launch.” It drives excitement and a narrative that both customers and future customers, as well as team members can get behind. The world is waiting. Your team is shooting to meet and beat expectations. And that’s incredibly motivating.
What does this mean for the crypto narrative?
A friend who took a hit from the recent series of events asked me at dinner last night, “What does this mean for crypto?”
Of which I think Yuval does a better job explaining it than I could. In the same podcast episode, he explains, “Not everybody believes in the same god or in any god. But everybody believes in money. And if you think about it, it’s strange because no other animal even knows that money exists. If you give a pig an apple in one hand and a pile of a million dollars in the other hand, the pig would obviously choose the apple. And the chimpanzee the same. And the elephant.
“Nobody, besides us, knows something like money exists in the world. The value of money doesn’t come from the paper. Most of the money in today’s world is not even paper; it’s just electronic data moving between computers. So where’s the value from? It’s from stories we believe.
“We are at risk of the whole thing collapsing. It happens from time to time in history. Inflation to some extent is that. The value of money is not what we were told it is. And inflation can sometimes hit thousands of persons and millions of persons. Eventually, the money becomes worthless.”
I don’t personally believe crypto will become worthless at any predictable point in the future. In fact, I think it has a great future ahead. Just a little early for its time from an infrastructure perspective. But, it is a non-zero possibility. That said, the more institutions, especially larger ones like FTX, that use crypto as the currency of faith, collapses, the more the faith behind the story of crypto will waver. And with repeated bad players, it is a race between mass adoption and the rate faith deteriorates.
For as long as the exchange currency is in dollars, crypto has still yet to be widely adopted. For instance, the value of crypto is pegged as a function of the dollar. As of the day I’m writing this on November 16th, 2022, if you type in bitcoin in Google search, the first search result is that Bitcoin is worth 16,768 US Dollars. In other words, as long as crypto is measured in dollars, the story of the dollar is stronger than that of crypto.
In closing
I’m not here to share my latest scoop or an update on the current situation about FTX. Twitter is filled with these already. Plenty of smart individuals have already covered all the ground I would ever even think about covering. I don’t keep my finger on the pulse of crypto and FTX nearly as much as my friends and colleagues.
Really, the purpose of this blogpost is really my curiosity that in order for FTX to get the notoriety that it has today, the team must have done something really well. And in my eyes, it’s not the product or the business, but the narrative in which they built. So, if someone at HBS or GSB isn’t writing a case study on this, they should.
P.S. Had to pass this to two friends at 6AM this morning to see if this blogpost was even worth publishing. Bless their hearts for their support so early in the morning.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
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.
The past 2 weeks brought me a whirlwind of conversations with emerging managers and LPs, catalyzed by the emerging LP playbook. And of the former, I’ve come across two main themes:
Everyone — I kid you not… everyone — has top-tier VCs as their follow-on and/or their co-investors. What was once upon unique is no longer so.
Eric was right. There’s an overabundance of the word “signal” in venture wonderland these days — to the point the word itself has lost its meaning. By definition, it should mean that is unique and stands above a sea of noise. For many investors, that means either investing in brand-name startups (i.e. SpaceX, Figma, etc.) or investing alongside brand-name investors. The latter, unfortunately, is also a product of the ecosystem as many LPs seek social proof about your investment thesis from others’ who have a proven track record. The former gets a bit sticky. A lot of these logos are either off-fund-thesis or came as a Series B syndicate investment (but the fund itself is investing in pre-seed or seed).
After publishing the emerging LP playbook last week, I've been lucky to chat with quite a few emerging managers raising their Fund I's
And there are 2 common themes I see in their decks:
1. Tier 1 VCs as follow on investors are table stakes 2. There's a lot of logo shopping
To piggyback on the above, the notion of signal is worth elaborating on, likely a vestigial appendage of the past two years.
Let me preface by saying that it takes a lot to get to conviction.
In 2020 and 2021, many investors’ calculus of startup signal boiled down to three things: great investors, great traction, and great team. And in that order. That is first and foremost what I see a lot of professionalizing investors do. I can’t entirely blame them since the ecosystem itself propagates the belief that if a Tier 1 VC jumps in, you’re more likely to get to a great exit. Or at the minimum, get a great mark-up to make your IRRs and TVPIs look better. On paper, of course.
But what I believe a lot of investors are missing is that… venture is a game that’s not about your batting average, but about the magnitude of the home runs you hit. You’ve heard it before, and you’ll continue to hear more of it. Unlike other financial services, VC is driven by the power law. 80% of your returns will be driven by 20% of your bets. That’s the 10,000 foot view. Let’s be honest. Most of us, myself included, don’t take that panoramic view every day or even every week. In fact, I see many emerging managers only take that view when they’re forced to. In other words, when they’re in fundraising mode.
For many professionalizing angels and syndicate leads, that becomes trying to string a narrative from seemingly disparate data points. Or at least, it seems that way.
As Asher Siddiqui told me, “[after] you look at their whole life and career history, and look at their thesis, if the thesis doesn’t make complete and perfect sense, then I don’t think this is a ‘great‘ fund manager. If it fits like a glove, then yes, they could be.”
The best GPs are disciplined even before they start fundraising. They focus on the thesis they want to raise on when they do. That’s not to say they don’t invest off-thesis every so often. But they don’t pitch their off-thesis angel or syndicate investments as part of their thesis-driven track record. But I digress.
In chasing signal for the sake of signal, when you hear of a hot deal every other day, many investors forget to be that belief capital for founders. I’m not saying that an investor should do so for every founder out there. But to pick a few, or even just one. One that they’re willing to take the swing before others do.
The signal is their own conviction in the founder.
The first half
Because of this progression, there’s been a new two-part question I really enjoy asking emerging GPs. The first half:
Which company in your portfolio you think is still underestimated?
Which company in your portfolio didn’t get the investor attention you expected but are still extremely bullish on their growth? And why do you still believe in them? What are other investors missing out on?
It’s not about track record or social proof here. It’s about the ability to recognize exceptional talent and articulate it clearly. Hopefully, a rose growing in concrete.
Well, in terms of the odds, you’re likely to be wrong. But that’s okay. You need to be willing to be wrong to achieve outlier success.
Fund I is often the proof-of-concept fund for the emerging managers I’ve talked to. They start by writing small checks, don’t lead rounds, and don’t fight for ownership targets. They claim to be extremely helpful and hands on. Then again, expectation often differs from reality, especially if they’ve never been so before (where LPs discover through reference checks). And because they’re writing smaller checks now, I’ve seen many implicitly hold off on developing a framework to get to conviction until Fund III. Whereas the best GPs start thinking about it early on.
You can think about it this way. As long as you’re benchmarking on signal via other investors, why should an LP back your thesis when they can back your “signal”?
For individuals and smaller family offices, they’ll still back you. What they’re buying is access, since they can’t afford nor have the relationship to be an LP in the “signals.” Larger LPs have the optionality to do so. And if you’re an emerging GP hoping to grow as a professional manager by having larger and larger funds, you eventually need to raise from large LPs. At least, until the SEC changes their 99 limit. And to do so, from larger LPs, means you need to bet where their existing portfolio has not bet before. Plus do it well.
The second half
If you haven’t already, a great way to build a referenceable track record is to sweat the details. Yes. The details matter. Nate Silver, one of the best poker players of our generation, said earlier this year, “you can’t just get the big things right in poker. You have to get the small things right too. It’s too competitive of a field right now.”
Though he said venture is different, I believe he’s half right. Most investors don’t sweat the small things. But investors should. Today, that’s how you stand out.
It might not have been true a decade ago, but now it is. Just last year, in 2021, there were 730 funds created. To put that number into perspective, on average, that literally means two firms closed every single day last year, including the holidays and weekends!
Capital has become a commodity. In 2021, speed was a differentiator. Clearly, in 2022, it is not. Today, it’s tough being a founder. If you’ve raised in the last two years, you’re considering extending your runway. That means having tough conversations to reduce your workforce, your benefits, or your salaries. If you haven’t raised, it’s a hard market to be raising in now. And so the differentiator today, is in two parts:
Helping founders navigate these tough situations. In other words, being (proactively) helpful.
And helping founders raise their next round. Mac Conwell recently shared a great thread on how powerful a founders’ network is to get funding. The same applies to an investors’ ability to help their portfolio raise capital. How liquid is your network? It’s not about who you know, but how well you know your friends downstream, and how can you get them over the activation energy to invest. Don’t get me wrong. There still needs to be a certain level of hustle from the founders themselves. But a great investor often steps in to reduce as much friction as we can in that process.
Both of which have long been the job description of being a VC. It’s in the small things. Jump on a 2AM call. Help your founders figure out the wording for a reduction-in-force. Fix the sales copy to better close leads.
There are 10-15 character-building moments in a founder’s journey where the moat they build around the business (as opposed to just the product) is not IP or early product traction, but rather from the lessons obtained from scar tissue.
It’s hard to predict looking through the windshield when these moments are, but quite obvious via the rearview mirror. And the best an investor can do is be there as much as he/she can. Albeit hard to do for every company in your portfolio, and that’s the truth. The wealth of information creates a poverty of attention. The larger your portfolio, the harder it is to be truly helpful to every single one. So focus on founders who need you, rather than those who will do great without you. Reputation is built in wartime and realized in peacetime.
So, the second part to the above question is:
What did you do for this company that no other investor or advisor did?
… where I’m looking for answers on how this investor went above the call of duty to help a company they believed in grow.
In closing
In summary,
Which company in your portfolio you think is still underestimated?
What did you do for this company that no other investor or advisor did?
This is by no means original, but heavily inspired by the recent conversations I’ve had, as well as helps me build my own framework for analysis. In parts, this question is a derivation to the check size to helpfulness ratio (CS:H). How helpful are you as an investor? When you say you’re founder-friendly, do you mean it?
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.
Before we dive into this blogpost, I’ve been asked by my legal friends to include the below disclaimer. I have a version of this at the bottom of every blogpost, but nevertheless, it doesn’t hurt to reiterate it again.
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 in the hallowed halls of my elementary school, I had a principal whose presence was always larger than life. He was often the optimist and, with words alone, could figuratively turn water into wine, and any mistake into an opportunity. Ironically, there was a sign that hung above the door to his office that read: Opportunity is nowhere. An odd sign that seemed to be the Hyde to his Jekyll.
I spent a whole year contemplating why. And on the last day of third grade, I finally mustered the courage to ask him.
“Mr. M, why do you have that sign above your door?”
“What sign?”
“The sign that says ‘Opportunity is nowhere.'”
He paused and chuckled, “David, it looks like I bought the wrong sign. It’s supposed to say ‘Opportunity is now here.’ But now that you mention it, you could say the only difference between no opportunities and endless opportunities is just one small space.”
In the venture market, that small space blossomed in late 2020. In a flurry of SPACs, secondary markets, and tech IPOs, exit opportunities for venture-backed companies were flourishing. There were multiple paths to liquidity. Tech employees saw their net worth grow, and more accredited investors were minted by the day. Alumni syndicates grew in membership and deal volume.
With a surplus of capital in the market, the money had to go somewhere. Not to savings accounts. But to goods and services. Crypto and NFTs. Startups. And other capital allocators.
Adjacently, the COVID days saw the (re)emergence of new markets. Ecommerce. Fintech. Remote work. Future of work. Web3 and the metaverse. Just to name a few.
In 2021, VC fundraising activity surpassed $100B in funds raised for the first time. $128.3 billion across 730 funds, to be exact. Carta also saw a massive jump in the number of Fund I’s created last year. More than ever before, there was an abundance in opportunities to invest in venture funds.
Anecdotally, in my work at On Deck Angels and at DECODE, I’ve seen a rise in the number of opportunities to invest into funds as well. Via various other platforms as well:
Revere — where you can discover and evaluate venture fund managers through a unique rating framework. They’ve also recently launched explorevc.com for those curious about who’s in their pipeline;
Allocate — an end-to-end platform that covers everything from discovery to capital calls and keeping track of your portfolio;
Arlan Hamilton famously raised $5M of her fund via Republic, an equity crowdfunding platform. More recently, Cathie Wood announced the opportunity for non-accredited investors to invest in the ARK Venture Fund through Titan.
There was and still is a wealth of noise, but a poverty of “signal” — a word that may have lost its true meaning in these past few years. When signal is everywhere, it is nowhere. So more than ever before, more than opportunities, what the world needs more of are frameworks. Frameworks on how to differentiate for yourself signal from noise.
There is a wealth of content and discourse in the broader world for investors, which include advice on personal finance, investing in stocks, option trading, and of course, quite a bit, in the world of startup investing. But surprisingly little in the realm of investing in venture funds. The only ones I could find were OpenLP and SuperLP, which if you know me I had to ask both of their authors for their latest insights here as well.
As we were wrapping up our conversation on a sweltering late summer day, Martin Tobias, founding partner at Incisive Ventures, told me:
“Somebody should write a book like Jason Calacanis’ Angels, but for LPs.”
And he’s completely right. While that is a larger endeavor altogether, hopefully, this blogpost serves as a preamble for a greater conversation.
Who is the emerging LP?
An LP, or a limited partner, in the context of this essay, is someone who invests indirectly, rather than directly into startups. While investors in syndicates and SPVs are also counted as LPs, for the purpose of this piece, I’ll focus on people who invest in funds.
If you’re an emerging LP, you’re most likely writing checks into Fund I’s. Maybe Fund II’s, if you’re lucky, can write larger checks ($250-500K+), you have something a GP wants, or some permutation of the above.
Effectively, this blogpost is dedicated to the investor looking to invest in fund managers who have yet to prove their institutional track record. And just like investing into a pre-seed founder, searching for product-market fit, the checks you are writing are… belief capital.
If it’s belief capital, assuming the GP has the underlying mechanics down (portfolio construction, fund strategy, etc.), it’s all about people. And if it’s all about people (I’m overgeneralizing), how you win as an LP is determined by your ability to differentiate the top decile from the top quartile. Part of that requires some level of intuition. But I am ill-equipped to speak on LP intuition, as opposed to VC intuition. So, I had to ask folks with more miles on their odometer.
Asher Siddiqui shared it best in our conversation from the perspective of an emerging fund manager:
“Here’s the problem that I have. Imagine you’re an emerging fund manager and you think you’re hot shit. How long do you think it takes before you figure out if you are?
“The average deployment period is 2-3 years. You launch Fund I in Year 1 and launch Fund II between Year 2 and 3. You close the second fund around Year 4. By Year 7-8, you now have some DPI from Fund I, early DPI from Fund II, and are now writing your first checks from Fund III.
“The truth is no one knows if you’re a great fund manager until you’re eight to ten years in. That means if you’re meeting a great manager, you’re meeting them when they’re already at Fund III, or when they’re raising Fund IV.”
Similarly, the truth is as an emerging LP, you probably don’t have the opportunity to invest in “hot shit.” Why?
Top-tier funds are oversubscribed, and have a waitlist to even get the chance to invest.
And if you could, due to the size of their funds, you need to be able to write checks on the magnitude of 7-figures and up.
Rather the buffet you have before you is the opportunity to support the best before they’re the best. So instead of looking for lagging indicators, like TVPI, DPI, and IRR, the conversations that sparked this blogpost is intended to look for leading, predictive indicators. But as you might guess, there is no one right answer in foresight. But I do hope the below serve as tools in your toolkit as you grow your arsenal of frameworks for investing in GPs.
As a quick note, wanted to share some quick definitions I wish I knew at one point in my life:
TVPI: Total-value-to-paid-in capital, aka paper returns
DPI: Distributions-to-paid-in capital, aka the actual money you get back, or Chris Douvos calls it: “the moolah in the coolah”
IRR: Internal rate of return, aka how fast your money appreciates per year
Net IRR: your IRR after fees, carry, expenses are accounted for, and what LPs care about more than gross IRR
GP: General partner of a VC firm, aka the head honcho at a firm
Finding the best LPs
The world of fund investing is, for lack of better words, opaque. There’s no public Rolodex of limited partners. If you stick around the venture world long enough, there are familiar names that regularly pop up in fund pitch decks or during VC happy hour. And outside of the big institutions who write $5M+ checks that you might find on ad hoc expeditions into the world of the internet, the two best places I’ve found so far for information on LPs is Sapphire Partners’ OpenLP.com. And scouring AngelList’s syndicates and PCN (Private Capital Network) for their LP networks, neither of which are public either.
At the same time, most individual LPs don’t go “shopping” for deals. They invest opportunistically into people they know and trust or alongside people they trust. In a way, this blogpost is also designed to help the individual LPs below shop for deals. By sharing the fact they LP publicly, my sell to them was that maybe this blogpost will the earliest semblances of fund deal flow to them.
Just as a fund manager brings smaller LPs on for very specific reasons, an LP should have a similar rationale to why they are investing in a GP. It’s a two-way street.
Methodology and a table of contents
I’m going to preface by saying: This isn’t an academic research paper. So as such, I may not have followed all the best practices in doing academic research. Nevertheless, I promise you won’t be disappointed. The below found its genesis scratching a personal itch that grew into:
How can I best support emerging GPs?
A first step into demystifying the black box of LP investing
Help individual LPs build thought leadership and discoverability, aka deal flow
And, building an investing playbook for pre-product-market fit funds
To each individual, I asked just four questions:
Apart from TVPI and IRR, what are leading indicators that differentiate the great GPs from the good GPs? In other words, the top decile from the top quartile?
In fairness, I iterated on the wording of this question the most because a few LPs I asked early on only had one answer: track record. And track record — in other words, TVPI and IRR, especially DPI, are lagging indicators.
Any red flags about emerging GPs that new LPs should be aware of?
What common pieces of advice should emerging LPs ignore, if any?
This was one that either completely hit or completely missed. The latter due to the fact, that there isn’t much advice, period, that is shared between LPs who don’t already know each other. One of the main reasons I believe this blogpost should exist.
Anything else you think first-time LPs should be aware of?
Some shared over text. Others over email. And a handful of others across calls and coffee.
As such, I’ve segmented this blogpost into five main sections:
In the words of my friend and colleague Gautam, “A big part of direct early-stage investing is more than just financial return. The same holds true as an LP, especially as an emerging LP. Be very clear about why you’re an LP. An investor who invested in the same fund as I did called his LP commitment the most expensive newsletter subscription he’s ever been a part of.”
Why you should be an LP
“The most important question to answer is why do you want to be an LP? To me, there are three reasons:
You want to build a career in this space – potentially a fund of funds, or manage someone’s family office.
You’re not the best at picking individually good startup deals to invest in, and you want to be strategic. For example, if David has the best deal flow in web3*, and I don’t, I want to invest in David.
This manager also has access to top deals – top deals that would otherwise be impossible for you to get into. If you invest in the fund, you also get access to the fund’s pro rata rights.”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise *Author’s Note: I don’t have the best deal flow in web3, but am flattered to be the example.
“I’m also a startup investor myself. My goal is still to uncover the best investments out there. So, there are 5 reasons as to why I invest in funds:
Investing in outliers: I invest in funds who have access to opportunities I may have missed myself. I don’t want to miss the next Gong.
Knowledge and network expansion: I want to expand my knowledge and network of what and who is out there. To become a better fund manager and uncover what’s happening out there in the market, I read other GP’s investor updates. I learn from what they learn.
Expanding my deal flow: I invest in others’ funds to get to invest in the companies they’ve invested in, and earning my right to, by being as valuable as an LP as possible.
Learning: I’m able to learn about areas that I’m very interested in. For example, I’ve spend the past year trying to learn more about web3, so I invested in web3 funds. I read the GPs’ investor updates and have effectively built a braintrust of GPs who are experts in web3.
Regional coverage: I LP into funds in emerging markets, namely, India, Southeast Asia, and Europe. I want to back someone who’s just starting with a Fund I, in a region I don’t have coverage on.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
Why you should NOT be an LP
“Venture isn’t a winning strategy for retail investors. Many investors cite that new funds outperform the S&P 500 or Russell 2000, but the truth is most venture funds have a low probability of beating the NASDAQ. Those that say otherwise are ignorant. Venture, as an asset class, is worse than the best public market alternative ($QQQ) unless you are getting the best outcomes. You need to be in the quartile, by looking for the top decile. Only then can you beat the public markets.
“If you don’t fully understand what that game is – one you’re not going to get your capital back for 10-12 years, then stick to public markets and small checks angel investing to satisfy startup investing curiosity. People are often insular to what they see and believe, especially on Twitter. Everyone is talking their own book. Do your homework.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“Adjust expectations. People think that they’re going to always make 10x on their money, but I’m reminded of a story from early in my career.
“In the aftermath of the dotcom bubble, a time during which a looooottt of people made a lot of money, a big endowment that had one of the top venture portfolios looked at their relationships in their totality and found that only three of their managers exceeded a TVPI of greater than 2.5x for the whole of their relationship (across all the funds). And if you look at VC as a whole, returns have only very rarely met the lofty expectations that most people have. We’re looking back at an extraordinary time, but I think that when people look back, especially at a landscape littered with dilettante funds, that we’ll say that as the TVPI matured into DPI (the ‘moolah in da coolah’) times were pretty good, maybe even great, but not all the trees grew to the sky like some thought they would.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“My biggest piece of advice for this audience is to actually not invest in venture. Most of the entrepreneurial network over-indexes investments to venture capital or start-ups. But our career is probably already over-indexed to this high risk asset class. I encourage entrepreneurs who start to invest to look at real estate, stocks, private equity, or private debt/BDCs. You can actually buy private debt on the public markets, called BDCs – business development corporations – that are loans out of companies and pay 10-15% yield. Or mid-market private equity generates ~20% IRR’s with far higher confidence than a venture fund. Asset allocation across these different profiles are key.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
What Makes a Phenomenal GP (As Opposed to just a Good One)
For the purpose of this section, I’m going to depart from the usual metrics – like a 3x net multiple, or a 25%+ IRR for funds longer than 5 years. Why? Since (a) if those metrics exist, these funds are no longer non-obvious, and the likelihood of you having access to these funds as an emerging LP is slim (and fund performance speaks for itself), or (b) if they don’t exist, you’re going to rely on qualitative measures — just as you would investing in most early-stage startups pre-PMF.
Consistent, clear, and preemptive communication
“Most managers are not that great when it comes to transparency around fund operations. Things like: What are your latest investments? What’s the thesis behind some of those investments? How are they performing over time?
“Some of these things get answered, if I’m lucky, on a quarterly basis, but often on an annual basis or less. So if you find a team that’s consistent about sharing progress on a monthly or at the very least on a quarterly basis and are really responsive to answering your emails and any phone calls, that’s a good sign behind a team that’s working very hard to serve the interest of its LPs and treating the job like a fiduciary.
“I’ll put a little bit of side note here. This kind of behavior is great with founders, too. When founders are really great about communications, it correlates very well to their performance over time.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“The six funds that I’ve invested in so far (listed here if that’s helpful) have all been communicative, stayed true to their thesis, and given me opportunities to learn and help to the extent that I had hoped for.”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
“Sometimes things don’t perfectly line up — a GP might discover new opportunities or areas of interest as they start investing in a fund. Or increased competition. If strategy changes have occurred, ideally the GP would have been flagging this to their LPs over the course of the two years but for a new prospective LP being able to speak to the changes is important.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
The best have a unique perspective
“As an LP who also invests directly into startups, we seek GPs who have something unique – some kind of insight. It’s not always about having the highest net return. These days, there’s not enough GPs who have a unique angle on the market. It could be how they diligence deals, how they set their investment strategy, or what top investments look like.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“The funds we have known that are top decile have a point of view, this can be expressed as being thesis driven, but doesn’t have to be. It does though provide a reason for why they invest in what they do and why an entrepreneur picks them.
“They have also, in our experience, have had multiple fund returners within one fund. Not always, if an exit is large enough with respect to the size of the fund, it is possible to have a top decile fund with just one fund returner. The power law is alive and well in the top decile funds we’ve seen. This means swinging for the fences with respect to a fund’s investments as well as supporting this with a portfolio allocation and management strategy that enables a significant exit to provide for strong returns.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“Every investor claims to have a value. There are very few cases where investors pitch otherwise. Sector specific funds may have a real value add for very early stage startups.
Uniqueness is not about investing into a vertical or type of technology, but about their ability to measure the size of an idea. Great managers know how to identify big ideas that others aren’t seeing. Even more true if you run a big fund; you must be investing in even bigger outcomes.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
Is this strategy repeatable?
“Differentiating between ‘top decile’ and ‘top quartile’ is really just going to be luck, for the most part. If you’re simply measuring and assessing ‘good GPs’ from the great ones, by track record, here would be my top few:
“What % of the portfolio comes from the top 1, 2 or 3? If you can deliver a top-quartile return WITHOUT your one winner / ‘lucky bet’, that’s really good.
What % of companies successfully got funded from investment to the next round?
Seed —> Series A should be >35%
Series A —> Series B should be >50%
Series B —> Series C should be >50%
Series C —> Series D+ should be >60%”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
“For GPs with young track records, we look at what the contributing companies are. Who are the fund returners? And can they replicate the same strategy? When diligencing GPs, we also talk to the founders they invest in. Essentially, whether there is founder/GP fit.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“I look for someone who’s very consistent. They have the integrity to stick to their word. They’re not deal-chasing, deploying all their capital in less than two years, and trying to raise their next fund too quickly. Typically, you’re signing up for multiple funds. If the deployment window is very small, the GP makes frequent capital calls, which means you’re committing more capital in less time.”
— Sam Huleatt, On Deck
“TVPI and IRR tend to be lagging indicators, not leading ones (for many reasons — including irrelevance of these metrics earlier than 5 years, changing motivations, engagement, and so on for investors, and shift in fund size/strategy, noting the Maples Dictum that your fund size IS your strategy).
“For me, the thing that tilts the odds in favor of a manager having the potential to be ‘great’ is that they are leveraging some sort of ecosystem. That can be an ecosystem built on years of success (Sequoia) or ‘prepared mind’ like Accel back in the day, or deep entrenchment in a mafia (Founders Fund). Additionally, some people build fertile ecosystems like First Round or True by investing time and attention in targeted and intentional ways. I try to look for people that are entrenched in some kind of robust ecosystem and match the moment when their upward-sloping line of experience as an investor intersects the (generally) downward sloping line of hunger. For more specifics on my thought process, see the most recent (five years old LOL) post on Super LP.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“Over the long run of course, it’s DPI, but it’s about consistency of returns, which typically is a byproduct of them understanding where their definable edges (finding product/market fit), and ruthlessly exploiting those edges through building repeatable processes on sourcing, decision making, team building, etc.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“This portfolio can’t be a one-hit wonder. Is there enough gold in the middle after you take the top two and the bottom two investments out?
“There’s a Rome in everyone’s future. You go up and then you go down. There are many funds that generated outsized alpha in the last decade but are not what they used to be.
“If you’re leveraging a network, is that alumni network today the same as it was yesterday. Did most of the smart, driven people leave? Are you borrowing or are you using that network? Were you there at the right vintage?
“Also, bet on people who do what they said they would do. Where did the returns come from? If the top returns came from their 20% discretionary funds, and not their 80% core fund, is that something worth betting on again as an LP? I would rather back a 3x return from an on-thesis fund than someone who gave me a 6x who came from off-thesis. The latter is because it came from sheer dumb luck. The question is, what do they do with that dumb luck? Do they pivot and learn, or continue to go rogue / play the roulette?
“Think about why LPs give money to GPs. Anyone can go into Vegas and play the roulette. The best GPs can do something I cannot do and they do it repeatedly.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Access > proprietary deal flow
“We have felt for a number of years now (including pre-COVID) that the concept of ‘proprietary deal flow’ is not really a thing. Proprietary access however is something we think is true, powerful and not simple to achieve (hence why powerful ).”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“I look for emerging managers who have a highly differentiated platform offering or differentiated deal flow. In addition, for someone who has won before, like winning great deals, they’re likely to win again.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
“For an emerging GP, it’s all about access. Do I have the confidence that the best founders will seek out this GP?
How I evaluate access for a solo GP is different from how I evaluated a platform. For platforms, their external brand plays a big role. What are other founders saying about them? I talk to founders they’ve backed because ultimately, founders are their customers.
For solo GPs, I evaluate the GP on their personal brand, and his or her own insight on how they are thinking about the fund as a product. Here, I think of it as more of a bet on the founder of the firm, and not a fund bet.”
— Gautam Shewakramani, Inuka Capital
“GPs also need to be able to quantify that unique access. I’m an LP in a fund that puts on a regular conference and runs a community of 30,000 [redacted job title]. Their thesis was that they’re going to fund the best ideas that come out of their [redacted] community.
“The same is true for Packy McCormick. His thesis is: ‘I help startups tell their stories. I have all these readers who are VCs and founders, and they’re going to invite me into their deal.’ So, the quantitative thing is how big is his mailing list and how fast is it growing.
“It’s the ability to quantify things that you as the GP think are proprietary about your particular access to this market segment. It’s more than just how many LinkedIn friends you have or how many Twitter followers you have; it’s specific to your thesis.
“For my thesis, I get referred deals because I’m an LP in 17 funds. I invest in deals that are too early for these other funds, and I can get them follow-on financing because I know directly the LPs in the follow-on funds. And the fact that I’m an LP in 17 funds gives credibility to that thesis.
“One of my theses is that I’m a really good pre-seed investor because my companies get a higher percentage of follow-on financing than your average VC. Mine is 72%. Techstars is 30%. I’m two and a half times better than Techstars at getting follow-on financing.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
“I’m an LP in 17 venture capital funds, and it’s very clear what separates the best from the good. Deal flow.
“I also think we are entering a new era where you’ll see specialized, smaller funds that will generate great performance because of domain expertise and proximity to the nucleus of innovation. I get really excited about this group, and think some of these <$50M funds could generate 5x+ returns.
“For this group, I look for two things:
The team climbing the hill: Why is this team special in being able to attract great deal flow? Examples could be knowledge expertise, distribution, prior experience, geographic coverage, but a compelling edge is critical.
The hill that team is climbing: Ultimately, macro matters a lot. We like to attribute performance to skill, but timing, sector, and luck play a large part of success. The worst manager in crypto in 2015 probably did pretty well. The worst fintech manager in 2010 probably crushed it. I think about what will be the area in 2030 that everyone wishes they had exposure to today.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
They don’t have to ask “How can I help?”
“Most investors are not helpful. I started a company, raised some VC money, then some from angels. And I realized that our most helpful investors were angels. I came to understand that there are two kinds of helpful investors:
Reactively helpful
Proactively helpful
“For the former, you would have a problem, reach out to your investor, and they would really help you. For the latter, it’s Alex. Alex was one of our first investors. He would often come into our office, and without being prompted, proceed to write code against our APIs. And I thought, if I were to be a VC one day, I wanted to be just like him — very hands on. I knew he would be a real value-add investor.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures *Alex is a fictitious name of a real person.
“It boils down to three questions that are all interrelated:
Does this fund manager have a brand?
Does he/she have access? Do founders need them more than the manager needs the founders?
And does he/she have something unique to provide to founders?”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise
“At the pre-seed level, where I invest, a great fund manager is someone who gets a startup to a ‘real’ round of funding. I think it’s like fording a river: a good fund attracts founders to their boat, then ferries them across to the other side. For this service, they are rewarded with allocation in a round that’s underpriced once they reach the shore.
“Great funds are ones that have a sustained, repeatable process for attracting founders and a reliable methodology to get them across. This can look like focusing on a geography, focusing on a sector, focusing on an underserved founder market, acting as a scout for a larger fund who likes your deals, or some combination of the above.
“The returns from pre-seed are really about getting early and cheaply enough to have made the risk worth it.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Are they hungry?
“I work with some good fund managers, but why are they not great? Why are they only in the top quartile, and not the top decile? They have all the ingredients of being great. They have amazing pedigree, and they went to the right high school, the right college, and worked at all the top startups in their vintage. But… they’re not hungry. They haven’t had enough adversity in their life.
“I have seen prospective LPs only look at a GP’s career history, and not their life history. You need that extra data point, that context. To take a holistic view of the unique set of experiences of a human being, and not just the professional. You look at their thesis, and their history; you look at it from birth to today; you look at their whole life and career history, and look at their thesis. If the thesis doesn’t make complete and perfect sense, then I don’t think this is a ‘great‘ fund manager. If it fits like a glove, then yes, they could be.
“I don’t believe in luck. I believe you create your own luck. How do you create your own luck? You create chaos, which creates opportunities — you then leverage your past experience and your drive to capitalize on that opportunity….”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
The devil is in the details of their portfolio construction model
“They need to have thought about deployment (schedules) and fund size. One of the quotes we both like is ‘Your fund size is your strategy.’ A fund of $10 million should have a very different strategy than a $50 million or $100 million fund.”
— Sam Huleatt, On Deck
“To us, the difference between good and very good is portfolio management. How do they think about reserves to follow on? Do they look to increase allocation into the winners?
“There’s a big difference between managing a $5 million fund and a $20-30 million one and $500 million one. How you look at portfolio management and allocation is different. Everyone tells you they can give you a 5x return, but I only need 3x DPI! Even the best firms out there struggle to return 3x on certain funds.
“Your size is your strategy. We take into account the geography you invest into. In Israel, we don’t have decacorns. And because the exits are lower, the fund size should also be lower.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
Mixed references are not as bad as you think
“I’ve backed a lot of funds across the private markets, in both private equity and venture capital, and great investors may have divisive personalities. You want to back special talents, and they may rub people the wrong way. That said, there is a difference between a prickly personality and a bad actor not treating founders right, and not being ethical in their dealings.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
Does the GP have investor-market fit?
“Success builds upon success in venture. I’m never going to attract the best talent in the neobank or fintech space. They don’t know who I am and I don’t have true domain expertise. But if you’re doing something in retail or in hardware, I can really help and you likely know what Tide Cleaners is. Folks in retail find a way to get in front of me, and likewise, I can meaningfully help these companies. Product market fit applies to VC’s, too. And we don’t talk about this enough, but also LP’s.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
The best have long time horizons
“Luck aside, I index greatly on energy, fire, thoughtfulness, and passion. Some founders or operators raise a fund after an exit because they don’t know what to do next and have money in the bank. LPs need to discern as best as possible how committed these people are to the job of investing. How much does the GP resonate with the founders they’re backing?
“GPs who are only building, but don’t understand roughly what they’re building towards tend not to resonate with me. GPs who have founder friendliness talking points, but few examples of hard conversations with founders don’t resonate with me. I get concerned when GPs don’t appear to have an understanding of what kind of bet they’re actually making. The great GPs have long-run perspectives and are willing to adapt. Startups have to execute miracles to achieve great financial outcomes. I want to see GPs have a rough mathematical understanding of their bets based on their assumptions and stories. What’s a reasonable amount of capital to startups to their milestones, knowing your home runs are going to go much further than your initial projections? What does SaaS multiples going down from 10-15x to around 8x mean? Was the GP banking on elevated multiples persisting for the math to work?”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“I want to invest in people who are going to build multiple funds, so the long-term commitment to the space is critical.
“Every fund thinks they’re solving a unique problem – most are not. A happy outcome is backing a GP that you believe in, so I’d prioritize character over potential returns. At the end of the day, you’re getting into a decade-long relationship, so you’d better like the GP as a person, not just the asset class.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Luck is a skill
“The thing is everyone’s smart, and between the top decile and quartile, luck is a big differentiator.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“The difference between top quartile and top decile is one of luck. I believe that it is impossible to predict ex ante.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“Outlier performance is a combination of luck and skill (luck is needed for massive outlier funds), but the best fund managers require less luck to consistently outperform because they have well constructed operating frameworks.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“In my early days in venture, I spoke with several investors on the Midas list. And every single one of them attributed their success to luck and timing. They still view themselves as learning and actively track their anti portfolio to see what they missed. They’re humble, and still suffer from imposter syndrome. When I ask them these two questions:
Which were the startups that you thought were going to be winners?
What startups put you on the Midas list?
“There will be some overlap, but more often than not, it’ll be a different set of names. Investing in GPs is a bit like startup investing. It’s a bit of a roulette wheel. What you’re doing is improving the odds. Any LP or GP who says otherwise is full of shit.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
The best change the status quo
“I believe great GPs aren’t just impacting the success of their portfolio companies and their LPs, but are changing entire systems that are historically pretty broken in the VC ecosystem. The vast majority of LPs, VCs and funded founders have tended to be pretty homogenous in terms of the identities they hold and approaches they take to building & funding companies. By breaking through those biases and pattern matching, not only will a new kind of emerging fund manager see better returns, but they’ll also dismantle a lot of the systemic inequities that have prevailed. TL;DR: Good managers see healthy returns, great managers see those returns and leave things better than they found them. (I wrote a bit about some of those inequitable systems here if you’d like to link to it)”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
GP Red Flags
Logo and trend shopping
“There is a concept of just logo shopping. A lot of decks are loaded up with a bunch of logos of great companies that the GPs have invested in the past.
“There are people who say they’re seed investors were able to get a slice of allocation of some hot company at the Series C or Series D for a $5,000 or $10,000 check. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that as an investor. But the way that it’s framed often looks like that they were seed investors in these hot companies as well.
“So, there’s some of that window dressing. I think that is a red flag. It just is on the edges of honesty that I’ve never really liked.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“When GPs claim to invest in a deal, one red flag is when they were only an angel in a syndicate, and the founders don’t even know the investor by name. We also look at deal attribution for GPs from bigger funds. How involved were they in winning deals at their last fund? So, we do backchannel checks.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“I’m wary of trend followers. People who follow trends without having anything unique to add to founders building in the space.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Not playing the long game
“Another [red flag] is when GPs change the terms when fundraising. As a GP gets more interest, we’ve seen some GPs change the terms – from 2% fees to 2.5 or 3%. It raises some concerns that they are opportunists which might be viewed as a sign that they weren’t committed to building a long, durable fund.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“There is never a full alignment between LPs and GP. There are many potential conflicts when it comes to VC management. You don’t want to invest in people who will not hesitate to screw you. Don’t invest in people you don’t trust. There’s a thin line between greediness and discipline. We don’t invest in investors who are too opportunistic. Discipline and strategy consistency (with an amount of flexibility) is important.
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
“Too many GPs today are obviously dilettantes. The average fund lasts twice as long as the average American marriage, so it’s a long-term commitment to your partners. I get the sense that a lot of new GPs are becoming VCs in the same way a lot of college kids end up going to law school: it just seemed like the next obvious thing to do/the path of least resistance.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“This is personal for each LP. I believe the GP’s job is to maximize returns for their LPs. So, there’s a tradeoff between GPs playing the long game and having a fiduciary responsibility to return money in the short run. So, a red flag for me is when the GPs don’t play the long game.
“There’s this weird nobility in venture, especially in the pre-seed. Sajith Pai wrote a great piece on this. Your first investor is almost like a priest. As the first check into a company, you should be a good priest. Is this person someone who will be a strong supporter of the founder, which could come at odds with short-term financial return? I won’t get immediate distributions. But at the same time, over a fund life, this could generate better financial returns across a portfolio of founders or in the form of access to better deals driven by reputation or founder friendliness.”
— Gautam Shewakramani, Inuka Capital
“People say they’re going to deploy over the next 2.5 years. But guess what everyone did in 2021. They deployed their entire fund. So LPs are asking, ‘What are you doing? We had all of this scheduled out, but you deployed so quickly, and so now we’re out of money. We can’t do your re-ups for next year, or we can’t back new managers right now.’ It’s been a real issue that has kept so much money on the sidelines.
“Saying you’re going to do something, then not doing it is a huge red flag. Do what you say you’re going to do. This is a relationship game. If you’re breaking trust, you’re playing the short game instead of the long game.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
Small funds, big reserves
“I’m wary of small funds with big reserves. For example, a $50 million fund with 50% reserves. What it means is you’re getting less shots on goals. For Fund I’s, it’s all about shots on goals.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
They lack honesty and self-awareness
“A big one is a lack of openness of what didn’t go right. Some GPs exhibit a lot of arrogance. They claim they’re great at everything. That’s not possible, and definitely not true. Everyone has flaws, but the inability to share them is a red flag for me.
“Good GPs are also very self aware of what they are and what they aren’t. These GPs manage their time well. They find partners to build a team that has complementary skill sets to their own. When I ask: Why are you not winning deals?, they have a great answer. If they can’t answer that, they probably have work to do understanding their own pitch. Moreover, the best GPs are consistent with their stories while open and willing to evolve.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“For funds I declined to invest in, it came down to the person. They often take credit than share credit. I doubted their skills and ability to follow through. A lot of projects were often started but never finished.“
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
“Managers that don’t appreciate that this is a journey, not a sprint. It’s the same as assessing a startup founder. We look for behavioral cues: approachability, willingness to accept feedback, and ability to go through pivots.
“At Revere, we share our ratings for GPs with our GPs. Say I give someone a four out of five on team, and they come back and insist on five out of five across the board. How receptive the GP is to constructive feedback (and address it) is a very telling indicator.“
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
“Usually GPs are really good at (typically) 2 or at most 3 of the following 6 things, in order to be top-decile:
Portfolio construction & management
Access to deals / networking
Ability to win deals
Company selection / financial analysis / assessing PMF and future value accretion
Active management to “add value” to those companies
Exits
“… And maybe fundraising / cost of capital.
“But if they aren’t aware of what they’re good at, that’s troubling. Once they know what they do to excel (and what they won’t) they usually become very good at focusing on what matters.
“Here are some examples:
Potential GP: ‘I am really good at all 6 GP characteristics above!’ Me: ‘Don’t call me, I’ll call you.’
Potential GP: ‘I am really good being a board member, I’m the best. I can make any shit company successful once I’m involved. I did this for three eCommerce companies in the 1980s, and I really think I can ‘turn around’ and exit eCommerce, adtech, fintech, digital health, AI / ML, beauty and fashion, etc. They’re all the same.’ Me: ‘Ummm…’
Potential GP: ‘I am great at deal sourcing from XXX network, and I specialize in AI. But vertical-wise, I see a lot of stuff, so I do a lot of stuff.’ Me: ‘Cool.’
“I also like to see more focused funds. A lack of ability to zero in on a particular thesis (e.g. B2B SaaS with certain characteristics) is at least a yellow flag, though if the GP’s core competencies support a generalized approach that’s fine.”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
The GPs are too founder-friendly
“Emerging GPs tend to be too founder-friendly. A great VC is like a personal trainer, not a cheerleader.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
There’s no follow-on strategy
“Another red flag is not having a follow-on strategy. If you’re a small fund, you are funding companies that will never get to profitability with the money you gave them. So they all have to raise additional financing. If you don’t have reserves in your fund, you need to prove that you know other funds or have an SPV or angel network that can fund your companies. If you don’t have an answer for how you’re going to be able to fund the companies in the next round or at least introduce them, that’s a flag.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
The follow-on SPVs take management fees
“They’re charging excessive fees on SPVs to LPs. Many LPs who invest in small emerging managers are in part doing so because they want the co-investment opportunities. And those co-investment opportunities should be at fairly favorable terms. The most favorable terms I’ve seen are zero and ten. I’m not saying everyone has to do it at that, but I have seen VCs try to do it at three and thirty – at premium terms relative to the fund. I think it’s a flag on the emerging manager if he/she is proposing to charge management fees on SPVs at all.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
They lack communication skills
“GPs sometimes don’t follow up with what the LP asked for. The follow up is very generic. For example, if the LP wants to co invest in XYZ sector, can you send names in the portfolio that might be interesting to them?”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“Bad communicators who only answer with curt and short responses is a red flag.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
They don’t know the numbers or the rules of the game
“Plenty, but to extract one, we’ve found that managers that don’t know the numbers (i.e. what enterprise value within your portfolio will you need to get to a 3x+) is a huge red flag and leads to poor portfolio construction and decision-making. Saying you are going to return a 5X+ easily is not respecting how difficult it is, and probably comes with a lack of understanding of basic fund math.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“Managers that don’t understand basic portfolio construction and fund modeling. You would be amazed how many don’t even have a spreadsheet that tracks current investments.”
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
“Emerging GPs tend to overestimate the value of prior experience and underestimate the value of investing skills like portfolio construction and discipline (not just on things like price, but also on things like security selection — for instance, not understanding the problems with SAFEs).”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“If they are carrying companies at valuations that seem out of whack, or indefensible (or if they can’t really articulate their valuation policy) that’s no bueno. That is ALWAYS a signal that the GP is not going to be aligned with me… I’ve known some very strong investors who have played this game and it’s a real problem for me personally.”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
They play the AUM and management fee game
“I think fund size is a real issue. The law of funds is really interesting. If you get a million-dollar allocation early on into a unicorn and it’s a smaller fund, you can return the fund multiple times over. If you do that with a $400 million fund, it’s harder to make those numbers work.
“So as an investor, you can play one of three types of games:
You can spit out rapid funds.
You can raise massive funds.
Or you can make massive carry.
“The amount of funds and management fees that have been raised recently are out of control. If you can think about taking 2% management fees on a $500 million fund – and obviously you got costs and expenses – you’re bringing home an annual income of $10 million. And that’s just one fund, and you do another and another. So, are you trying to create value or play the AUM game? And that is a red flag for me. I like small, steady, disciplined managers who are deeply passionate about early-stage and a certain sector. That typically means they won’t scale to a $1B fund.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
No investing experience
“Just like the only way to get good at wine is to drink a lot of wine. The only way to get good at investing is to see a lot of deals. A red flag would be a GP with no investing experience.”
— Lo Toney, Plexo Capital
Common Advice To Ignore
While far les prominent than investors advising founders on how they should run their business or startup investing advice at broad, there’s a small handful of commonly shared pieces of advice that new LPs often get. Certain pieces of advice might serve larger LPs who work with a different set of parameters than you do. The important part is understanding the why.
Having artificial timelines
“LPs also shouldn’t give artificial timelines. Most family offices and individuals don’t have deployment schedules. A big endowment, like Harvard, does.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
The same is true for LPs as it is for GPs: Chasing logos
“Just because you spun out of a big firm doesn’t mean you’re going to do well as a new firm. These emerging managers are going to look good on paper, but they might not necessarily know what it’s like living in a chaotic environment. It’s not the same environment they grew up in when they were at a16z, or had another great name behind them. Different resources, different support, so different mentality. Connection with founders is incredibly important and you want to understand how that applies in a different environment.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“I don’t know if this is advice that is shared, but many LPs over-index things like logos, GP commits, and early fund performance (which means very little within the first 3 years).”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“A big one is around geographic and pedigree bias. There is a trope that’s formed that if you’re a founder of GP that’s based in the San Francisco Bay Area — maybe went to Stanford or Harvard or MIT, that will position you into the very best networks to be successful.
“I’m not saying that just because you possess those characteristics that you can’t be successful. In fact, there are plenty that are. But there are also are a lot of really talented people outside of those networks too.
“I think a lot about this Warren Buffett rule: ‘To make a lot of money, you have to be both contrarian and right.’ Look a bit more widely in your funnel and invest in managers who don’t look like yourself and come from non-traditional networks and backgrounds. They’re identifying founders who may be working on some pretty amazing stuff that’s being overlooked.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
Diversification for the sake of diversification
“Many emerging LPs are told to look for differentiation, but some things are differentiated in how bad (or mediocre) they are. Hedge fund managers say they’re seeking alpha, but sometimes you find it and it has a negative sign in front of it. What really matters is sustainable competitive advantage. How do you demonstrate and articulate your SCA? What is your unfair advantage in an extremely noisy market (and it’s gotta be more than just: ‘we’re part of the SF cool kid crowd/look at our AngelList track record of $50k checks’).”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
Should you bet on emerging GPs?
“‘Stay away from Fund I/II.’ This is the wrong advice. Don’t underestimate new GPs. Being a new GP is like being a founder; it’s a long-term commitment. And two, stay away from GPs who don’t have resilience and are not hungry to win.”
— Cindy Bi, CapitalX
Do ownership targets matter?
“There’s a lot of surface level ‘buyer beware.’ Everyone talks about ownership targets. ‘Are you hitting your ownership targets?’ For large funds, that 15-20% ownership matters. You want the proceeds of the outcome to meaningfully impact the fund. Ownership is less important for a first or second time fund, which are smaller funds where a single great outcome, even at low ownership, can return the fund.“
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
Using fund-of-funds to get into emerging funds
“I would encourage a lot of emerging LPs to not go into fund-of-funds. As an emerging manager, I want fund-of-funds to invest in my fund. But as an LP, you get double-feed. If you’re going to invest into venture funds, invest directly in the manager yourself.
“What the fund-of-funds will tell you is that they can get you into funds you can’t get into. I’m also starting to see fund-of-funds for emerging managers, which I think is a great thing. For incredibly large LPs, I think it makes sense. They get access to someone else who’s going to do all the diligence on emerging managers. But that’s not for an emerging LP whose check size is $250K to a million dollar LP commitment. Fund-of-funds are for people with a billion dollars who are already invested in Sequoia and are writing $5-10 million checks.
“Typically you would pay one and ten for fund-of-funds. Then that fund-of-funds pays two and twenty. So you’re three and thirty behind as a fund-of-funds LP.
“For emerging LPs, it’s a good exercise to invest directly in emerging managers because it’ll help with your direct investment practices as well. If you invest in fund-of-funds, you’re never going to have those co-investment opportunities because you never build a relationship with the manager.“
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Additional Tactical Tips
The below are tips that everyone were kind enough to share, but didn’t fit into the above categories. Nevertheless, I find them to be powerful in expanding how you think about being an LP.
You’re never too good to reach out.
“I will say about a third of my LP investments were into fund managers I never worked with before. I hear of these new GPs from talking with my network. If I like what they do, I’ll reach out via Twitter.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
“For every fund I’ve been in, I reached out to them, not the other way around. Every time I invest in a fund that’s either because I know the GP personally, or I know someone who knows the GP.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
See if the GP has flexibility on the minimum check size
“One thing that can be helpful to know for first-time LPs: GPs often have some flexibility on their minimum check size. I’m a pretty small check (particularly since I’ve been living on a founder salary!), but I can bring other things to the table to help the GPs I invest in (e.g. I highlighted Janine Sickmeyer from Overlooked Ventures in my Forbes column, I’m an advisor to Zecca Lehn from Responsibly Ventures, I send them deal flow from my AuthenTech community of founders). I’ve had luck with reaching out and saying ‘I really believe in what you’re doing. Please let me know if you get enough large checks and have room for some smaller LP investments.’ They’ll usually need to get enough big investments first since there are SEC limits on how many LPs they can have, and then they can let in some smaller, value-add LPs.”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
There are multiple ways to do reference checks
“There’s a two-part reference call check that I love that I learned from Scott Cook, who is the founder of Intuit. You ask, ‘I want you to tell me about David. Rate him from 1 to 10. 10 being absolutely perfect, and 1 being horrific.’ And you can basically ignore everything that is said. Most people say 8 or 9. You know they have their answer prepared.
“But then the second question is, ‘What will get David to a 10?’ And that’s where you hear the truth. That’s where you can pay attention.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“Investing into a fund is much like investing in startups. Why does this person have an unfair advantage over everyone else? I talk to the founding GP. I read VC Guide – think Yelp reviews for investors by founders. And if I think the team has an unfair advantage, I invest.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
“Ask to talk to other current LPs – you can learn a lot about how you will be treated once the fund has your money.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
“Being an LP is a ground game. It requires talking to founders and co-investors, and you won’t get much from surface-level reference checking.
“There’s no specific number that I shoot for. I once heard an LP claim to have completed 80 reference checks for one commitment. To me, that seemed like they were doing diligence for the sake of doing diligence. You could have gotten to the same answer well before 80. I reached close to 20 checks in diligence on a fund once, but I often need far less than that. The more important thing is you’re answering the questions you have that pop up in your diligence, that you only do whatever references that you need to get to a yes or no.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
“We are all operating in the business of emotions and trust. It’s best to build trust by word of mouth or references. I’ve never invested in a fund without talking to another manager or entrepreneur in the portfolio. This is across the stack. Top $100B asset managers do 20 back references on $100M venture capitalists. $100M venture capitalists do 20 back references on $10M start-ups. And $10M start-ups do back references on employees. Together, with the bond of trust, this system creates an impact on the world.
“In practice, for example, I don’t have a lot of domain expertise in web 3, but I have plenty of friends who do. So before I invested in [name redacted], I called four people and they all told me this manager was one of the top five.
“This is the under-pinning of asset allocation, but unfortunately this also leads to systematic issues. In fact, I would say this referral network is part of the issue of neglected founders, industries, and geographies not being able to get funded. It’s a huge issue in our country that 2% of women get all VC dollars. That’s horrendous and that means that >50% of our population only gets 2% of funding. That isn’t right. We need more capital to flow to underrepresented or neglected founders or industries or managers. These new managers may not have the network to build traction, but I’m loving all the new amazing, specialized emerging managers doing great work with new strategies popping up.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
“Do reference calls. Talk to some founders they’ve invested in. Talk to startups in their anti-portfolio. And talk to some of the founders that didn’t work out. For the latter, how did they manage that? What do the founders think of them? If you only talk to the winners in their portfolio, they look like cheerleaders who got lucky and got into some great companies.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Follow-on investors aren’t as big of a differentiator as you might think.
“Top-tier follow-on investors in the past 48 months are no longer a differentiator. Existing managers all talk about mark-ups. Most managers that aren’t incompetent have markups and brand name follow-on investors over the last three years.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
Get granular with a fund’s follow-on investors
“A lot of LPs act like they care about which funds are making investments alongside emerging managers. But who those follow-on investors and co-investors are will mean different things to different people based on the following factors.
Which partner at that established fund is actually leading the deal? Is it someone with a track record or a more junior partner?
Which fund are they investing from? Is it their core fund, or a satellite one they’re experimenting with?
“You ultimately need to get to know the people behind every investment decision.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
March 30th is more important than you think
“Ask when you will get your K-1s and insist that it is before March 30th, otherwise you will be stuck extending every year and that’s just a pain.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Don’t rush into investment decisions
“We don’t rush into investment decisions. It takes us time to reach conviction. Unlike early stage VC, in a fund-of-funds, you expect returns from all your investments. Conviction is required to reach trust. We might not rush into the first vintage, but based on how well we get to know the fund manager, might jump into the second vintage.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
“There are also a lot of venture funds out there, take your time and meet with a range of GPs before you invest to get a feel for what the investment opportunities are and what feels right for you for your LP program.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“Yes, meet at least 20-30 managers before you make an investment, or use a partner. Like anything, at first you will like almost everything, but it takes reps to truly start to build pattern recognition, and manager investing is a probability based exercise; meeting just a few won’t provide enough data points to have a good sense of what meaningful differentiation looks like (i.e.. meaningful differentiation increases the probability of consistent success, much like counting cards in blackjack. It doesn’t guarantee a payout, but you want someone that has their own version of ‘counting cards’.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“Emerging LPs shouldn’t be taking any advice or making any decisions until they’ve met with at least 100 investment firms (and as many different types of firms as they can).
“The reality is that LPs don’t help each other as much as they should. There’s this cooperation versus competition dynamic, this friendly competitiveness, and LPs will be more helpful in less access-constrained deals. That’s something you need to understand as a new LP.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
TVPI hides good portfolio construction
“When I do portfolio diligence, I don’t just look at the multiples, but I look at how well the portfolio companies are doing. I take the top performer and bottom performer out and look at how performance stacks up in the middle. How have they constructed their portfolio? Do the GPs know how to invest in good businesses?
“I’m not just bothered by my TVPI. I also try to look at the companies and the revenue they’re bringing in. Some of a fund’s portfolio companies that haven’t raised a subsequent round, which may not look as good in TVPI, but they may not have needed to raise any subsequent capital to scale further. The point is to assess the quality of the underlying portfolio of ‘businesses’ — so factor that in and look at likely exit opportunities for those companies.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Don’t invest in ESG for the sake of ESG
“Avoid ‘ESG’ if they reduce financial returns, are comprised of unaudited made-up metrics that won’t get reported (e.g. ‘we love the environment, and will only invest in ‘green’ companies’ but the LPA doesn’t provide mention of reportable, audited environmental goals or KPIs, or define what ‘green’ means).”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
Past performance is not indicative of future performance
“It takes three funds worth of track record to make it meaningful. But even then, it’s even more complicated. Your strategy and risk-to-return profile for a $5 million Fund I will look meaningfully different than yours for a $150 million Fund III. I wouldn’t recommend relying on these blunt instruments for the emerging manager category. So the advice here is that LPs cannot rely on past performance of earlier funds if the latest fund’s strategy has shifted.”
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
Have an LP thesis
“LPs should have a portfolio construction model. What percent are you investing in generalist funds? What percent in thesis-driven ones? And also, what stages? Pre-seed? Seed? A- and B-funds? Multi-stage?
“You should take the total amount you want to put into funds and separate it with a portfolio construction model that makes sense for your risk tolerance.
“Is your portfolio allocation driven by financial returns or certain goals you have? A lot of LPs might want to invest for non-financial reasons – could be diversity, geographic coverage, verticals, or stage. They might want to support female founders, or ESG. Just like I encourage angels to have a thesis, LPs should have one too. Why am I doing this?”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Why are you helpful as an LP?
“As an LP, you also have to think of your unique value-add. If you have a brand, your name helps with credibility of the fund and helps the GP reach more LPs. On the other hand, you have to think about what kind of LPs a GP would offer their pro rata rights to? For an SPV strategy, those are LPs who:
Backed and believed in the GP from Day 1.
Has written big checks, and/or
Can help the fund’s portfolio companies.”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise
“We did have several of those established, persistent performers in the PE/VC portfolio in my prior role though, and that’s because those GPs look for more than just money. They may be looking for someone who’s strategic to their portfolio, but more so they’re looking for kindred spirits. Show why you’re also a convicted investor, like them, because they’re really just looking for true believers.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
Don’t put your eggs in one basket.
“Putting money into an early-stage fund is a very, very high-risk alternative asset category. Every normal family office puts maybe 10 to 15% of their total net worth behind this asset category. Don’t concentrate behind a single manager. Spread it across five, possibly ten, managers who have truly varied networks.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“Invest in a larger number of fund managers than you might think is appropriate. Focus on smaller, tightly managed micro-VCs (I’m assuming that the LP can’t get into the Sequoia / Founders Fund / Benchmark types). Really dig into their strategy, their edge, and their pipeline. And, spend time with them and learn the trade, get into their co-investment program and be ready to execute!”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
“Does it make sense to have 17 funds all in web3? Or 17 funds in fintech? Or even 8 in web3 and 9 in fintech? My own fund is counter-cyclical, and I think an LP needs to build a portfolio of top managers across the economy. Healthcare, IoT, fintech, web 3, and other differentiated strategies can comprise an excellent portfolio.
“If an entrepreneur is building in climate tech, there are 10 amazing funds out there who really know climate tech. If you’re building in web3, there are several funds that are so close to the nucleus of innovation and that’s what it matters. But if you’re building in hard industries, we’re trying to become one of the ten. A portfolio that consists of a basket of these top ten funds makes a lot of sense if you believe in investing in venture.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
“LPs can get very excited about tech and venture. They still need to remember this is a high-risk asset class. They should have clarity of what their expectations are. Venture used to traditionally be 5% of private equity. This is funny money – play money. It’s less so now, but still is. LPs do it because it has the potential to provide outsized, risk adjusted, returns.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Patience is a virtue
“It may take seven to ten years (or longer) to see any real return, so be patient.”
— Cindy Bi, CapitalX
“The reason I chose a lot of managers is also so I can start tracking data. I won’t do re-ups right away because I want to see how they’ll perform over a couple decades or even over 6 years.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
In closing
The above is by no means all-encompassing as you refine your craft as an LP. Nevertheless, if you’re looking to dive deeper into the art of investing in non-obvious capital allocators, I hope this blogpost serves as a launchpad for your career. Make new mistakes rather than old ones. The world is better off learning from and supporting each other.
If you learned something from the above, I urge you to reach out to any of the above legends and share your appreciation with them. And if you employ any of their tactics, let them know how empowering it was.
Trust me, it’ll go a long way.
*I’ve made light edits to the above quotes for clarity and since my hand can only take so many notes per second.
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.
When I first jumped into venture, there was a wave of founders who believed that a great product will sell itself. But in the past few years, under the proliferation of startup content, discourse and amazing Twitter threads, while anecdotal, I’m happy to have seen far fewer founders who believe in that extreme.
Nevertheless, that dogma hasn’t completely disappeared. Rather than sales and marketing, I’ve realized this to be more the case on the fundraising front.
How often are you in the batter’s box?
This past week, a handful of pre-seed founders asked me for fundraising advice. On Monday, a founder I had chatted with at the beginning of the pandemic reached back out to let me know he was now starting to fundraise for a new idea. Naturally I asked him what he learned from the last idea.
To which he responded, “There weren’t enough investors interested in my last idea.”
I followed up, “How many did you talk to?”
“Twenty.”
That’s not nearly enough. Especially for what was his first institutional round. Moreover, like most other founders, he wasn’t an insider. As such, I believe he should have pitched to more. A lot more.
He’s not alone. Two other founders I chatted with felt they had already tried everything after getting rejected by 30 and 40 investors, respectively.
I mentioned in a blogpost back in April that if you’re an emerging fund manager raising a Fund I, think of it like raising 10 Series A rounds. For most Series A rounds, a founder talks to about 50 investors. So for a Fund I, you’re likely to talk to 500 LPs to close one. An LP I talked to for a blogpost that will soon come out chatted with a GP who pitched 625 investors to raise her first $18 million fund.
Why do I mention this? While this is equally true for emerging fund managers raising a Fund I — a fund that’s pre-product market fit, if the average Series A founder needs to pitch 50 investors, as a pre-seed founder, you need to talk to double that number. If you’re lucky, you can stop pitching sooner. But at the very minimum, you should expect that ballpark number. And that’s also why fundraising is a full-time job.
The more realistic your expectations, the more efficiently you can set up your pipeline, the faster you can get back to building your world-changing idea.
The takeaway
Never run out of leads. You never want to be in the position where you have to go back to someone who passed on you. Keep your funnel open. Every time you pitch a VC or an angel, especially those that say “No,” ask them: Which investor would you recommend who might be interested in what I’m building?
A lot of founders try to optimize for warm intros. But most people who say No to you won’t go out of their way to help you, especially asynchronously. They’d much rather spend time on their own portfolio companies. So, don’t add in asynchronous steps that would increase friction. You don’t need warm intros. You just need names. And if any investor gets recommended more than three times, it’s worth just cold messaging that person sharing that they came highly recommended from the investors you’ve chatted with so far.
For those who say “Yes” to you, it is likely you won’t ever reach profitability with the capital they gave. Early-stage investing, for instance, the pre-seed, luckily, is very collaborative. If you’re raising a $1M pre-seed round, that leaves room for a lead investor of $500K, $3-4 $100K checkwriters (emerging fund managers, syndicate leads, or active angel investors), and a bunch of smaller, but extremely valuable investors. Ask each for who they’d like their co-investors to be. Even if those recommendations don’t commit this round, collect the names for your next round.
During your first institutional raise — hell, even prior to that — you’re an outsider. No one’s heard of you. But there are still people out there who believe in the world that you want to create. You just have to find those early believers. Believers in you. Believers in the future you see.
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.
