Tag: microsoft

Posted on

DGQ 24: Guessing a number between 1 and 100

lock, numbers

Eight years back, at least at the time of publishing this blogpost, Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft, shared one of his favorite interview questions.

“I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 100. You can guess. After each guess, I’ll tell you whether high or low. You get it the first guess, I give you five bucks. [Second guess], four bucks. Three. Two. One. Zero. You pay me a buck. You pay me two; you pay me three… And the question is, do you want to play or not? What’s your answer?”

While he didn’t go too much in depth on all the answers he’s gotten to it over the years, I imagine different people would have given different proposals on how the game might be played. Of course, the classic engineer is likely to approach it was as an expected value problem.

Most people will lose money. There are far more numbers to guess on which one loses than wins. The question really comes down to… do you know the odds of the game you play?

I find it interesting as an investor to hypothetically ask to founders and/or GPs. That said, I never did. But equally so, I usually spend the first conversation with an entrepreneur (whether the product be software or a fund model) trying to understand a person’s motivations. And, if they understand the rules of the game.

Those who don’t understand the rules will often jump head first in, and take care of the consequences later. Asking for forgiveness than for permission. An attitude that is more excusable in a startup founder than a fund manager.

Those who do understand will take a more measured approach. It’s interesting how little some people understand the game they’re playing. Be it in a two-year financial projection that encapsulates all their assumptions, or a portfolio construction model to understand the enterprise value to return the fund 3X.

For the former, it’s less so of how accurate a financial projection slide is. Hell, your guess is as good as mine. But I always ask founders to unpack it to understand how they’re thinking about the future as a function of their reality today.

For the latter, it’s to understand the true power of the power law, no pun intended. For instance, if you have a $10M fund, writing 20 checks of $500K for 5% ownership. Obviously, I’m assuming a bunch of things for the sake of keeping the math simple. No fees, no recycling, no reserves, and so on. You need to return $50M to 5X your fund. Accounting for 80% dilution, you’ll own 1% on exit. So you need $5B in enterprise value. Given the power law, one of out of the 20 companies should get to at least $3-4B in exit value.

Then again, those who understand the game too well will never take the risk necessary for serendipity to stick.

There’s an interesting blogpost an LP shared with me for my blogpost on evergreen content that VCs and LPs consume. A piece written by the legendary Graham Duncan. “The Playing Field.” A piece I highly recommend reading, even if to shape your own thinking about how the game you play evolves over time. In it, a line worth underscoring.

“[I]t’s the way you learn to play the cards you’ve been dealt, rather than the hand itself, that determines the worth of your participation in the game.”

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash

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.

Posted on

v28.0

I came across a quote recently, which I believe originates from Qi Lu, former COO of Baidu, and the one who created Bing, Microsoft’s search engine. “Luck is like a bus. If you miss one, there’s always the next one. But if you’re not prepared, you won’t be able to jump on.”

And your bus fare comes by way of preparation. The 10-year overnight success.

Or as the classic Seneca line goes, “Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.” Or as Louis Pasteur also said, “Chance favors the prepared mind.” And by having a prepared mind at the bus stop, you’ve increased the surface area for luck to stick.

Of course, I could fill an entire blogpost with just quotes on what luck means. But I won’t.

Year 27 on this planet was simply a year to try new things. An exploration of the human mind. An exploration of what are the boundaries of the LP landscape. And what’s worth pushing on, and what’s not. The output of which culminated in events, new ways to operate, building trust circles, the podcast, more content on the blog, and of course, a lot more conversations with influencers in and away from the limelight.

The inputs of which came from my last year’s resolution.

A reflection

Last year, the goal was to find myself in the flow state at least twice a week. Truth was, at that point in time, I had yet to figure out how to truly measure it. And it wasn’t until October 15th last year when I started measuring the early semblances of it outside of just allotting time to be in the flow state. For me, it came down to a simple question. Was today worth it?

In other words, was today well spent? Defined by either:

  1. Learning a new skill or framework
  2. Creating a core memory
  3. Or by realizing something I never realized before, a new way of looking at the world around me.

Each of which, at least for me, largely become possible when I am in an egoless state working or thinking about something proactively than reactively.

As of writing this blogpost, I’m 16 weeks in. And I have 18 days well spent. On average, between one and two days per week. Leaning more on one though.

Though I might be able to allot time on a weekly basis on my calendar for “flow state,” I’m not always in the mood for it. That in itself was dependent on circumstance, timing, stress, and the disciplined pursuit of inspiration. The last of which was a luxury I couldn’t always afford. Sometimes when there are more pressing matters, I can’t help but find my mind wandering and stressing over more urgent matters than focusing on doing something new.

As such, to help me do so, I focused on things I could control daily: Was I consuming a healthy and diverse diet of information? Which I measured through reading, listening to podcasts and content, and conversations with different kinds of people.

I also look back at my journal entries for the past year, and anecdotally, more than 60-70% of them are about topics and tasks I had to do, pre-assigned (often self-assigned due to constraints). And a lot of them focus on the 10%, maybe 20%, marginal improvement and refinement of what’s been done already, rather than the 10X thinking I find more common in journal entries in the years before. The difference between reactive journaling and proactive journaling. The product of consuming too much (work, podcast, and otherwise) of the same genre of information. Simply, I didn’t cover all my macros.

So, this year…

So this year’s goal is no different than the last. To explore. To find myself in creative pursuits and in the flow state. And to take risks.

While I remember the lyrics, I often forget Sanderson’s Second Law. “Flaws/limitations are more interesting than powers.” Constraints are the breeding grounds of inspiration.

Not sure how much of this is lore, but I remember reading once that Bill Gates loves hiring lazy procrastinators. As his words once rung, “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.” For Gates, the constraint of time and energy on a responsible individual is the forcing function for brilliance.

While it’d be ridiculous to give myself a pat on the back for “brilliance,” there is immense value in time constraints, as well as intentionally handicapping myself to produce results. To not let perfect be the enemy of good.

As such, I’m going to impose limitations on myself as a forcing function of iteration, and hopefully by product of doing so, I live more days that are worth it. For now, the count is 19 since Oct 15, 2023 (when I started counting).

How I will measure success, with a North Star of at least 2 per week

While I don’t know what else will come up, my goal is to color in as many pickles as I can in the fickle jar. For now, to hold myself accountable:

  • Publish the intuition vs discipline blogpost (final draft done by end of February)
  • Host an escape room where all the clues to escape are based on each guest’s individual stories (March)
  • Build a repeatable framework for backing GPs as an individual LP (by the end of February)

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

Chasing Revenue Multiples and Revenue

unicorn, sunset

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.

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.

Source: Crunchbase

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!

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

Should you get an MBA as a founder?

library, should i get an mba, entrepreneurship

Over the years, the silver screen sure has mythologized the dropout founder – from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Mark Zuckerberg. While students who choose to dropout will continue to wow the world, and I believe it (otherwise, I wouldn’t be working with Danielle and Mike at 1517 Fund, if I didn’t), reality isn’t nearly as black and white. A Quora user requested my answer to this question recently. Why do business schools not make world class entrepreneurs? It presumed that great academic institutions, mainly B-schools, were no longer capable of minting world-class founders. Admittedly, it’s neither the first, nor will it be the last time I see or hear of it.

The MBA grads

I met a Fortune 100 executive last year who said that it was because of her Wharton MBA, that she catapulted her career in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Specifically, it was because of the research she did with her professor, Adam Grant, that led to opportunities and introductions down the road. On the same token, David Rogier of MasterClass met his first investor at the Stanford GSB. In fact, it was his business professor who wrote that first check, just under $500K.

Business schools are amazing institutions of learning, but admittedly most people go for the network and the brand. On the same note, I would never go as far as to say that business schools don’t mint world-class entrepreneurs. If we’re going by pure valuation, there’s a study that found a quarter of 2019’s top 50 highest valued startups had MBAs as founders.

And here are a few more founder names among many, not even including some of the most recognizable CEO names, like Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Tim Cook (Apple) and more.

  • Tony Xu and Evan Moore of Doordash
  • Michael Bloomberg of Bloomberg
  • Steve Hafner of Kayak
  • Aneel Bhusri and Dave Duffield of Workday
  • Jeremy Stoppelman of Yelp
  • Mark Pincus of Zynga

Having grit and having a business degree don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I work with founders who come from all manners of educational backgrounds: high school dropouts, college dropouts, BA/BSs, MBAs, PhDs, MDs, JDs, home schooled, and self-taught. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what kind of education someone has. What matters is what they do with the education.

What an Ivy League dean once told me

Back when I toured the US to decide which school to SIR (statement of intent to register) to, I met the dean of an Ivy League school. I thought he was going to spend our 20 minutes trying to convince me to come to his school. But he didn’t. Instead he said, “David, it doesn’t matter which school you choose to go to. While I would be honored to have you attend ours, what matters is what you do while you’re in school. You could choose to just take classes here or you could go to a CC, but choose to be a member of 5 clubs, 3 of which you take leadership positions in. And if I were to look at you in four years, I’d be prouder of the latter person you chose to become.”

Capping the risks you could take

When I graduated from Berkeley, I also came out with a certificate in entrepreneurship and technology. While I still believe to this day that no class can really teach one to be entrepreneurial, I learned quite a bit of the institutionalization around entrepreneurship – what exists in the ecosystem, some of the risks involved and how to hedge those bets. Yet, my greatest lessons on entrepreneurship didn’t came from a textbook. But rather, the risks I took outside the classroom. Because each time I made one, I internalized it.

To do great things, you have to first dream big and act on those big dreams. By definition, big dreams entail high degrees of risk. High risk, high reward. And with risk, you’ll make mistakes. So one of the rules I live by is that I will force myself to make mistakes – many mistakes – more than I can count. But my goal is to make each mistake at most once. Jeff Bezos once said, “If you can’t tolerate critics, don’t do anything new or interesting.”

Equally so, there’s a joke that Andy Rachleff, founder of Wealthfront and Benchmark, shares with the class he teaches at the Stanford GSB. While it pertains to VCs, I find it analogous to founders and mistakes, “What do you call a venture capitalist who’s never lost money on an investment?”

“Unemployed.”

But, what institutionalized academia does help you with is provide you a platform to make mistakes. Without the downside. Capped downsides, but it’s up to you, the student, to realize what could be the uncapped upside. Last month I chatted with a VC, who works at a top 10 firm. Our conversation eventually spiraled into her MBA at the Stanford GSB. There she took on projects that put her on the streets talking and building products for potential customers. Her professors taught her the hustle, but it was up to her to apply her learnings. While she chose the VC path after, her experience led her to become a trusted advisor to founders while she was still in school.

In closing

Similarly, world-class entrepreneurs aren’t decided by which school they go to, or lack thereof, but how and why they choose to spend the days, weeks, and years of the short time they have on Earth. And where they practice their entrepreneurial traits.

I would be pretentious to say that you should get an MBA if you want to be founder. Or that you should dropout if you want to be one. If we’re to look at the cards on the table, MBAs are expensive. A $200K investment. Almost half of what might be your pre-seed round. But I can’t tell you if it’s a great investment or not, nor should I. For an MBA, or for that matter, any higher education. I pose the two extremes – MBA (or a PhD too) and a dropout – as I presume most of our calculi’ fall somewhere in-between. Instead, I can merely pair with you with the variables and possible parameters that may be helpful towards your decision. So, I’ll pose a question: Are there rewards you seek in the process rather than just in the outcome (of an MBA/higher education)?

In other words, are there skills, relationships, gratitude, entertainment, and/or peace of mind you build in the journey that transcend the outcome of your decision on the future of your education?

Photo by Patrick Robert Doyle 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!

Posted on

Part-time vs. Full-time Founders

Over the weekend, my friend and I were chatting about the next steps in her career. After spending quite some time ironing out a startup idea she wants to pursue, she was at a crossroads. Should she leave her 9-to-5 and pursue this idea full-time, or should she continue to test out her idea and keep her full-time job?

Due to my involvement with the 1517 Fund and since some of my good friends happen to be college dropouts, I spend quite a bit of time with folks who have or are thinking about pursuing their startup business after dropping out. This is no less true with 9-to-5ers. And some who are still the sole breadwinner of their family. Don’t get me wrong. I love the attention, social passion, literature and discourse around entrepreneurship. But I think many people are jumping the gun.

Ten years back, admittedly off of the 2008 crisis, the conversations were entirely different. When I ask my younger cousins or my friends’ younger siblings, “what do you want to be when you grow up?” They say things like “run my own business”, “be a YouTuber”, and most surprisingly, “be a freelancer”. From 12-yr olds, it’s impressive that freelancing is already part of their vocabulary. It’s an astounding heuristic for how far the gig economy has come.

Moreover, media has also built this narrative championing the college dropout. Steve Jobs and Apple. Bill Gates and Microsoft. And, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. There’s nothing wrong in leaving your former occupation or education to start something new. But not before you have a solid proof of concept, or at least external validation beyond your friends, family and co-workers. After all, Mark Zuckerberg left Harvard not to start Facebook, but because Facebook was already taking off.

Honing the Idea

The inherent nature of entrepreneurship is risk. As an entrepreneur (and as an investor), the goal should always be to de-risk your venture – to make calculated bets. To cap your downside.

Marc Benioff started his idea of a platform-as-a-service in March 1999. Before Marc Benioff took his idea of SaaS full-time, he spent time at Oracle with his mentor, Larry Ellison, honing this thesis and business idea. When he was finally ready 4 months later, he left on good terms. Those terms were put to the test, when in Salesforce’s early days, VCs were shy to put in their dollar on the cap table. But, his relationship he had built with Larry ended up giving him the runway he needed to build his team and product.

Something that’s, unfortunately, rarely talked about in Silicon Valley and the world of startups is patience. We’ve gotten used to hearing “move fast and break things”. Many founders are taught to give themselves a 10-20% margin of error. What started off as a valuable heuristic grew into an increase in quantity of experiments, but decrease in quality of experiments. Founders were throwing a barrage of punches, where many carried no weight behind them. No time spent contemplating why the punch didn’t hit its mark. And subsequently, founders building on the frontlines of revolution fight to be the first to market, but not first to product-market fit. Founders fight hell or high water to launch their MVP, but not an MLP, as Jiaona Zhang of WeWork puts it.

In the words of the one who pioneered the idea of platform-as-a-service,

The more transformative your idea is, the more patience you’ll need to make it happen.”

– Marc Benioff

As one who sits on the other side of the table, our job is to help founders ask more precise questions – and often, the tough questions. We act more as godmothers and godfathers of you and your babies, but we can’t do the job for you.

The “Tough” Questions

To early founders, aspiring founders, and my friends at the crossroads, here is my playbook:

  • What partnerships can/will make it easier for you to go-to-market? To product-market fit? To scalability?
  • What questions can you ask to better test product feasibility?
  • How can you partner with people to ask (and test) better questions?
  • What is your calculus that’ll help you systematically test your assumptions?
  • Do you have enough cash flow to sustain you (and your dependents) for the next 2 years to test these assumptions?

Simultaneously, it’s also to important to consider the flip side:

  • What partnerships (or lack thereof) make your bets more risky?
  • How can you limit them? Eliminate them?

And in sum, these questions will help you map out:

At this point in your career, does part-time or full-time help you better optimize yourself for reaching my next milestone?

Proudly powered by WordPress