Tag: lp

Posted on

The Limited Partner Game Show | Beezer Clarkson & Chris Douvos | Superclusters | S2 Post Season Episode

Beezer Clarkson leads Sapphire Partners‘ investments in venture funds domestically and internationally. Beezer began her career in financial services over 20 years ago at Morgan Stanley in its global infrastructure group. Since, she has held various direct and indirect venture investment roles, as well as operational roles in software business development at Hewlett Packard. Prior to joining Sapphire in 2012, Beezer managed the day-to-day operations of the Draper Fisher Jurvetson Global Network, which then had $7 billion under management across 16 venture funds worldwide.

In 2016, Beezer led the launch of OpenLP, an effort to help foster greater understanding in the entrepreneur-to-LP tech ecosystem. Beezer earned a bachelor’s in government from Wesleyan University, where she served on the board of trustees and currently serves as an advisor to the Wesleyan Endowment Investment Committee. She is currently serving on the board of the NVCA and holds an MBA from Harvard Business School.

Chris Douvos founded Ahoy Capital in 2018 to build an intentionally right-sized firm that could pursue investment excellence while prizing a spirit of partnership with all of its constituencies. A pioneering investor in the micro-VC movement, Chris has been a fixture in venture capital for nearly two decades. Prior to Ahoy Capital, Chris spearheaded investment efforts at Venture Investment Associates, and The Investment Fund for Foundations. He learned the craft of illiquid investing at Princeton University’s endowment. Chris earned his B.A. with Distinction from Yale College in 1994 and an M.B.A. from Yale School of Management in 2001.

You can find Chris and Beezer on their socials here.

Connect with Beezer here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/beezer232
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabethclarkson/

Connect with Chris here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/cdouvos
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisdouvos/

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[03:07] Beezer’s childhood dream
[04:29] How Chris was let go from his $4.15 job at Yale
[08:09] Concentrated vs diversified portfolios
[09:30] First fund that Beezer and Chris invested
[11:42] Funds that CD and Beezer passed on and regret
[16:07] Favorite term in the LPA? Or not?
[19:18] What piece of advice did a GP in their portfolio share with them?
[23:15] What’s something that Beezer/CD said to a GP that they regret saying?
[28:06] What’s the most interesting fund model they’ve seen to date?
[33:20] What fund invested in 2020-2021 inflated valuations that they’ve reupped on?
[40:18] Events that they went to once but never again
[44:24] Life lessons from CD & Beezer
[54:02] The founding story of Open LP
[55:02] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[57:58] If you learned something new in this episode, it would mean a lot if you could drop a like, comment or share it with your friends!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“If you’re overly concentrated, you better be damn good at your job ‘cause you just raised the bar too high.” – Beezer Clarkson

“Conviction drives concentration, and that you should be so concentrated as to be uncomfortable because otherwise you’re de-worsified, not diversified.” – Chris Douvos

“[David Marquardt] said, ‘You know what? You’re a well-trained institutional investor. And your decision was precisely right and exactly wrong.’ And sometimes that happens. In this business, sometimes good decisions have bad outcomes and bad decisions have good outcomes.” – Chris Douvos

“Sometimes I treat GPs like I treat my teenage children which is: Every word out of a teenager’s mouth is probably a lie designed to make them look better or to hide some malfeasance.” – Chris Douvos

“May we be blessed by a weak benchmark.” – David Swensen

“Miller Motorcars doesn’t accept relative performance for least payments on your Lamborghini.” – Chris Douvos (citing hedge fund managers)

“At the end of the day, the return on an asset is a function of the price you paid for it and the capital it consumes.” – Chris Douvos

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Posted on

Telltale Signs of When Risk is High

jenga, risky

At the end of last week, an LP told me something quite provocative. That right now in 2024, we’re in a low-risk environment.

And in all fairness, I thought he was completely bonkers. Fear is high. Investments have slowed their pace, especially in the private markets. Markets have really yet to recover. Some believe we’ve hit the bottom and will bounce around the bottom a few times. Others think we’ve yet to see the worst of it. Hell, just yesterday, Eric Bahn tweeted the below:

Wars are raging across the world. Currency is fluctuating on a global scale. Hell, even for the average person, prices are going up at a rate unfamiliar to most people’s memory.

But his next line really made me pause. “You’re right. There’s geopolitical risk, currency risk, market risk, and valuation/pricing risk. And we can identify every single one of them. In fact, the actual risk of investing today is really low, but the perceived risk is really high. Risk is highest when you can’t tell what the risk is. That was 2020 and 2021, when you couldn’t put a finger on what kinds of risk were out there.”

And that really stuck with me. To underscore again, risk is highest when you can’t tell what the risk is.

And so paved way for this blogpost. Albeit, that last line was the punchline.

He later told me that the concept wasn’t original, but that its origin traces its way back to Ken Moelis. Regardless of the attribution, it’s worth doing a double take on.

There’s that famous Peter Drucker line, “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” And in many ways, it is just as true for risk as it is for tasks and KPIs and OKRs.

The family office for a well-known luxury brand once told me that they like to pay the complexity premium on esoteric alternatives. To them, venture is one of those esoteric alternatives. In addition, they’re also happy to overpay during bull markets. Access to a volatile and nascent asset class, to them, deserves a premium.

But taking a step back, there may be more wisdom to it than I initially thought. In bear markets, when the risk is real and discrete, there is no complexity premium to pay. After all, you can begin to manage what you do measure. On the flip side, in a bull market, where no one really knows who will win or what the macro risks are, a premium can be and often is paid as a bet on a company’s future and insurance against a margin of error that is hard to define.

Of course, one can say that the premium is often hype-driven instead of risk-driven. But really, hype is just long-term risk donned with a new set of clothes. A short-term luxury with a buy-now-pay-later tag that comes in quarterly installments of belt-tightening and regret.

While I personally have always believed that as an investor it’s better to be disciplined and to “dollar cost average” across vintages vis a vis time diversification, there are several great investors who believe price is a trap. At the top of my head, Peter Fenton and Keith Rabois. The latter shared his thoughts earlier this year on why. At least for seed and Series A. That in summary, there is no limit on how much you pay for a great company at the seed and Series A (likely the pre-seed as well) that won’t return you multiple-fold back. And that debates on price really are leading indicators on conviction or lack thereof.

The last part of which I agree to an extent.

All that to say, I think a useful exercise to go through whenever making a major (investment) decision is to take out a notepad and write down all the risks you can think of. If you can think of it, you can probably find a way to hedge against it. On the flip side, if you’re about to make a decision and you can’t think of any risks, that’s probably the biggest risk you’ll take.

As my mom told me since I was a kid, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

But if you do come up with a good list, and the world around you is still scared, and you think there might be something special in the opportunity in front of you, sometimes it pays to be bullish when others are bearish.

Photo by Naveen Kumar on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

Qualitative Signals to Look for in Emerging GPs | Jaclyn Freeman Hester | Superclusters | S2E9

Jaclyn Freeman Hester is a Partner at Foundry. She joined in 2016 with a passion for supporting the next generation of entrepreneurs and investors. Jaclyn leads direct investments in early-stage companies, often collaborating with Foundry’s partner funds. She loves working closely with founders to solve hard problems and think about the human elements of business. She invests across B2B and consumer companies that exhibit strong end-user empathy and use technology to empower individuals, unlock potential, and improve experiences.

Jaclyn helped launch Foundry’s partner fund strategy, building the portfolio to nearly 50 managers. Bringing her unique GP + LP perspective, Jaclyn has become a go-to sounding board for emerging VCs.

Jaclyn first fell in love with entrepreneurship while earning her JD/MBA at CU Boulder (Go Buffs!). There, she served as Executive Director of Startup Colorado, where she got to know Foundry and the incredible Boulder/Denver startup community the firm helped catalyze. In her brief stint as a practicing attorney, Jaclyn advised clients in M&A transactions and early-stage financings. She also witnessed the founder journey first-hand, working closely with her husband and his family as they built a B2B SaaS company, FareHarbor (acquired by BKNG).

Jaclyn loves the Boulder lifestyle, but her heart will always be on the East Coast, having grown up a New England “beach kid.” She is the proud mother of three humans and three dogs and is a blue-groomer-on-a-sunny-day skier and 9-hole golfer. In her glimpses of free time, you can find Jaclyn enjoying live music, especially at Red Rocks and in Telluride, two of the most magical places in the world.

You can find Jaclyn on her socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/jfreester
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaclyn-freeman-hester-70621126/

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[03:24] The significance of Kara Nortman in Jaclyn’s life
[13:59] Lesson on recognizing effort from Dan Scheinman, Board Member at Zoom
[18:27] The question to disarm GPs learned from Jonathon Triest at Ludlow Ventures
[23:37] The differences between being a board member and an LPAC member
[32:04] Turnover within institutional LPs
[33:58] The telltale signs of team risk in a partnership
[41:25] How to answer “How do you fire your partner?”
[44:05] Foundry’s portfolio construction
[53:22] What makes Lan Xuezhao at Basis Set so special?
[59:59] What does Shark Tank get right about venture?
[1:03:37] Jaclyn’s Gorilla Glue story
[1:05:51] What keeps Jaclyn humble today?
[1:12:11] What will Jaclyn do after Foundry’s last fund?
[1:16:28] Jaclyn’s closing thought for LPs
[1:18:10] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:20:46] If you enjoyed this episode, a like, a comment, a share will go a long way!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“By the time track record is established, it’s almost too late.” – Jaclyn Freeman Hester

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Posted on

An LP’s Guide to the European VC Ecosystem | Ertan Can | Superclusters | S2E8

Ertan Can is the Founder of Multiple Capital, a fund of funds focused on investing in micro VC funds in Europe and has been a limited partner in top funds you’ve heard of including Entrepreneur First and Angular Ventures, just to name a few. He’s done his tour of duty in the asset management world at JP Morgan to covering investor relations topics at Thomson Reuters to investing in startups at a family office. Ertan is also a founding member of 2hearts, a community dedicated to building tomorrow’s tech society with cultural diversity.

He is also a proud MBA graduate from the ESCP Business School and a long time student of finance and law catalyzed by his time at Frankfurt and London.

You can find Ertan on his socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rtancan
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ertancan/

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[02:21] Ertan’s childhood
[05:36] Why Luxembourg?
[15:03] Which countries do European GPs set up their funds?
[19:46] How did Ertan switch the family office strategy from direct to fund investing?
[24:42] How has Ertan’s underwriting process evolved over time?
[28:04] Do similar pitch deck formats make it easier or harder to make investment decisions?
[30:34] Referrals and warm intros ranked by source
[36:10] Geographies that Multiple Capital invests in
[37:44] Red flags for Multiple Capital
[43:48] How do solo GPs build sounding boards to check their blindside?
[49:04] The (un)predictability of outlier investments
[1:00:41] How does Ertan think about bringing on Venture Partners in a fund of funds?
[1:08:25] The decision-making framework behind an “angel” LP investment and a FoF check
[1:12:01] Where Ertan shares his unfiltered thoughts
[1:20:14] Ertan’s experience around giving GPs feedback
[1:27:05] Cockroaches and superheroes
[1:34:08] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:36:44] If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to us if you gave us a like, comment, or share!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“Our work is to increase the probability of having some of the outliers as early as possible in as small as possible funds because like a fund, that will lead to a power law in our portfolio.” – Ertan Can

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Posted on

How to Get Six Top Quartile Fund of Funds in a Row | Aram Verdiyan | Superclusters | S2E7

aram verdiyan, accolade partners

Aram Verdiyan is a Partner at Accolade. Previously, he worked on the investment team at Andreessen Horowitz. Before that, Aram worked in BD, sales and marketing at Aviatrix, a cloud native enterprise software company. Aram worked at Accolade from 2012 to 2015 as a Senior Investment Associate and at Deloitte Consulting LLP. He holds an M.B.A from the Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) and a B.S. from the George Washington University.

You can find Aram on his socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/aramverdi
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aram-verdiyan-8099186/

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[02:36] How did Pejman Nozad influence the way Aram thinks about people
[04:06] Aram’s ‘distance traveled’
[05:45] What did imposter syndrome look like in Aram’s life?
[06:36] How Aram cold emailed his way into Accolade Partners
[09:03] The first case study Aram did at Accolade
[10:10] When track record is NOT just TVPI, DPI, or IRR
[15:05] The case for concentrated fund of funds’ portfolio construction
[22:42] Telltale signs of “great” deal flow
[26:32] When does due diligence start for prospective funds for Accolade?
[27:50] Primary sources of data for Accolade
[29:00] The variables that impact fund of funds’ team size
[30:24] How many fund investments should each individual FoF partner have?
[35:13] The case for consistent check sizes
[36:20] The common mistake GPs make when it comes to LP concentration limits
[41:27] How Accolade started investing in blockchain funds
[44:52] Blockchain engineering talent as a function of bear markets
[47:15] Time horizons for blockchain funds
[50:38] Luck vs skill
[53:41] Aram’s early fundraising days at Accolade
[57:38] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:00:14] If you enjoyed the episode, drop us a like, comment or share!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“[When] you’re generally looking at four to five hundred distinct companies, 10% of those companies generally drive most of the returns. You want to make sure that the company that drives the returns you are invested in with the manager where you size it appropriately relative to your overall fund of funds. So when we double click on our funds, the top 10 portfolio companies – not the funds, but portfolio companies, return sometimes multiples of our fund of funds.” – Aram Verdiyan

“We don’t have varying levels of conviction.” – Aram Verdiyan

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Posted on

The Best Time to Raise from Big LPs

hourglass, time, ticking

Two weeks ago, Ted Seides put out a great blogpost titled: The Investment Office Playbook – What Managers Don’t See. It’s the truth behind the veil of “It’s not you, it’s me” answer that LPs give. And that the best time for managers to be approaching CIOs at institutions happens to be:

  1. 1-2 years after they’re just sworn in (in other words, after they’ve figured out their strategy)
  2. Up to 2-4 years after that period when they’re deploying against that strategy
  3. And around years 11-13 where they’re now restructuring their portfolio after their previous portfolio has been optimized and reached maturity

Last week, Sequoia’s Jess Lee shared a fascinating product-market fit framework. Probably the best breakdown of solutions to problems mapping I’ve seen of late. It echoes much of what I’ve written before, but more eloquently put.

Source: Sequoia Arc’s Product-Market Fit Framework

And the reason I bring this up is not to induce whiplash as you’re reading this blogpost. But that it relates back to when to raise from large LPs. As most of us know, there’s a strong correlation between fundraising as a founder and fundraising as a GP.

The first step is to have a product that large LPs can invest in. As a matter of fact, you need to have a specific product (aka fund strategy) for the LP you wish to court. For example, if a large LP’s minimum check size is $20M and their maximum ownership is 10%, and you’re a $50M fund, you don’t have what they’re looking for. That’s okay. You should never resize your fund purely on an LP’s check size and ownership.

The second is to understand their deployment timeline. In the case of large LPs, like endowments and pensions, that’s usually 2-4 years after a new CIO is sworn in. And years 11-13 when they’re rebalancing their portfolio. For other institutions, like some corporates, it’s actually in the bylaws that every three years, there’s a new Head of Investments. Hell, at Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) — the largest sovereign wealth fund, or at least one of the largest ones — a new CEO is sworn in every five years. So the clock is always ticking.

To the second point, for a large LP:

Years 1-2

When the new CIO is just sworn in, in many ways, that might be the best time to pitch a new paradigm. When the strategy has yet to fully shape up. Will you get many checks during that period? Likely not. Unless you’re a pre-existing trusted relationship of the CIO. But even if you do convince the CIO/team, they’re likely only allocating a very small percentage to that field, which for the most part, should work for you.

The goal of the value proposition, and subsequently the onboarding and tutorial, is to give people the activation energy needed to overcome the customer mindset. As such, it means one’s product can’t just be 10-20% better, but 10X better.

For instance, to get over the “yeah, right” and the “it is what it is” mindset, in the words of NFX’s Omri Drory, “the best way to manipulate energy, and get what you want, is to remove that ‘imagination barrier.'”

As such, the CIO must believe in the new paradigm. In all fairness, this takes more validation and big headlines for a tenured CIO to usually begin to believe these.

Years 2-4 (and 11-13)

They’re deploying against a top-down approach. And just as in years 11-13, they’re looking for the best in class solutions for each vertical. Meaning they’ll talk to hundreds of managers and look through thousands of pitches to pick just a few. Processes are long because they dig deep on these multi-fund relationships, but this is also an opportunity for them to increase the surface area for luck to stick.

While we all know past performance isn’t an indicator of future results, there is a reliance on metrics and the consistency of such metrics. For instance, if one were to take the top 2 investments in your portfolio and bottom 2 investments and throw them out, what does your remaining track record look like?

Or if some of your funds have yet to have meaningful distributions, graduation rates become rather important. Not just that on average, 30% of seed stage deals graduate to Series A. And 30% of Series A to B. But how many of your deals graduate past more than one subsequent round? For example, do more than 10% of your seed deals graduate to Series B? Although, to play my own devil’s advocate, vintages post-2019 have yet to really learn the true impact of loss ratios.

In closing

The truth is it’s hard to tell when the best time is. And oftentimes, it’s just a matter of luck. For one to have the right fund a specific LP is looking for at a time when liquidity is good.

But in many other ways, like Ted suggests in his blogpost, it’s the ability to think from the perspective of an LP that is invaluable and greatly appreciated as an LP.

Photo by Who’s Denilo ? on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

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.

Posted on

Exit Windows Matter More Than Entry Windows | Jaap Vriesendorp | Superclusters | S2E6

Jaap Vriesendorp is one of the managing partners of Marktlink Capital, an investment manager from the Netherlands investing over $1b into private equity and venture capital funds. Marktlink Capital’s LPs are almost exclusively Dutch (tech) entrepreneurs from companies such as Booking.com, Adyen and Hellofresh. At Marktlink Capital Jaap focusses on selecting venture and growth funds across Europe and the US. Before Marktlink Capital, he spent the majority of his time at McKinsey where he was one of the leaders of McKinsey’s practice for Venture Capital, Unicorns & Startups in Europe. Besides work, Jaap enjoys sports, mountains, technology, comic books, music and art.

He holds an MBA from INSEAD and is a guest lecturer at the Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus University). He occasionally shares his views on private market investing on Medium.

You can find Jaap on his socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaap-vriesendorp/
Medium: https://medium.com/@jjjvriesendorp

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[03:04] The significance of Mount Pinatubo in Jaap’s life
[06:23] One Shell Jackets
[08:45] The entrepreneurial gene in the Vriesendorp family that dates back to Jaap’s grandfather
[14:32] The 1-year time constraint of starting Welt Ventures
[17:43] What did the transition to becoming an investor look like for Jaap
[20:28] The 3 traits that define a community
[24:03] How often does Jaap host events?
[25:30] How does Marktlink Capital have 1000 LPs?
[27:15] What was Marktlink’s pitch to their LPs?
[28:32] What is the typical individual LP’s allocation model to VC/PE?
[29:41] Why is VC/PE uncorrelated to the public markets?
[35:10] The 3 facts that define Welt Ventures’ portfolio construction model
[38:28] Exit windows matter more than entry windows
[42:15] Diversification in PE = Concentration in VC
[47:42] 3 types of emerging GPs that deliver alpha
[49:35] Which European fund has a really unique thesis?
[51:44] Which school did Jaap apply to but not get in?
[53:55] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[56:31] If anything resonated with you in today’s episode, we’d be honored to earn a like, comment, or share!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“We set out to achieve three things with the community:

  1. We wanted people to have fun with each other. And when entrepreneurs meet entrepreneurs, good stuff happens even if you don’t bring any content.
  2. We wanted to bring the absolute best type of propositions. So in terms of sales, it means sales almost without being sales where you offer something that people really want.
  3. Organized knowledge in a way that nobody does.” – Jaap Vriesendorp

“85% of returns flow to 5% of the funds, and that those 5% of the funds are very sticky. So we call that the ‘Champions League Effect.’” – Jaap Vriesendorp

“The truth of the matter, when we look at the data, is that entry points matter much less than the exit points. Because venture is about outliers and outliers are created through IPOs, the exit window matters a lot. And to create a big enough exit window to let every vintage that we create in the fund of funds world to be a good vintage, we invest [in] pre-seed and seed funds – that invest in companies that need to go to the stock market maybe in 7-8 years. Then Series A and Series B equal ‘early stage.’ And everything later than that, we call ‘growth.’” – Jaap Vriesendorp

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Posted on

From Demo Day to First Meeting: My Demo Day Checklist

notebook, page, notes, checklist

Possibly the quiet thing out loud, one of the best parts about demo days is the excuse to catch up with old friends. Yes, we do go there to see deals, but realistically, many of us would have started the conversations with many of the demoing class before demo day. This is not only true for VCs at startup demo days, but equally so for LPs at emerging manager demo days.

Earlier this week, my friend invited me to go to his emerging manager demo day. I’ve always admired how intentional he’s been with picking, so it was a natural yes. The pitches came and gone. And as the networking part kicked off after, a few LP friends and I came together to catch up but also to compare notes. What did we think of Fund A? Fund D? Who was interesting? Who would we take a second conversation with? And why?

Naturally, we shared our respective decision-making frameworks. A lot of which overlapped. Others were more unique to each LP themselves. Simply because the motivations of LPs often differ from each other. Some do so for co-investment opportunities. Others invest in VC as an asset class. And there are also those that invest to pay it forward.

So while it’s not my place to share the words whispered to me in confidence, here are some general takeaways:

  • Unlike startup pitches, there is no consistency of pitch format among emerging managers.
  • Most GPs don’t seem to know what kinds of metrics/facts immediately stand out to an LP. One such GP buried an amazing angel track record TVPI as one line in his deck.
  • Humor sells.
  • Spinouts are only interesting if your track record is portable. In other words, if you were too junior on the team to have pounded the table for deals, you don’t count as a spinout in some LP’s minds.
  • Unscripted moments are memorable. At least ones that feel unscripted.
  • DPI earned within 5 years (as opposed to 5+ years) begs the question of where does it come from (i.e. secondaries, acquisition, etc. Former will lead to yellow flags.)
  • Track records that began post-2019 have an asterisk next to them.

That said, if it may be helpful to not only GPs, or other LPs out there, I’ll share my own calculus below.

I want to preface that the goal of the below “checklist” is for me to quickly decide which GPs I should follow up with, given limited information in the format of a 5-minute pitch. As such, this isn’t all-inclusive, but simply answers the question: Is this fund/manager interesting enough for me to spend another hour with them?

I will also say that this works best for me particularly for Funds I and II.

And one more thing, I’m still a WIP. In other words, this is the checklist that suits my current needs the best, but your mileage may vary.

The Demo Day checklist

At a high level, below are the five categories that are the most interesting to me.

  • Sourcing — Are they fishing in differentiated pools? Do they have proprietary access to deals? Where are they finding diamonds in the rough?
  • Picking — This can be interesting in two ways: (a) track record (which only starts to become interesting after 5+ years with 20+ deals), and/or (b) decision-making framework/algorithm.
  • Winning — Why do the best founders pick you? How much ownership can you get in these companies? Some examples here.
  • Likability — You’re either very likeable or contrarian. Anything else just isn’t memorable. And if not memorable for me, likely not memorable for founders. In many ways, I’m looking for ways you stay rent free in a founder’s mind when they know nothing else other than the fact that you invest in early stage companies. ‘Cause let’s be honest; most firm’s websites say just that and nothing more. Some might call this GP-founder fit. Others call it vibes.
  • Uniqueness — A bit amorphous here, but really, it’s just: Is there something I’ve never heard of before?
    • As a caveat, I only started including this “pillar” after I saw about 200 decks and pitches. Before that, I simply didn’t know what counted as unique and what didn’t.

And for each category, I give 4 different kinds of scores.

✔️There’s something special here. Worth digging deeper. If I continue on to diligence, this is usually the first thing I reference check.
〰️No strong opinion here and/or there’s no edge here.
❌I use this extremely sparingly. This is a sign of a red flag. In fact, there are very few red flags that can even come out in a 5-minute pitch. So really, I only use an X when I feel the fund manager is sharing something dishonest.
Yes, that’s a blank space. Meaning the pitch itself failed to offer any reference point or evidence on this variable.

And for the five categories above, having a check mark in at least two of them is enough for me to say yes to another conversation. No single A+ trait standing in pure isolation. But only one X is enough for me to pass.

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.

Posted on

How a Pension Fund thinks about Venture Capital | Peter Teneriello | Superclusters | S2E4

Peter Teneriello has been a career-long investor in the private markets. He has experience as an allocator across a range of institutional types, from wealth management firms to pensions and endowments, and helped launch the venture capital program for the Texas Municipal Retirement System. Other past experiences of his have included leading finance/operations for a venture-backed startup, in addition to vetting investments for a family office and working with their portfolio companies. Over the years he has also written about his investing experience on Medium and Substack.

He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame as well as the Kauffman Fellows Program, an executive education program focused on venture capital and innovation leadership. He wears many hats.

You can find Peter on his socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/_PeterT_
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterteneriello/

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[03:57] The origin of Peter’s nickname
[05:16] How was boxing formative to who Peter is today?
[07:25] The art of the first conversation with a GP
[11:46] How did TMRS deploy $1B into VC and PE annually?
[19:45] Looking at the underlying portfolio of companies
[24:06] How overlap in venture portfolios affect re-up decisions
[26:55] Marks from an LP perspective
[30:52] Qualitative vs quantitative information
[34:45] Signal vs noise in the private markets
[40:46] When Peter shaved his head in front of an entire lecture hall
[45:09] The most recent update to the Peter OS
[51:17] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[53:53] If you enjoyed the episode, consider dropping a like, comment or share as it really helps me create content that is interesting to you

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“Don’t overweight the quantitative over the qualitative.” – Peter Teneriello

“It’s not to be in the consensus out of a misguided sense of self-preservation; it’s approaching your life’s work with creativity and conviction and treating it like the art that it is.” – Peter Teneriello

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Posted on

The Complexity of the Simple Question (DGQ 20)

Last week, Youngrok and I finally launched our episode together on Superclusters. In the midst of it all, we wrestle with the balance between the complexity and simplicity of questions to get our desired answer. Of course, we made many an allusion to the DGQ series. One of which, you’ll find below.

In many ways, I started the DGQ series as a promise to myself to uncover the questions that yield the most fascinating answers. Questions that unearth answers “hidden in plain sight”. Those that help us read between the lines.

Superclusters, in many ways, is my conduit to not only interview some of my favorite people in the LP landscape, but also the opportunity to ask the perfect question to each guest. Which you’ll see in some of the below examples.

  1. Asking Abe Finkelstein about being a Pitfall Explorer and how it relates to patience (1:04:56 in S2E1)
  2. What Ben Choi’s childhood was like (2:44 in S1E6) and how proposing to his wife affects how he thinks about pitching (1:05:47 in S1E6)
  3. How selling baseball cards as a kid helped Samir Kaji get better at sales (45:05 in S1E8)

In doing so, I sometimes lose myself in the nuance. And in those times, which happen more often than I’d like to admit, the questions that yield the best answers are the simplest ones. No added flare. No research-flexing moments. Where I don’t lead the witness. And I just ask the question. In its simplest form.

For the purpose of this essay, to make this more concrete, let’s focus on a question LPs often ask GPs.

“Tell me about this investment you made.“

In my mind, ridiculously simple question. Younger me would call that a lazy question. In all fairness, it would be if one was not intentionally aware about the kind of answer they were looking to hear OR not hear.

The laziness comes from regressing to the template, the model, the ‘what.’ But not the ‘why’ the question is being asked, and ‘how’ it should be interpreted. For those who struggle to understand the first principles of actions and questions, I’d highly recommend reading Simon Sinek’s Start with Why, but I digress.

Circling back, every GP talks about their portfolio founders differently. If two independent thinkers have both invested Company A, they might have different answers. Won’t always be true, but if you look at two portfolios that are relatively correlated in their underlying assets AND they arrive at those answers in the same way, one does wonder if it’s worth diversifying to other managers with different theses and/or approaches.

But that’s exactly what makes this simple question (but if you want to debate semantics, statement) special. When all else is equal, VCs are left to their own devices unbounded from artificial parameters.

Then take that answer and compare and contrast it to how other GPs you know well or have invested in already. How do they answer the same question for the exact same investment? How much are those answers correlated?

It matters less that the facts are the same. Albeit, useful to know how each investor does their own homework pre- and post-investment. But more so, it’s a question on thoughtfulness. How well does each investor really know their investments? How does it compare to the answer of a GP I admire for their thoughtfulness and intentionality?

(Part of the big reason I don’t like investing in syndicates because most outsource their decision-making to larger logos in VCs. On top of that, most syndicate memos are rather paltry when it comes to information.)

The question itself is also a test of observation and self-awareness. How well do you really know the founder? Were you intentional with how you built that relationship with the founder? How does it compare to the founder’s own self-reflection? It’s also the same reason I love Doug Leone’s question, which highlights how aware one is of the people around them. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?

Warren Buffett once described Charlie Munger as “the best thirty-second mind in the world. He goes from A to Z in one go. He sees the essence of everything even before you finish the sentence.” Moreover in his 2023 Berkshire annual letter, he wrote one of the most thoughtful homages ever written.

An excerpt from Berkshire’s 2023 annual letter

As early-stage investors, as belief checks, as people who bet on the nonobvious before it becomes obvious, we invest in extraordinary companies. I really like the way Chris Paik describes what we do. “Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.”

And just like there are certain companies that can’t be described in a single sentence — not the Uber for X, or the Google for Y — their founders who are even more complex than a business idea cannot be described by a single sentence either. Many GPs I come across often reduce a founder’s brilliance to the logos on their resume or the diplomas hanging on their walls. But if we bet right, the founders are a lot more than just that.

Of course, the same applies to LPs who describe the GPs they invest in.

In hopes this would be helpful to you, personally some areas I find fascinating in founders and emerging GPs and, hell just in, people in general include:

  • Their selfish motivations (the less glamorous ones) — Why do this when they can be literally doing anything else? Many of which can help them get rich faster.
  • What part of their past are they running towards and what are they running away from?
  • All the product pivots (thesis pivots) to date and why. I love inflection points.
  • If they were to do a TED talk on a subject that’s not what they’re currently building, what would it be?
  • Who do they admire? Who are their mentor figures?
  • What kind of content do they consume? How do they think about their information diet?
  • What promises have they made to themselves? No matter how small or big. Which have they kept? Which have they not?
  • How do they think about mentoring/training/upskilling the next generation of talent at their company/firm?

The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. I’ll let you decide which it falls under.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

Proudly powered by WordPress