Tag: patrick collison

Posted on

Overwhelming and Underwhelming — When to Know You Are Just “Whelming”

fireworks, light, night

One of my favorite sections in Danny Meyer’s Setting the Table (H/T to Rishi and Arpan from Garuda who not only gifted me that book, but also one of the nicest bookmarks I own today) is when he talks about whelmers.

“I ask our managers to weigh one other critical factor as they handicap the prospect. Do they believe the candidate has the capacity to become one of the top three performers on our team in his or her job category? If people cannot ever develop into one of our top three cooks, servers, managers, or maître d’s, why would we hire them? How will they help us improve and become champions? It’s pretty easy to spot an overwhelmingly strong candidate or even an underwhelmingly weak candidate. It’s the ‘whelming’ candidate you must avoid at all costs, because that’s the one who can and will do your organization the most long-lasting harm. Overwhelmers earn you ravers. Underwhelmers either leave on their own or are terminated. Whelmers, sadly, are like a stubborn stain you can’t get out of the carpet. They infuse an organization and its with mediocrity; they’re comfortable, and so they never leave; and, frustratingly, they never do anything that rises to the level of getting them promoted or sinks to the level of getting them fired. And because you either can’t or don’t fire them, you and they conspire to send a dangerous message to your staff and guests and ‘average’ is acceptable.”

In an industry where everyone is incredible — in many ways, you can’t, or at least it’s really hard to, be a GP without being overwhelming in your past in one way or another… INcredible becomes credible. So, it’s quite hard when you have a limited sample size to know who is incredible among the already incredible.

Almost everyone today is overqualified for the job, compared to the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, when most were underqualified.

So, unless you’ve been an LP, how do you know if you’re overwhelming versus just whelming?

  1. LPs who have seen at least 200 funds in the last 2-4 years tell you you’re the “only” one who is pursuing this strategy
    • They have large enough of a sample size to make an assessment. While not perfect, it’s enough to be in rarified air.
  2. You’ve been to the major LP/GP conferences (i.e. RAISE, Bridge, All Raise, SuperReturn / SuperVenture, Upfront Summit, Milken, EMC Summit, etc.) and have seen how other GPs pitch where you personally have a sample size of at least 100.
    • Even better, if you’ve been to the Demo Days or showcases for Coolwater, Recast, VC Lab, just to name a few, and you’ve seen other GP’s pitches
    • Do note what GPs say on podcasts are usually (in my experience) what they pitch to LPs.
  3. You can cold email LPs and they’ll respond.
    • LPs are notoriously closed off to cold emails. As an institution that makes only 1-3 new investments per year in an asset class, it doesn’t make sense for them to keep the doors open as much as venture investors do for founders. And even then, a lot of VCs are also averse to cold emails. That said, if you’re a GP that consistently gets meetings booked from cold emails, you might have something special.
    • More often than not, admittedly, this is due to a strong brand, either via media, personal brand, strong returns, or word of mouth.
    • Important to note that you’re never as good as they say you are, but you’re also never as bad as they say you are.
  4. When you are THE first call exited founders ($100M+ exits) make when they’re brainstorming their next company
    • Them needing a sparring partner on their next career move also counts.
    • You getting invited to whatever large event they host next does not. Including birthday parties, weddings, etc. As much as it feels good to me, you’re not overwhelming. If it puts things into perspective, I get invited to these, and I know I’m not an “overwhelming” venture investor.
    • Also if you’re the fifth person they call, you’re just “whelming.”
  5. You are cited by other investors and founders alike as the source material of an ideology or a framework.
  6. Different founders (or people in general) reach out to you consistently on topics that is not fundraising/them pitching you. In fact, they may never reach out to you on fundraising because you’re known for excellence in other areas.
  7. The best talent in the world want to work with you and they’ll find any way to do so. They’ll say things like, “What if we worked together on a small project first together?” or “How about this together?” The same world-class talent will not only prioritize your goals but also not forsake their own. ‘Cause frankly, the world’s best have their own pursuits and they are transparent and honest about it. Beware of people whose goal you don’t know and those that “give up” their dreams for yours.
  8. You have a memory like a steel trap. You quote books, passages, movies, lessons, anecdotes, stories, history, podcasts, presidential speeches from back in the day, and music in ways most people cannot fathom but make complete sense. You quote in ways where people wonder if you have photographic memory or a chip in your brain, but you actually don’t.
    • This is more or less intellectually “overwhelming”, although overwhelming may not be the right terminology. But someone who is profusely well-read and cultured in a diverse amount of material. Think Da Vinci. Or maybe a modern-day equivalent, Patrick Collison, David Senra, or Ben and David on Acquired.

The one thing I won’t include on this list, while undeniably “overwhelming,” is intuition. People with phenomenal intuition are just different. Overwhelmingly different. But in the world of venture, the word intuition is often overused and has lost its true meaning. Many investors who bet well in hindsight attribute luck to intuition. And hell, the reason I’m not including it in the above list, is that many investors think they’re heavily intuitive, which in my experience usually means:

  1. They hate math. Spreadsheets and the like. In fact, they’re likely just to be bad at it.
  2. They hate diligence. The homework that’s actually required to be a great investor.
  3. If they’re pre-economic success, they’re often spinning a tale to us. Or worse, lying to themselves.
  4. If they’re post-economic success, there’s a good chance they have hindsight bias.

That said, there are a rare few number of times where I meet someone (often not an investor) and they’re able to deduce the person I am with a glance with very little other context. To me, that feels like magic. Something that very few have. But at the same time, I do believe can be trained.

Photo by Jeffrey Hamilton 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

Micro(scopic) 10X Funds

young, kids, students

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.

Posted on

A Strategy to Win Versus A Strategy Not to Lose w/ Alex Sok

For a number of friends and founders I’ve chatted this with, I’ve been a big fan of the concept of “winning versus not losing”. Ever since I heard back in 2018. In an interview with Tim Ferriss, Ann Miura-Ko of Floodgate said, “This is probably the hardest piece – knowing the difference between a winning strategy versus a strategy not to lose. […] Not losing often involves a lot of hedging. And when you feel that urge to hedge, you need to focus. You need to be offensive.”

There are a few great examples of what differentiates winning and not losing from both Tim and Ann in that interview. For instance, a lack of focus by going after two different market segments is a strategy not to lose. “The reason why that’s really hedging is you have two completely different ways of selling to those organizations and you’re afraid to pick one because maybe you have some revenue in both.”

My college friend recently connected me with entrepreneur, designer, angel investor, Alex Sok. Both of us found unlikely common ground in using sports analogies to relate to building a company. Me, swimming (e.g. here and here). Alex, football. Specifically, American football. Having been a quarterback for his school’s football team back in the day, he said something quite fascinating, “You can’t win in the first quarter, but you can lose in the first quarter.” And you know me, I had to double click on that.

I was previously under the assumption that you only needed a strategy to win, but not to lose. But as all generalizations that start with the word “only”, I was wrong. And Alex contextualized it for me – that sometimes you do need to think about how not to “lose”.

Winning versus not losing

“You can’t win in the first quarter, but you can lose in the first quarter.”

Throwing the ball deep for your running back to make the touchdown is a strategy to win. On the flip side, if you don’t convert on the third down, you’re going to lose. You may not win, but if you don’t, you could very much lose. Not all mistakes carry the same gravitas. Some mistakes can be detrimental; most mistakes aren’t. Just because you’re making sure that you convert on the third down does not mean you can’t still swing for the fences.

For founders, losing in the first quarter is akin to:

  • Burning through your seed funding in six months;
  • Hiring four professional executives before you get to product-market fit;
  • Not talking to your customers;
  • There is no one in the room who can tackle the biggest risk of the business (i.e. no engineer when you’re building an AI solution, or no one who can do sales when you’re an enterprise tech company)

You’re still aiming high, but that doesn’t mean you should burden yourself with an astronomical burn rate.

“Game plans will have to vary depending on your market or product. Key fundamental traits that increase the probability of failure will always be present. It’s important to identify which ones matter most in relation to the game plan,” says Alex. “A tough defense or go-to-market means being more focused on identifying which channels to pursue and then doubling down if it works out.”

On the flip side, “an aggressive defense or burgeoning industry might mean taking more chances but setting up plays wisely to take advantage of their aggressive, risk-taking nature. This will force the defense to settle down and play you more honestly. In startup terms, that might mean steady progress and growth with a few deep shots to achieve escape velocity from your competitors.”

Not to get forget about winning

You’ve probably heard of the saying, “If you want your company to truly scale, you have to do things that don’t scale.” Especially in the zero to one phase. From idea to product-market fit. Many of us in venture break down the early life cycle of a company by zero-to-one and one-to-infinity. The first “half” is doing things that don’t scale. Figuring out what frustrations your customers are going through. Getting that pedometer up on the street yourself. Daniel Kahneman wrote in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, “Acquisition of skills requires a regular environment, an adequate opportunity to practice, and rapid and unequivocal feedback about the correctness of thoughts and actions.”

Here are a few examples:

In the early days of Airbnb, Brian, Joe, and Nathan used to visit early Airbnb hosts with a rented DSLR to photograph their houses.

For Stripe, the founders manually onboarded every merchant to deliver “instant” merchant accounts. Of course, the Collison brothers took it a step further to mint the term “Collison installation”. Usually when founders ask early leads “Will you try our beta?”, if people say yes, then they say, “Great, we’ll send you a link.” Rather, Patrick and John said, “Right then, give me your laptop” and set it up for them right then and there.

At Doordash, they found restaurant menu PDFs online, created landing pages, put their personal number out there for people to call, and personally executed deliveries within the day.

To get his first 2000 users, Ryan at Product Hunt wrote handcrafted emails to early users and reporters to grow what started off as an email list.

Similarly, in football, teams often spend the first half of the game feeling out their opponents. Their strengths, their weaknesses. And the back half, doubling down on where your opponents fall short on. While not your opponents, founders should be spending the first half feeling out their market. Be scrappy. Nothing that’ll make you lose in the first quarter, but make mistakes. Give your team and yourself a 10-20% error rate. One of your greatest superpowers as a small team is your ability to move fast. Use it to your advantage.

Paul Graham once wrote, “Tim Cook doesn’t send you a hand-written note after you buy a laptop. He can’t. But you can. That’s one advantage of being small: you can provide a level of service no big company can.”

In closing

Alex said, “In order to be a dominant offense, you have to force the defense to cover every inch of the field.” If you only throw long, then your opponents will only need to cover long. If you only throw to the left, they only have to cover left. But if you have a diversified strategy, your opponents will have to cover every inch of the field. And to win, all you need is for your opponents to hesitate for half a second. And with a laser-focused strategy, that’s all you need to break through against your incumbents. Your incumbents often have bigger teams, can attract more talent, have deeper pockets, and the list goes on.

As a small team, you’re on offense. You can’t cover every inch of the field, and neither do you need to. You just need to be a single running back who makes it past a wall of linebackers. To do that, you need focus. As Tim Ferriss recently said on the Starting Greatness podcast, “the biggest risk to your startup is your distraction.” And it’s not just you and your team, but also the investors you bring on. Sammy Abdullah of Blossom Street Ventures wrote that the question you need to be asking yourself about your investors is: “Are you going to distract me from running the business and will you be candid with me when I have a problem?”

Focus. If you’re focusing on everything, you’re focusing on nothing. You have no room to hesitate, but it’s exactly what you want your competitors to do. That half a second on the field is about two years in the venture world. Or until you can find your product-market fit. Until you reach scale. Until you reach the “one” in zero-to-one. ‘Cause once you’re there, you just need to put your head down and run. And it’s the beginning of something defensible. Of something you can win with.

If you’re curious about taking a deeper dive on product-market fit, I recommend checking out some of my other essays:

Photo by Joe Calomeni from Pexels

Thank you Alex for helping me with early drafts of this essay!

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

How to Build a Culture that Ruthlessly Prioritizes w/ Yin Wu, Founder of Pulley

Last week, I was lucky enough to jump on a call with the founder of Pulley, Yin Wu. Backed some of the best investors out there including Stripe, General Catalyst, YC, Elad Gil, just to name a few, Pulley is the ultimate tool for cap table management. In addition, Yin is a 4-peat founder, one of which led to an acquisition by Microsoft, and three of which, including Pulley, went through YC.

In our conversation, we covered many things, but one particular theme stood out to me the most: how she built a culture of ruthless prioritization.

Continue reading “How to Build a Culture that Ruthlessly Prioritizes w/ Yin Wu, Founder of Pulley”
Proudly powered by WordPress