meta - Cup of Zhou

November 15, 2024November 15, 2024

Micro(scopic) 10X Funds

I wrote both a Twitter thread (I know it’s X now, but habits die hard) and a LinkedIn post recently on student and recent graduate funds. A good friend and I have been seeing a number of small sub-$10M funds run by college students and/or recent grads. And even more since the afore-mentioned social posts came out. In a way, it was my flag in the sand moment inviting additional conversations on the topic.

Full LinkedIn post here. Truncated this to make it easier to read.

The TL;DR version of the post, although the post itself is at most a two-minute read, is that these student funds are interesting. Most will die. But a small, small few will deliver insane returns. As such, as LPs, the underwriting for these funds, where sourcing is extremely predictable (i.e. invest in their peers), needs for these funds to be 10X funds, as opposed to 5X net for the typical seed fund or 3X for the typical Series A fund. Also, we know going in that most, if not all, of these funds won’t be enduring. Most likely one and done.

And so what does the underwriting look like?

I actually elaborated on this in response to a comment that asked what percent of unicorns were founded by students, but thought it made sense to expand here in this blogpost as well.

Venture, at the end of the day, is a game driven by the power law. I’m not the first to say that. And I won’t be the last. In other words, in VC, we are applauded not by our batting average (like buyouts or hedge funds), but by the magnitude of our home runs. We can miss on the vast majority, but as long as we strike one Uber or Coupang or Google or Facebook and it returns multiple times of our portfolio, then… we did it.

To quote a Midas list investor (who’ll go nameless for now, until I have his permission to share his name), who at the time was presenting on stage, “The only reason you are listening to me today is because I’m on the Midas list. And the only reason I’m on the Midas list is because of this one investment I made [redacted] years ago.”

Obviously, there was definitely some modesty there. In fact, he’s hit a number of exits in the years since. Nevertheless, when said in broad strokes, his point stands.

So to the comment that started it all. By numbers, a rather small number of unicorns were founded by active students. I don’t know the exact number (writing this on vacation, and I don’t have Pitchbook access on this small device), but I’m willing to bet that only a small percentage of unicorns are founded by students. And even less when you consider realized unicorn exits. Excluding the crazy markups of 2020-2022. It’s why the average age of a startup founder is 42 at the inception of the company.

That said, “Among the top 0.1% of startups based on growth in their first five years, [an HBR study finds] that the founders started their companies, on average, when they were 45 years old.” In fact, in the same study, they found “[r]elative to founders with no relevant experience, those with at least three years of prior work experience in the same narrow industry as their startup were 85% more likely to launch a highly successful startup.” In a separate Endeavor study, it’s also why there’s only a small sliver of founders with no work experience prior to the founding of their unicorn company.

All that to say, from Alexandr Wang to Jeff Bezos to Mark Zuckerberg to Patrick and John Collison, all were in their early twenties (or earlier) when they started their companies. Each, in their own right, an outlier.

To build a hypothetical portfolio — forgive my generalizations, but doing so for nice, even numbers…

Say one allocates a $10M fund of funds portfolio. It’ll write 10 $1M checks into $5M funds. In other words, for a 20% stake at the fund level. In a bad economy, where $200M is the median ARR to go public, and if we assume a 10x multiple on exit, a $2B unicorn exit in that $5M VC fund returns ~$2.2M in the fund of funds portfolio. 0.6% equity valued at $12M. A 2.4X on the $5M fund alone. And a little over $2.2M back to the LP, as the GP takes 20% carry. This assumes $100K checks, 2% ownership on entry and 70% dilution by the time of exit. Naturally, no reserves. needing about 10-11 unicorns to 2x. A lot to expect for a portfolio of student funds. 10 unicorns out of 400 is quite hard even for most seasoned investors.

And so one must believe that these student funds can find true outliers. And before anyone else. Additionally have enough downstream capital relationships to facilitate intros to funds who will lead current and future rounds. Which luckily for them, a lot of GPs of multi-stage funds are individual LPs in these funds. Playing a pure access approach.

And so, if there’s a $10B exit in one of the VC portfolios, under the same fund strategy assumptions as earlier, a single $10B company exit returns the whole fund of funds portfolio. Every other exit will just be cherries on top. So out of a 400 underlying startup portfolio, only one decacorn exit is needed. Instead of multiple unicorns.

Separately, and worth noting, although I’ll be honest, I haven’t had a single conversation with a young GP where any were as deliberate with their sell strategy as this, there are multiple exit paths today outside of M&A and IPO, most notably secondaries (portfolio and fund) (something that the one and only Hunter Walk wrote recently in a blogpost far more eloquently than I could have put it). And so even in a crazy AI hype right now, there are paths to liquidity in these multi billion valuations at the Series B and C, if not earlier. In the increasing availability of such options, my only hope is that these young fund managers have the wherewithal to be disciplined sellers. Perhaps, an additional reason these young VCs should have LPACs.

A blogpost for another day.

Photo by 🇸🇮 Janko Ferlič 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.

August 30, 2024August 30, 2024

Hustle as a Differentiator

One of my favorite Pat Grady lessons is the one he shares about his wife, Sarah Guo. The short of it is that while Pat was just enjoying his weekend down the wine country, Sarah had used that same car ride over to make several phone calls and several messages over the weekend. A time that most VCs take off for themselves, their family, or their hobbies. But Sarah took to get to know the founders, the team, key executives and everyone who was at the company.

13/ A lesson from @saranormous: Suck the Oxygen out of the Air https://t.co/CMxLqB3gKN
— Pat Grady (@gradypb) March 7, 2022

For a deal that Sequoia, a16z, and Benchmark were also fighting over, the firm that won the deal was Greylock. And it was because of Sarah. She had spent so much time with said founders that they couldn’t imagine working with any other partner except for her.

Similarly, rumor has it that Mark Zuckerberg was able to buy Instagram also because of a flurry of conversations over Easter weekend in 2012, when no one else was expecting to be working. And while one can argue the ethics behind how the deal went down (i.e. the intensity of communication, threats or that Zuck was driven by paranoia), the fact stands that Facebook acquired that 13-person company with no revenue at a time when Twitter had offered supposedly $500M to acquire the photo-sharing company, and that Sequoia had also offered to mark the company at half a billion. But when literally anyone else could have won the deal, Facebook did.

I wrote about responsiveness being a telltale sign of excellence earlier this month. So this one is more or less an expansion of that.

I’ve always appreciated the ability in others who are able to make things happen. The hustle. Time doesn’t wait for you to wake up. From my buddy Andrew flying across the nation to close a candidate to Blake Robbins who cold emailed Nadeshot three times per week and bought him tickets to the Cavs NBA Finals game to win the chance to fund 100 Thieves. I hear about these stories every so often, from simple things, like flying to meet a founder and not expecting the founder to fly to the Bay, to more wilder stories to a lawyer cold emailing his way to Elon to get an exec position at SpaceX or sending fan mail to a music artist to put a song into outer space. And I can’t help but feel an immense amount of respect (also often inspired to take action myself).

The truth is most people don’t. Not because they physically can’t send an email on the weekend or jump on a phone call at 10PM. But because they won’t.

As an LP, one of the wavelengths I measure emerging GPs on is their ability to win deals. Too often these GPs brag about their networks and operating experiences. More often than not, not differentiated. I kid you not. Like 99% of the time. But in an age, where every GP has a podcast or a newsletter. Or a community. Hell, every GP knows someone who knows an Elon or a Bill Gates or a Jensen Huang (or they know them themselves).

Admittedly, they all start looking the same. But every so often, I meet a GP or a founder who can’t boast a crazy network or crazy set of prior exits. And the only thing they can boast is their hustle. And they are able to show for it. Those are the folks who I think will change the world.

I will admit, hustle is hard as hell to share in a pitch deck. In many ways, I advise GPs and founders to not include it because there is almost no way that a deck is the best platter to share one’s hustle. Then again, the people who are the greatest hustlers don’t need me to tell them that.

They know. And as the Nike slogan goes, they “just do it.”

Photo by Garrhet Sampson 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!

March 24, 2023March 24, 2023

Chasing Revenue Multiples and Revenue

On Wednesday this week, I hosted an intimate dinner with founders in the windy backdrop of San Francisco. And I’m writing this piece, I can’t help but recall one founder from that evening asking us all to play a little game she built. A mini mobile test to see if we could tell the difference between real headshot portraits and AI-generated ones based on the former. There were 15 picture. Each where we had to pick one of two choices: real or AI.

10/15. 6/15. 9/15. 11/15. 8/15… By the time it was my turn, having seen the looks of confusion of my predecessors, I wasn’t confident in my own ability to spot the difference. Then again, I was neither the best nor the worst when it came to games of Where’s Waldo? 90 quick seconds later, a score popped up. 10/15. Something slightly better than chance.

Naturally, we asked the person who got 11/15 if he knew something we didn’t. To which, he shared his hypothesis. A seemingly sound and quite intellectual conjecture. So, we asked him to try again to see if his odds would improve. 90 seconds later, 6/15.

Despite the variance in scores, none were the wiser.

Michael Mauboussin shared a great line recently. “Intuition is a situation where you’ve trained your system one in a particular domain to be very effective. For that to work, I would argue that you need to have a system, so this is the system level, that it’s fairly linear and stable. So linear in that sense, I mean really the cause and effect are pretty clear. And stable means the basic rules of the game don’t change all that much.”

For our real-or-AI game, we lacked that clear cause and effect. If we received individual question scores of right or wrong, we’d probably have ended up building intuition more quickly.

Venture is unfortunately an industry that is stable, but not very linear. In many ways, you can do everything right and still not have things work out. That same premise led to another interesting thread I saw on Twitter this week by Harry Stebbings.

Today I got asked a fantastic question:

Have you ever been involved with a startup that achieved true product-market fit and still failed?

Investors, love to hear your response.
— Harry Stebbings (@HarryStebbings) March 23, 2023

In a bull market, and I was guilty of this myself, the most predictable trait came in two parts: (a) mark-ups (and graduation rates to the next round), and (b) unicorn status. In 2020 and 2021, growth equity moved upstream to win allocation when they needed it with their core check and stage. But that also meant they were less price-sensitive and disciplined in the stages preceding their core check.

The velocity of rounds coming together due to a combination of FOMO and cheap cash empowered founders to raise quickly and often. Sometimes, in half the funding window during a disciplined market. In other words, from 18 months to 9 months. Subsequently, investors found themselves with 70+% IRR and deploying capital twice or thrice as fast as they had promised their LPs. In attempts to keep up and not get priced out of deals. Many of whom believed that to be the new norm.

While the true determinant of success as an investor is how much money you actually return to your investors, or as Chris Douvos calls it moolah in da coolah, the truth is all startup investors play the long game. Games that last at least a decade. Games that are stable, but not linear. The nonlinearity, in large part, due to the sheer number of confounding variables and the weight distribution changing in different economic environments. A single fund often goes through at least one bull run and one bear run. So, because of the insanely long feedback loops and venture’s J-curve, it’s often hard to tell.

In fact, in recent news, Business Insider reported half of Sequoia’s funds since 2018 posted “losses” for the University of California endowment. We’re in the beginning of 2023. In other words, we’re at most five years out. While I don’t have any insider information, time will tell how much capital Sequoia will return. For now, it’s too early to pass any judgment.

The truth is most venture funds have yet to return one times their capital to their investors within five years. Funds with early exits and have a need to prove themselves to LPs to raise a subsequent fund are likely to see early DPI, but many established funds hold and/or recycle carry. Sequoia being one of the latter. After all, typical recycling periods are 3-4 years. In other words, a fund can reinvest their early moolah in da coolah in the first 3-4 years back into the fund to make new investments. There is a dark side to recycling, but a story for another time. Or a read of Chris Neumann’s piece will satiate any current surplus of curiosity.

But I digress.

In the insane bull run of 2020 and 2021, the startup world became a competition of who could best sell their company’s future as a function of their — the founders’ — past. It became a world where people chased signal and logos. A charismatic way to weave a strong narrative behind logos on a resume seemed to be the primary predictors of founder “success.” And in a market with a surplus of deployable capital and heightened expectations (i.e. 50x or higher valuation multiples on revenue), unicorn status had never been easier to reach.

As of January of this year — 2023, if you’re a time traveler from the future, there are over 1,200 unicorns in the world. 200 more than the beginning of 2022. Many who have yet to go back to market for cash, and will likely need a haircut. Yet for so many funds, the unicorn rate is one of the risks they underwrite.

I was talking with an LP recently where he pointed out the potential fallacy of a fund strategy predicated on unicorn exits. There have only been 118 companies that have historically acquired unicorns. And only four of the 118 have acquired more than four venture-backed unicorns. Microsoft sitting at 12. Google at 8. And Meta and Amazon at 5 each. Given that a meaningful percentage of the 1200 unicorns will need a haircut in their next fundraise, like Stripe and Instacart, we’re likely going to see a slowdown of unicorns in the foreseeable future. And for those on the cusp to slip below the unicorn threshold. Some investors have preemptively marked down their assets by 25-30%. Others waiting to see the ball drop.

The impending future is one not on multiples but one of business quality, namely revenue and revenue growth. All that to say, unless you’re growing the business, exit opportunities are slim if you’re just betting on having unicorn acquisitions in your portfolio.

So while many investors will claim unicorn rate as their metric for success, it’s two degrees of freedom off of the true North.

In the bear market we are in today, the world is now a competition of the quality of business, rather than the quality of words. At the pre-seed stage, companies who are generating revenue have no trouble raising, but companies who don’t are struggling more.

As Andy Rachleff recently pointed out, “Valuations are not the way you judge a venture capitalist, or multiples of their fund. […] The way that I judge a venture capitalist is by how many companies did they back that grew into $100M revenue businesses.” If you bring in good money, whether an exit to the public market or to a partner, you’re a business worth acquiring. A brand and hardly any revenue, if acquired, is hardly going to fetch a good price. And I’ve heard from many LPs and longtime GPs that we’re in for a mass extinction if businesses don’t pivot back to fundamentals quickly. What are fundamentals? Non-dilutive cash in the bank. In other words, paying customers.

Bull markets welcome an age of chasing revenue multiples (expectation and sentiment). Bear markets welcome an age of chasing revenue.

The latter are a lot more linear and predictable than the former.

Photo by Paul Bill 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!

May 26, 2022May 26, 2022

#unfiltered #66 Humans and Nonlinear Thinking

Humans are terrible at understanding percentages. I’m one of them. An investor I had the opportunity to work with on multiple occasions once told me. People can’t tell better; people can only tell different. It’s something I wrestle with all the time when I hear founder pitches. Everyone claims they’re better than the incumbent solution. Whatever is on the market now. Then founders tell me they improve team efficiency by 30% or that their platform helps you close 20% more leads per month. And I know, I know… that they have numbers to back it up. Or at least the better founders do. But most investors and customers can’t tell. Everything looks great on paper, but what do they mean?

When the world’s wrapped in percentages, and 73.6% of all statistics are made up, you have to be magnitudes better than the competition, not just 10%, 20%, 30% better. In fact, as Sarah Tavel puts it, you have to be 10x better (and cheaper). And to be that much better, you have to be different.

And keep it simple. As Steve Jobs famously said that if the Mac needed an instruction manual, they would have failed in design. Your value-add should be simple. Concise. “We all have busy lives, we have jobs, we have interests, and some of us have children. Everyone’s lives are just getting busier, not less busy, in this busy society. You just don’t have time to learn this stuff, and everything’s getting more complicated… We both don’t have a lot of time to learn how to use a washing machine or a phone.”

If you need someone to learn and sit down – listen, read, or watch you do something, you’ve lost yourself in complexity.

“Big-check” sales is a game of telephone. For enterprise sales or if you’re working with healthcare providers, the sales cycle is long. Six to nine months, maybe a year. The person you end up convincing has to shop the deal with the management team, the finance team, and other constituents.

For most VCs writing checks north of a million, they need to bring it to the partnership meeting. Persuade the other partners on the product and the vision you sold them.

And so if your product isn’t different and simple, it’ll get lost in translation. Think of it this way. Every new person in the food chain who needs to be convinced will retain 90% of what the person before them told them. A 10% packet loss. The tighter you keep your value prop, the more effective it’ll be. The longer you need to spend explaining it with buzzwords and percentages, the more likely the final decision maker will have no idea why you’re better.

Humans are terrible at tracking nonlinearities. While we think we can, we never fully comprehend the power law. Equally so, sometimes I find it hard to wrap my hear around the fact that 20% of my work lead to 80% of the results. While oddly enough, 80% of my inputs will only account for 20% of my results. The latter often feels inefficient. Like wasted energy. Why bother with most work if it isn’t going to lead to a high return on investment.

Yet at the same time, it’s so far to tell what will go viral and what won’t. Time, energy, capital investments that we expect to perform end up not. While every once in a while, a small project will come out of left field and make all the work leading up to it worth it.

When I came out with my blogpost on the 99 pieces of unsolicited advice for founders last month, I had an assumption this would be a topic that my readers and the wider world would be interested in. At best, performing twice as well than my last “viral” blogpost.

Needless to say, it blew my socks off and then some. My initial 99 “secrets”, as my friends would call it, accounted for 90% of the rightmost bar in the above graph. And the week after, I published my 99 “secrets” for investors. While it achieved some modest readership in the venture community and heartwarmingly enough was well-received by investors I respected, readership was within expectations of my previous blogposts.

My second piece wasn’t necessarily better or worse in the quality of its content, but it wasn’t different. While I wanted to leverage the momentum of the first, it just didn’t catch the wave like I expected it to.

Of course, as you might imagine, I’m not alone. Nikita Bier‘s tbh grew from zero to five million downloads in nine weeks. And sold to Facebook for $100 million. tbh literally seemed like an overnight success. Little do most of the public know that, Nikita and his team at Midnight Labs failed 14 times to create apps people wanted over seven years.

When Bessemer first invested in Shopify, they thought the best possible outcome for the company would be an exit value of $400 million. While not necessarily the best performing public stock, its market cap, as of the time I’m writing this blogpost, is still $42 billion. A 100 times bigger than the biggest possible outcome Bessemer could imagine.

Humans are terrible at committing to progress. The average person today is more likely to take one marshmallow now than two marshmallows later.

Between TikTok and a book, many will choose the former. Between a donut and a 30-minute HIT workout, the former is more likely to win again. Repeated offences of immediate gratification lead you down a path of short-term utility optimization. Simply put, between the option of improving 1% a day and regressing 1% a day, while not explicit, most will find more comfort in the latter alternative.

James Clear has this beautiful visualization of what it means to improve 1% every day for a year. If you focus on small improvements every day for a year, you’re going to be 37 times better than you were the day you started.

While the results of improving 1% aren’t apparent in close-up, they’re superhuman in long-shot.

Photo by Thomas Park 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!

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.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: