Tag: questions

Posted on

The Holiday Special | Nakul Mandan and Ben Choi | Superclusters | S4PSE1

ben choi, nakul mandan

“VC is more about the ground game than the air game.” – Nakul Mandan

“Entrepreneurs think it’s going to be like the Michael Keaton version, and the good ones, they actually have to work through the Christopher Nolan version of Batman.” – Ben Choi

Nakul Mandan is the founder of Audacious Ventures. Audacious is a seed stage venture firm managing ~$250M. Audacious’ foundational belief is that ultimately startup success comes down to two key ingredients: Large markets and A+ teams. Accordingly, the Audacious team focuses on two jobs: 1/ Invest in force of nature founders; 2/ Help them recruit an A+ team. Then they get out of the way. Prior to founding Audacious, Nakul was a GP at Lightspeed.

Some of the companies Nakul has backed over the last decade include: Gainsight, People.ai, WorkOS, Multiverse, Marketo, 6Sense, BuildingConnected, Vartana, Tezi and Maxima, amongst others.

You can find Nakul on his socials here:
X / Twitter: https://x.com/nakul
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nakulmandan/
Personal Website: https://www.nakulmandan.com/

Ben Choi manages over $3B investments with many of the world’s premier venture capital firms as well as directly in early stage startups. He brings to Next Legacy a distinguished track record spanning over two decades founding and investing in early-stage technology businesses. Ben’s love for technology products formed the basis for his successful venture track record, including early stage investments in Marketo (acquired for $4.75B) and CourseHero (last valued at $3.6B). He previously ran product for Adobe’s Creative Cloud offerings and founded CoffeeTable, where he raised venture capital financing, built a team, and ultimately sold the company.

Ben is an engaged member of the Society of Kauffman Fellows and has been named to the Board of Directors for the San Francisco Chinese Culture Center and Children’s Health Council. Ben studied Computer Science at Harvard University before Mark Zuckerberg made it cool and received his MBA from Columbia Business School. Born in Peoria, raised in San Francisco, and educated in Cambridge, Ben now lives in Palo Alto with his wife, Lydia, and three very active sons.

You can find Ben on his socials here:
X / Twitter: https://x.com/benjichoi
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bchoi/

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
[04:14] Why is Nakul fascinated by Batman?
[06:41] Does entrepreneurial motivation often come from inspiration or frustration?
[10:33] Nakul’s childhood and early upbringing
[14:37] How Nakul grew from introvert to extrovert
[16:19] Did Ben see the ambition in Nakul from the day they first met?
[18:19] How did Ben’s parents’ work in Chinatown influence Ben as a teenager?
[22:47] How did Ben and Nakul meet?
[28:50] Would Nakul have raised in 2020 if he knew how hard it would be?
[33:49] Why did Next Legacy not invest in Fund I, but in Fund II?
[37:49] How did Nakul react to the pass on Fund I?
[39:56] The kinds of people at Next Legacy’s dinners
[43:49] Why Audacious kept a low profile in 2021
[49:01] Why Audacious deployed Fund I over 4 years, instead of 3
[51:46] Balancing the paradox of one of Audacious’ cultural values
[55:14] The difference between pitching individuals and institutions
[1:00:42] What is it like to be married to an interior designer?
[1:02:40] Nakul’s favorite coffee shop, bar, and restaurant
[1:05:56] What makes a sock special to Ben?
[1:07:17] Why does Ben still like venture?
[1:08:10] Why does Nakul still like venture?
[1:11:36] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:12:37] If you enjoyed this holiday episode, and want more like this, do let me know!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“The risk is slow failure. And actually that’s the worst kind of failure even for entrepreneurs that we back. They’re all talented people. Some ideas work; some don’t. It’s when they end up spending seven, eight years and then it doesn’t work. Then it takes out seven, eight years of their life.” – Nakul Mandan

“Entrepreneurs think it’s going to be like the Michael Keaton version, and the good ones, they actually have to work through the Christopher Nolan version of Batman.” – Ben Choi

“If you don’t wear ambition on your sleeve, how do people know you’re ambitious?” – Nakul Mandan

“VC is more about the ground game than the air game.” – Nakul Mandan

“Always remember there’s a human on the other side of every conversation.” – Nakul Mandan

“The thing about working with self-motivated people and driven people, on their worst day, they are pushing themselves very hard and your job is to reduce the stress in that conversation.” – Nakul Mandan

“If you have an understated personality, wear something really bright.” – Ben Choi

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

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

The Year 1-3 AGM “Playbook”

conference, agm, summit, annual general meeting

A good friend, who’s hosting an annual general meeting (AGM) for his LPs in his first year of the fund, pinged me the other day asking if he should include the IRR metrics in his presentation day of. For context, it was negative because well, that’s how the math works. It’s almost always negative for any venture fund you invest in, in years 1-3. As you’re investing more money, the portfolio has yet to get marked up and raise a new round. So alas, negative rate of return.

Given that he had a lot of first-time LPs in his fund, he wasn’t sure if they would understand the context of the IRR metric if he just put it on a slide. So he was biased with not including it. To which I responded with… of course you should. For the bread and butter of being a fiduciary of capital, you should always bias towards transparency and honesty. But you should educate them every year in your first three years of the fund on what each number means and what is industry standard. Moreover, the biggest thing you’ll be measured against in the first three years of any fund is the discipline you exhibit. Did you do what you said you were going to do?

Then it brought on a larger question. What should GPs include in their AGMs in the first three years?

So I thought I’d write a blogpost about it.

This won’t be a two-hour documentary, nor a 300-page novel. But rather, just the governing principles of how I think about running annual summits for your LPs. So, as a general compass for the rest of this post:

  1. The basics to share
  2. Content at large and what to expect for the duration of the programming
  3. Gifts

The basics

First things first, the basics. What are the metrics to share?

  1. MOIC and/or TVPI
    • I prefer both gross and net, but most really just share net
  2. IRR
  3. # of investments (total)
  4. Capital called
  5. Capital deployed
  6. # of investments per pillar/vertical in your thesis (if relevant)
  7. # of investments broken down by stage (if relevant)
  8. Average check size
  9. Average entry ownership
  10. Average entry valuation
  11. Notable wins / progress in portfolio companies, and why it matters
  12. Asks for LPs
  13. Where is the market today?
  14. Where is it going? Notable trends

The first 10 are required as a fiduciary of capital. The last 4 means you’re playing professor for a bit. LPs invest in you for your opinion, for your perspective. Also it’s important to note, if more than 20% of your LPs are first-time LPs, you may want to lean more on being a professor of sorts to set expectations. And how to interpret your data. And yes, it’s worth being honest here. In good and bad times.

Do note that in the first 2-3 years, your IRRs will suck. TVPI will be roughly 1X. DPI is either negligible or non-existent. These are all things that are worth highlighting to first-time LPs in the venture space. Focus on why discipline matters more than performance in the first 3-4 years. Did you do what you said you would do?

Also, it is quite normal to invite both your current fund LPs, as well as the LPs you would like to have one to two funds from now. Although if you’re inviting the latter, do be cognizant on sharing sensitive data about your portfolio. Regardless, the AGM is an opportunity to deepen any relationships — current and future.

And, just like a Dreamforce or TwitchCon or WWDC, it’s a chance to reinvigorate your audience about why they should care about you.

Content at large

I’m not the first to say it, nor is it the first time I’m writing about it. For instance, here and here. But GPs are evaluated on primarily three things: sourcing, picking, winning. There are more yes. GP-thesis fit. Differentiation. Portfolio construction. Ability to build an enduring firm. Selling and exiting positions. And so on. But if VCs can boil everything down to team, market, and product, this is the LP equivalent.

And well, the truth is you’re always being evaluated. Even after the fundraising sprint. As in another 2-3 years, you’re going to ask the same LPs to re-up their capital, just like a founder to a multi-stage VC would.

All that to say, in the AGM, you should find ways to highlight each through the content you present. To share some examples:

  • How you source
    • Have your companies share how you first met. The crazier the story, the better.
    • If you have a community/newsletter/podcast, bring in a really high quality advisor or speaker from there.
    • If you champion yourself on outbound sourcing, find an impressive speaker that you cold emailed.
  • How you pick
    • Showcase 1-2 companies with strong growth
    • If you had a track record prior to the firm with an obvious win (i.e. you were a seed investor in Airbnb), bring the founder in to speak.
    • Share market insight that no one else knows. What is your prepared mind?
    • Request for startups.
  • How you win
    • Showcase a skillset that you have through someone else. That someone else can be a former colleague, a name-brand co-investor, or founder. Have them talk about you and that skillset. Stories are always better than facts.
    • Showcase 1 hot company in your portfolio that everyone wanted to get access to but only very few got in. Have that founder share why they picked you.

Of course, you don’t have to be explicit with the above, but nevertheless, a useful framework for planning content.

Also please don’t have your entire portfolio present. Nor any more than 4-5 companies. Two is ideal. Ideally, you want a diverse cast of speakers. And I mean, diverse by job title.

Gifts

I’m always biased towards gifts. It is one of my primary love languages, but also in any event I host or help host, I think a lot about surprise and suspense.

Surprise is relaying information to someone where they do not expect it. Suspense is relaying information where they expect it, but don’t know how or when it’ll drop. Surprise is what gets people talking about your event after. Suspense is what brings people to the event.

The earlier section on content is suspense. Gifts are usually surprises at AGMs.

In terms of what kinds of gifts to give, the most important guiding principle here is to be thoughtful. As Zig Ziglar / Mark Suster once said, ” People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

It’s less about the gift you give; it’s more important about how you deliver it.

Some examples of thoughtful ones I’ve seen at AGMs in the past:

  1. A GP’s favorite book they read that year
  2. A signed copy by the author of a deeply meaningful book that shaped the way the GP thinks today
  3. A letter at each LP’s seat of the first interaction between the GP and each of the LPs.

In closing

AGMs are the one of the few times in a year, hell, in fund cycle, to remind LPs of why they love you. Are they thinking about you when they put together the following year’s budget and allocation schedule?

And yes, you do need to remind LPs on why they love you. Just like, even if you’re in a happy marriage, every so often, you need a date night. Keep the kids at home. Get a babysitter. And do something wild with your spouse.

Pat Grady has this great line. “If your value prop is unique, you should be a price setter not a price taker, meaning your gross margins should be really good.” In a similar way, you want to be a schedule maker, not a schedule taker. And to do so, you need to get people excited. And well, you need to be unique. You need people to look forward to your AGM, and not see it as a chore. Since, let’s be honest; if I’ve been to two dozen or so AGMs, not as an LP in most of them, then a seasoned LP is definitely invited to many more.

Earlier this year, I flew over to San Diego for an AGM. I found out two other friends were also flying in to SD for an AGM that same Thursday. The three of us agreed to catch up during the happy hour, assuming all of us were going to the same one. Turns out, we each went to a different AGM. Same day, same time. All within a 10-minute Uber ride from each other. Spoiler, we later escaped our respective events during the happy hours to catch up elsewhere.

Along the same wavelength, in October this year, I was moderating a talk in a building, where there were two other AGMs happening in the same building at the same time. And three others within a five-block radius in SF… at the same time. Those were only the ones I knew of. That said, it was SF Tech Week.

Simply, you’re fighting for attention. And everything above is just table stakes. It’s the bare minimum. But what sets the great ones apart from the forgettable ones is a reminder of what makes that GP or set of GPs special. Their own flavor. Their own touch. And it’s a combination of thoughtfulness and personality. And if you have those, the small bumps in the road don’t matter.

Hope the above helps.

P.S. Why am I sharing this?

  1. I don’t think knowledge is ever perennially proprietary. Today it may be, tomorrow it will not.
  2. If you’re a GP reading this, this is pretty much exactly what I share with all the funds I’ve worked with to help plan their annual summits for LPs. So, you won’t have to hire me anymore to help you with your annual summits. I don’t care about making a living helping other people plan and organize AGMs. But I would like to go to higher quality events in general. 🙂
  3. A rising tide raises all ships.

Photo by Jakob Dalbjörn 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

LPs Should Get Paid More | Ashby Monk | Superclusters | S4E5

ashby monk

“Innovation everywhere, but especially in the land of pensions, endowments, and foundations, is a function of courage and crisis.” – Ashby Monk

Dr. Ashby Monk is currently a Senior Research Engineer, School of Engineering at Stanford University and holds the position of Executive Director of the Stanford Research Initiative on Long-Term Investing.

Ashby has more than 20 years of experience studying and advising investment organizations. He has authored multiple books and published 100s of research papers on institutional investing. His latest book, The Technologized Investor, won the 2021 Silver Medal from the Axiom Business Book Awards in the Business Technology category.

Outside of academia, Ashby has co-founded several companies that help investors make better investment decisions, including Real Capital Innovation (acquired by Addepar), FutureProof, GrowthsphereAI, Long Game Savings (acquired by Truist), NetPurpose, D.A.T.A., SheltonAI, and ThirdAct. He is co-founder and managing partner of KDX, a venture capital firm focused on investment technologies.

He is a member of the CFA Institute’s Future of Finance Advisory Council and was named by CIO Magazine as one of the most influential academics in the institutional investing world. He received his Doctorate in Economic Geography at the University of Oxford, holds a Master’s in International Economics from the Université de Paris I – Pantheon Sorbonne, and has a Bachelor’s in Economics from Princeton University.

You can find Ashby on his socials here:
X / Twitter: https://x.com/sovereignfund
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashby-monk-208a479/

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
[03:44] “I don’t know what to do with my hands”
[04:44] The origin story of Ashby’s LinkedIn skills
[09:04] Ashby’s obsession with the worst title out there
[12:54] Titles at institutional investment firms
[17:05] Building the right incentives for institutional LPs
[20:54] The decision to buy or build for pension funds
[22:36] What’s a smart way to think about the difference of gross and net?
[23:17] When are management fees not justified?
[26:06] When managers charge fees on SPVs
[28:12] When are GPs still grateful for your LP capital?
[29:40] Challenges with the endowment model in PE and VC
[31:14] Why LPs misrepresent what budget fees come out of
[35:28] Compensation structure of a pension fund
[37:59] CalPERS compensation structure
[39:19] The highest paid employees in government jobs
[42:39] Traits of an incredibly talented investor
[47:06] Hire hard, manage light
[51:07] Ashby’s journey into the LP space
[56:05] Why should a young professional work at a pension
[1:00:24] Who outside of investments influences the way Ashby thinks about investing?
[1:02:28] What is organic finance?
[1:07:08] The post-credit scene
[1:12:32] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:13:33] If you enjoyed the episode, would love if you shared it with one friend who would enjoyed it as well!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“The fastest way to become a billionaire in America today is to set up an alternative investment firm and manage pension capital. Literally. That’s the fastest path. Faster than starting a tech company.” – Ashby Monk

“Many pension plans, especially in America, put blinders on. ‘Don’t tell me what I’m paying my external managers. I really want to focus and make sure we’re not overpaying our internal people.’ And so then it becomes, you can’t ignore the external fees because the internal costs and external fees are related. If you pay great people internally, you can push back on the external fees. If you don’t pay great people internally, then you’re a price taker.” – Ashby Monk

“You need to realize that when the managers tell you that it’s only the net returns that matter. They’re really hoping you’ll just accept that as a logic that’s sound. What they’re hoping you don’t question them on is the difference between your gross return and your net return is an investment in their organization. And that is a capability that will compound in its value over time. And then they will wield that back against you and extract more fees from you, which is why the alternative investment industry in the world today is where most of the profits in the investment industry are captured and captured by GPs.” – Ashby Monk

“[LPs] want to solve the problem for their sponsor by reducing the cost of a promise.” – Ashby Monk

“Innovation everywhere, but especially in the land of pensions, endowments, and foundations, is a function of courage and crisis.” – Ashby Monk

“The highest people paid in state jobs are football coaches.” – Ashby Monk

“I often tell pensions you should pay people at the 49th percentile. So, just a bit less than average. So that the people going and working there also share the mission. They love the mission ‘cause that actually is, in my experience, the magic of the culture in these organizations that you don’t want to lose.” – Ashby Monk

“The job of an investor is to look at the same data that you and I are looking at, and be ready to make a different conclusion. That’s how you outperform.” – Ashby Monk

“Hire hard; manage light.” – Ashby Monk

“The way best practices are communicated in this industry is through role models. So, Yale model, Canadian model, Norway model… There are no schools of investing. […] And the way models emerge is you get an innovation that results in outperformance.” – Ashby Monk

“I do research projects on nothing.” – Ashby Monk on research into solutions that don’t exist in the world yet

“There are two types of innovation. There’s innovation as an invention. And there’s discovery. And a lot of what I do is discover and apply.” – Ashby Monk

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

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

Listening to the Heartbeat of the Market | David York | Superclusters | S4E4

david york

“Markets have a mind of their own.” – David York

David York’s thirty plus years of industry knowledge and networks uniquely equip him to be a liaison and international ambassador not only for Top Tier’s brand, but also the broader venture community. In 2000, David joined Phil Paul to lead the fund of funds team at Paul Capital, which spun out in 2011 to form Top Tier.

David has been active in the global venture capital community since the early 1990s. As a founder of Top Tier, he has led the development of the Firm for over twenty years and has been involved in every aspect of it. His involvement in the industry has led him to participate in numerous industry events and conferences, and also the NVCA, where he is an active board member. David led the fund of funds business at Paul Capital Partners, before spinning it out and founding Top Tier. Prior to Paul Capital, David spent seventeen years on Wall Street running various trading desks. In 1999, he was Managing Director at Chase H&Q, where he ran Equity Capital Markets liquidity, and from 1994 to 1999 he ran Venture Services for Hambrecht & Quist, a San Francisco-based, technology-focused investment bank acquired by Chase Bank.

You can find David on his socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-york-2407295/

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
[02:52] David York’s role models over the years
[07:06] Is the LP model broken?
[11:34] What David would like to see in private markets
[15:27] How did David raise $500M in the dotcom crash
[23:09] Breaking down when large LPs are ready to be pitched
[25:37] What does a thoughtful email look like?
[28:40] The liquidity needs of different kinds of LPs
[33:29] David’s favorite restaurant in Tokyo
[36:41] David’s secret starter dough recipe
[40:13] Secret post-credit scene
[40:46] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[41:47] If you learned something from this episode, I’d love it if you could share it with one other friend!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“Markets have a mind of their own.” – David York

“If you look at venture capital investments in general, partnership agreements are too short.” – David York

“Going to see accounts before budgets are set helps get your brand and your story in the mind of the budget setter. In the case of the US, budgets are set in January and July, depending on the fiscal year. In the case of Japan, budgets are set at the end of March, early April. To get into the budget for Tokyo, you gotta be working with the client in the fall to get them ready to do it for the next fiscal year. [For] Korea, the budgets are set in January, but they don’t really get executed on till the first of April. So there’s time in there where you can work on those things. The same thing is true with Europe. A lot of budgets are mid-year. So you develop some understanding of patterns. You need to give yourself, for better or worse if you’re raising money, two to three years of relationship-building with clients.” – David York

“To me, rejection is simply ‘not now,’ not a ‘no.’” – David York

DZ: “What do most GPs, or first-time LPs, fail to appreciate?”
DY: “The exit.”

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

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

Developing Taste as an LP

taste, donut, bite

Brian Chesky did a fireside chat recently where he talks about how he hired for roles at Airbnb, especially in the early days. To which, I highly recommend you checking the above link. Lots of nonobvious lessons worth noting. One thing especially stood out. Probably due to the recency bias of having a few friends text me who were thinking about investing in their first fund.

“Executives have more experience bullshitting you than you have experience detecting their bullshit. So it’s like an asymmetric game where you’re a white belt fighting a black belt and they’re just going to punch you in the face repeatedly.”

In a similar way, a lot of new LPs in venture have also yet to develop their taste for quality in the venture asset class. If you’ve never hired an executive, you have no idea what a great executive looks like. And if you’ve never invested in a fund, or seen a few, you have no idea what a great fund looks like. Most GPs, given the volume of LPs they pitch to, have more experience bullshitting you as an LP than you have experience detecting their bullshit.

And that’s okay. Everyone starts off this way. So the question then becomes how do you develop taste?

  1. Talk to as many as you can. Don’t overoptimize for quality. You have no idea what quality looks like, so don’t delude yourself that you do. Ask friends who they’ve talked to. Ask Twitter. And ask the GPs you talk to who are friends they respect who are also building a fund. Hell, try your luck at asking certain “influencers” in the space if they have recommendations. Realistically, if you raise your hand and say you’re an LP, GPs will flock to you. In 2024, deal flow, as measured by quantity, isn’t really hard for any LP out there.
  2. Prioritize references.

On the first point, as is the advice I give most first-time angel investors investing in startups, don’t invest in the first startup you see. Unless it’s for a reason outside of financial gain. To support a friend. To learn. For impact. To give back. All great reasons. But not if because your friend told you to.

Along the same thread, don’t invest in the first fund you see. Talk to at least 30-50 fund managers. Get a good understanding of what the average fund looks like. What is actually special about a GP versus what they say is special. Most of the time when someone claims that they are the special one, they usually aren’t. For instance, only [insert big name fund] invests with us. Or we are the only [insert industry or function] fund. Hell, if anyone gives you any sort of superlatives, they’re usually wrong. Only. Always. Best. Most. I’m sure there are more, but the rest are escaping me.

Secondly, prioritizes references over your initial judgment when interviewing and doing diligence. Dan Stolar from Colibri and I had a conversation recently about references, where the questions you ask are paramount. If you’re short on time, I’d recommend starting from the 25:50 mark.

In short, to existing LPs, ask:

  1. How did you get to conviction?
  2. Who else did you talk to that were comparable to this GP before you reached an investment decision?
  3. Is there anything you learned about the team after you made the investment?
  4. What kind of person do you think they should bring onboard either in the next fund or after they get to a close?
  5. Would it be possible to share your investment memo with me?
  6. What were some of the pushbacks or hesitations when this deal reached your investment committee?

To LPs more broadly:

  1. What are your primary motivations to be an LP in venture?
  2. How do you think about portfolio construction?
  3. Who are the GPs you’ve talked to that seem to stand above the rest? And why?

To co-investors/other GPs:

  1. How often do you share deals with this GP?
  2. How often do they share deals with you?
  3. Who are your top 3 emerging managers that you love seeing deals from and why?
  4. Is there an emerging manager you would hire to be a partner or GP at your firm if you could?
  5. How would you rate this GP on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being perfect?
    • What would get this GP to a 10?
  6. Did you or have you considered investing in their fund?
  7. What are some of this GP’s hobbies that I might not guess?
    • This shows you how well people know each other. You can also use this question for other reference archetypes.

To former colleagues and friends:

  1. If you were to hire someone under this GP, what traits or skillsets would you look to hire for?
  2. I hate surprises. Is there anything that could go wrong I should know now about this GP, so that I wouldn’t be surprised when it happens?
  3. Who is someone you would hire or work together again in a heartbeat?
    • Notice if they mention that GP. You don’t have to probe as to why they didn’t mention if they didn’t. But worth noticing. Also probably worth talking to that person they did mention to keep a strong talent network around you.

Obviously the above list isn’t all-inclusive. But nevertheless I imagine they’ll be good starting points. Also, I want to note that going deep is often more insightful than going wide.

Remember, almost everyone is incentivized to say good things about others. Or at least, there is little to no incentive to talk smack about anyone you know. So finding the best way to ask questions that unearth different perspectives and facets of a person is important.

Funnily enough and unintentionally, last week I wrote a similar post from the perspective of a GP, this one happened to be more for the LP.

Photo by Thomas Kelley 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

! > ? > , > .

comment, bubble, feedback

Yes, that’s the title of this blogpost. And no, that’s not in Wingdings font.

And yes, that’s also an equation.

Surprises do better than suspense, which do better than pauses, which do better than full stops.

The first is indelible. The last is forgettable.

Let me elaborate.

Notation MeaningExplanation
!Surprise(For all you coders, the exclamation point does not stand for “not.”)

You’ve shared something interesting, shocking, unexpected… something non-consensus or nonobvious. This is the easiest justification for someone to take a meeting. You not only have their attention, but their curiosity.

It’s a point of contention. It allows for debate. At face glance, it may not sound right. It may outright be shocking.
?SuspenseWhy? How? You’ve posed an interesting question that begs an answer. People will follow up. They may or may not take the meeting, which is highly dependent on their bandwidth and your luck in their schedule.

Oftentimes, the follow up will seek some level of external validation. You need to appeal to a higher authority. References. Facts/data, and starting from universal truths. Or sometimes, a higher form of logic and reasoning.

In the words of Siqi Chen, questions are “tell tale signs of objections politely withheld.” For the purpose of gauging interest, quiet objections out loud may work in your favor.
,PauseYou’ve introduced a subclause before the clause. The subclause itself must be interesting enough for them to want to finish the sentence. It’s the difference between a feature and a product. If it is interesting enough, there may be a follow up, but things will usually stay asynchronous.

Oftentimes, this manifests in the form of taking a large leap of faith in logic. Either one starts a premise, but has no conclusion/solution. Or the other way around. You deliver the punchline, but has no build-up.
.StopA quick conclusion can be drawn. No further questions or curiosities. There’s nothing special. Nothing worth noting. This neither grabs attention or begs curiosity. The same as saying the sky is blue.

While that may seem obvious, the equivalent in the startup world is “We are a B2B SaaS product leveraging AI to deliver insights.” You’ve said nothing. And unfortunately, all of which is forgettable.

All that to say, if the goal is to get a conversation going, the above is a formula I often advise the founders and GPs I work with.

Then once you have the meeting, of all the meeting requests I get, the two most common reasons are:

  1. I need money
  2. I need feedback

Oftentimes, not mutually exclusive.

For the purpose of this blogpost, and as I’ve written about the former in the past, I’ll focus on the latter.

Feedback

The vast majority of people also suck at asking for feedback. Take pitch decks, for example.

Most founders and GPs ask: “Can you give me some feedback on my deck?” Unfortunately, the ask is nebulous. What kind of feedback are you looking for? How honest can I be? What are my parameters?

Should I be worried about hurting your feelings? Are you looking for validation or constructive criticism?

Am I the best person to give you feedback on this? Am I supposed to give feedback from the perspective of me as [insert your name] or a different persona?

So, unless you’re best friends with the person you want feedback from AND they are the ideal archetype you’re trying to target, you need to be more direct and focused on what you’re looking for.

Love-Hate-Forget

One of my favorite set of questions of all time happens to be something that was designed to be asked in groups of strangers. Something that came from the social experiments I hosted pre-COVID. Not original, but I forget the attribution.

  1. Who did you notice? Who, for whatever reason, rational or not, did you like?
  2. Who, for whatever reason, did you not like or feel it may be hard to be friends with them?
  3. And after all that, who did you, for whatever reason, not notice at all?

Similarly, in the case of deck feedback…

Love

  1. Could you go through the whole deck, spending an average of half a second on each slide? While you do so, could you note, which slides you spend longer than one second on, for whatever reason?
    • FYI, leave it up to them if they want to elaborate. Sometimes you don’t need to ask. Oxygen usually rises to the top.
  2. If you were to keep just one slide and throw everything else out, which slide would you keep?

Hate

  1. Could you spend up to five seconds per slide? Which slides do you dislike, for whatever reason?
  2. Why?
    • FYI, typical feedback is usually too messy, no punchline (I don’t get what you’re trying to say), or I don’t agree. The last of which is actually not always bad, depending if it’s a point of view of the world or you’re misrepresenting a fact.

Forget

These are not questions you ask the feedback giver. Rather, these are questions for introspection.

  1. Which slides did the person giving feedback totally ignore?
  2. Why might they have?

More often than not, these are table stakes slides. Delete these slides if you can.

Photo by Volodymyr Hryshchenko 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

#unfiltered #92 AGMs, VC Funds, and the Personality Hypothesis

event, conference, concert

In the last few months, I’ve been to a number of AGMs. For the uninitiated, annual general meetings. These annual summits VCs host once a year to their investors. Their LPs. Some of such events I go to because I’m an LP in those respective funds. The vast majority of which I am not. But I go because I’m a friend of the team, or the GPs want me to give them feedback on the event, or that I advised them on how to put together the event itself. The invite, in and of itself, especially to those I am not an LP in, is an honor and a privilege. Something I don’t take lightly.

The best ones bring in quality attendees, not just speakers. And that these A-players bring their A-game. They are willing to share their insights and experience with candor, and leave little to the imagination. They are battlegrounds of ideas and creative conflict. To take a line from Matt Ridley, a line I first heard also at a an AGM last week, “Innovation is when ideas have sex.” Quality events are simply “brothels of ideas,” to borrow a line from a speaker at that AGM, leading not only to a higher quality of conversation, but also a higher quality of eavesdropping.

In the words of someone I met at one last week, “I don’t have a membership to a country club, but this is the closest thing I have to it.”

In each, the general partners for each firm would typically share the progress of the fund. The good. The bad. The numbers. The trends. As well as the future of the fund. Then after all that, they would have 2-3 of their portfolio companies present on stage, with insight as to what innovation looks like from ground zero. My personal favorites are where the founders don’t pitch that they’re fundraising. It is purely, in its truest sense, an exchange of ideas. Occasionally, there would be an additional speaker — an influential individual in the space to highlight the GP(s)’ networks. These have ranged from published authors to established GPs to celebrities to bloggers and podcasters to Nobel Prize winners.

LPs often go to so many of these. Many more than I have to date. That at some point, every annual meeting starts looking like the next. If you knew nothing else, or if you’re ever curious of my favorite rule of thumb on whether an AGM is truly different and worth one’s time is one where less than 10% of the attendees are on their devices. And even if they are, they aren’t on it for long.

That said, one thing I couldn’t help but notice was that many of the founders who spoke on stage often reflected the personality of the GPs. A mirror of sorts. Not all the time, but enough for me to consistently notice. Which makes sense since like-minded people gravitate towards each other.

People with similar energy levels. People with similar levels of charisma. Those with similar levels of curiosity. Similar sets of hobbies.

I have no thesis here. Merely a hypothesis from a very anecdotal set of observations. How crucial is a GP’s personality in selecting and attracting founders? If there was a loose personality archetype of a great founder, does that mean LPs should pick GPs with that same personality archetype since they’re more likely to attract entrepreneurs with similar personalities?

Hell, as they sit two degrees of freedom away from actual innovation, do most LPs actually know what makes a great founder?

Photo by Pablo Heimplatz on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

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

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

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

DGQ 23: What’s the most interesting question you’ve been asked so far?

cactus, different, unique

I use this question quite often as a discovery tool. My job as an early-stage investor is to find crazy, interesting people building interesting things. By the time things look less crazy (at least at face value, without digging), I’m likely too late.

To founders who are fundraising, I often ask this question with respect to VCs. Most VCs default to the usual.

Tell me about your company.

How much revenue do you have? Growth rate?

Tell me about your 2-year plan. Your financial projections.

Tell me about your competitors.

How much are you raising?

Who else is investing?

And I’ve probably missed a plethora of usual suspects when it comes to questions VCs ask founders. But I love people who ask different sets of questions. People who think different, see different, and as such ask different. How are they slicing the cake differently? What might these people be seeing that most others are not? And then, I go back and reflect… is there alpha in that way of thinking.

But first, it’s about the questions. Some examples of such… here, here, here, and here, and also here and here.

So when I ask, “What’s the most interesting question you’ve been asked so far?” to founders, they can help me uncover new VCs I may not have noticed before. Probably investing in ways the industry has not seen before. And probably also investing in companies uncorrelated with most others. At least in the early stages. When I ask it to GPs, I can find LPs whose portfolios may look different from others. Or at the very least, will have arrived at their conclusion differently than their peers.

Photo by Nick Karvounis 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

Starting from Yes versus No

stoplight, green, red, yes, no

Last week, I was chatting with an LP about decision-making processes at institutional LPs, whether a large family office or a pension or an endowment. And I asked her:

“When you come across a new investment opportunity, do you often find yourself starting from a yes and working to find ways to disprove yourself to get to a no? Or do you start from a no, then spend the next few years working your way to get to a yes?”

(To be honest, I could have phrased the question. But alas, you get the gist.)

She gave a light chuckle. Thought for a moment. And said, “In the first conversation I have with a GP, I either get to a quick no or a tentative yes. And in the next few months, I try to find signs of why this investment could be a no. But if I don’t find any strong disproving evidence in that exploration, that’s when we choose to invest.”

Of course, she’s not alone. I haven’t actively gone out to measure the distribution. But out of 20 or so LPs I’ve asked, I’d say anecdotally, it’s about half who start from a yes, and half who start from a no.

There’s no hard and fast rule here. But what I seemed to notice is that it depends heavily on how easily people get to conviction.

Some people are more prone to saying yes. They get easily excited about new opportunities. The feeling of love at first sight. As such, their investment process accounts for that by delaying gratification and impulse purchases. The discipline of their investment process allows to take time to find clues that may either prove or disprove their intuition.

Among thousands, if not tens of thousands of opportunities, for others, it’s easier to say no. Most LPs don’t have a time horizon they have to commit capital before, barring fund of funds, and potentially some large institutions who act as fiduciaries for others’ capital. Unlike a GP whose mandate is potentially stage-specific, to most LPs, a Fund I commitment versus a Fund II or a Fund III is virtually the same to them. If a pre-see-only fund says no at the pre-seed, they lose that window of opportunity because they’re not allowed to invest net new checks at seed or Series A.

For LPs, this takes the possibility of a near-term transactional relationship out. Then as the relationship matures over time, one might stumble across something about a GP that gets them over the activation energy to dig deeper. And eventually, when enough evidence is collected, they’ll pull the trigger. More often than not, it’s not “enough evidence,” but rather enough time to realize the one or two brilliant things about a GP.

Photo by Diane Picchiottino 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.

Proudly powered by WordPress