Tag: questions

Posted on

Interviewers I Really Respect and Why

podcast

I’ve always been fascinated by how to get to the bottom of things. Yes, you can do your homework into the data, but at the end of the day, you have to go back to people and their experience.

Jeff Bezos has this line: “The thing I have noticed is that when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There is something wrong with the way that you are measuring it.”

So, when it comes down to finding the right anecdotes, I’m a big believer that asking the right questions gets you most of the way there. It’s why I started the DGQ series on this blog. Naturally, I spend a lot of time studying others who are better at the craft than I am. After all, I have a long road ahead of me. While this is obviously useful in the context of my podcast, studying the best interviewers has also helped me when:

  • Listening to founder and GP pitches
  • Doing diligence
  • Interviewing potential candidates for a role
  • Making friends
  • Small talk
  • Coffee chats / when asking for advice
  • And of course, when doing research.

So while you may not have a podcast — or maybe you do — I hope you find the below useful in regards to other aspects of your life.

The callback

What is the callback? A callback — a term quite often used in the comedy circuit — is an allusion to something previously brought up in conversation. It’s not only a sign that you’re actively listening, but that you’re actively engaging in the flow of the conversation. For instance, say you hear someone bring up a quote they liked recently. For the purpose of this example, it’s Amos Tversky‘s line. “You waste years by not being able to waste hours.” Then later in the conversation, they say the last hour flew by so quickly. Then a callback could come in the form of, “Better than wasting a year with me.”

Conan O’Brien is world-class at this, if not best-in-class. If you watch his show or his podcast, you’ll see multiple examples. But probably best illustrated in just the number of times he did it in one episode, I’d recommend his episode with Larry David.

Surprise and delight

The first question in a conversation is often the hardest, but also has the greatest impact towards the rest of the conversation. Getting someone to put down their guardrails without pre-established rapport is really, really hard. It’s why podcasters and TV show hosts alike have pre-chats, where they spend time with each guest to warm them up.

It’s for that reason I have a lot of respect for Sean Evans who hosts Hot Ones. The number of times his guests have responded to his questions with “How did you know that?” and “You really did your research” or “I’ve never been asked that before” is a refreshing take in a world where talk show interviews are just a formality for a celebrity’s road show. And not only does the style and how Sean ask questions set the show apart from literally every other interview that celebrities go on, you can see how his first few questions help him build instant rapport with a guest whether or not they knew each other well before.

That said, I’d be hard-pressed to find just one as he’s able to execute well for most episodes of Hot Ones already. If you’re short on time, the only ones I find to be little less helpful, at least to see the mutual banter, are probably the ones where he’s interviewing himself, or a fictional character (i.e. Donald Duck or himself), or the guest and him go through less than 10 chicken wings (aka the full gauntlet).

Underneath the surface

Despite having hosted a number of fireside chats, when I first started Superclusters, I was obsessed with hitting every question I had prepared. An internal expectation that because the podcast is a public asset and is likely to be online till the end of time made me feel I had to cram as much information into each interview as possible. The funny thing is I still didn’t end up covering the lion share of questions.

For each episode, I end up preparing anywhere between 10 and 30 questions. Yes, you read that latter number right. And yes, for a roughly hour-long podcast. Naturally, there’s no way in hell I’d get to the vast majority of questions, but in mind, I had an internal drumbeat that I felt compelled to keep on pace with.

The more I talked with other seasoned podcasters, the more I realize that while others may not prepare as much research as I do before each interview, the best ones let the conversation flow. They ask great follow-up questions. They spend time on the nuance of words, phrases, even micro-reactions and flinches when guests speak or hear something. One of the most useful pieces of advice I got from a friend, Erica Wenger, was to do all the research you humanly can before each recording. Then, ask the first question, and throw the rest out the door. Which I’ve since internalized.

Tim Ferriss is my favorite on this front. And he does this for almost every single one of his episodes. That said, if you’re looking for a starting point, his episode with Eric Ripert was the first one I actually sat down with pen and paper purely to take notes on how Tim follows up with each of Eric’s comments.

By a friend’s recent recommendation, I also stumbled across The Diary of a CEO podcast. I will admit that the first few episodes I came across I found less interesting from a content perspective. But when three episodes later, I tuned into his episode with Marc Randolph, and holy cow, the depth of questions was clearly a cut above the rest, specifically around when Marc had to step down as CEO of Netflix. And you can just see Steven Bartlett asking one great question after the next.

Avoiding the yes

The fallacy with many rookie podcasters, admittedly my own rookie mistake as well, is that the host doesn’t push back on the guest’s answers enough. When an answer just isn’t good enough. Either the one answering dodges the question or kept their answer too broad.

Hasan Minhaj is my go-to person on this front as he’s incredible at pushing back thoughtfully, which is a really hard thing to do. One of my favorite interviews he did by far was the one he did with Kevin O’Leary on FTX, which Kevin personally invested in.

Drills, drills, drills

I can’t say I got this from any one podcaster, but actually something I learned from my time as a competitive swimmer. For every race we competed, we had to practice sets of twice the distance regularly. Even more so, we had to practice with a handicap, focusing on refining the technique for only part of our body. Be it legs only, or arms only, hell we even swam with our goggles black-sharpied out before. To us, these were drills that would help prepare us for the real thing.

As a podcaster, in case you couldn’t tell, I’m still a work-in-progress. Likely will always be. That said, one of the most helpful ways I’ve found to practice the art of asking questions (since I’m not in race mode every day) is I often listen to the above shows, hear the host ask the question. Then wait for the guest to respond. Then right before the host asks another question, I practice what I would say and where I’d interrupt. And only after I’ve said my response aloud, do I press play again and see what the host would say.

To me, those are the drills I run through when I can to prepare myself when I am eventually on camera. Other times, it’s just fun to see how my response or line of questions would differ from some of these other hosts.

In closing

I’ve often given the excuse that I’m a better writer than I’m a speaker. Which may be true. I often sit with myself during the editing process and wince at words I’ve used or using some complex language to explain what could have been a 140-character question. And the truth is, I’ve held myself back. By giving that very excuse. So now I am earnestly trying to improve. To close that gap, that delta between the way I write and the way I talk. At least from a proficiency standpoint. It may take me a while. But I appreciate every one of you being on this journey with me. And if there’s any advice you can share along this path, as some of you are further along, I’m all ears.

I hope the next time I write something like this, I’ll be further along. And maybe… just maybe, find myself circa today to be embarrassing to watch and listen to.

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

Timeless Content for the Weary Investor

city, ads, information

“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed. […] What is the long term effect of too much information? One of the effects is the need to be first, not even to be true anymore. So whatever responsibility you all have… to tell the truth, not just to be first.” — Denzel Washington

Since I’ve first started this blog, I’ve always had a bias towards sharing evergreen content. Lessons that can be applied to any era. Of course, not all my thoughts withstood, nor will withstand the test of time, but the goal was to be intentional with what I was putting out there. The bias was also due to the fact that I didn’t think I was best in class in being first to news updates (although opportunistically I could be).

And while not SEO-optimized, I find peace in delivering content that is hopefully as useful today as it will be tomorrow. In that regard, this blog will forever stay a blog, as opposed to any semblance of the traditional definition of media, which at the end of the day is the acquisition and monetization of attention. The latter of which I don’t plan to do for this blog, ever.

That said, the consumption of information is often just as if not more important than the production of information. In the words of my friend, one’s information diet. And if you’ve been around this blog long enough, you’ll be no stranger to that term. Of which about 50% of my information intake is ephemeral and 50% evergreen. But for the purpose of this blogpost, this one is less about me, but about the information diet of friends and colleagues. Where do many of the VCs and LPs I respect consume their evergreen content?

So I went around and asked the simple question:

Do you have 1-2 examples of evergreen content you love revisiting or stays in your mind rent-free?

In other words, what do you read when you need to get to the bottom of things, not just to stay on top of things?

By nature of being friends with everyone I asked, and to reduce the noise in the below list, I’ve excluded every mention of a specific blog whose first word is a synonym to ‘mug’ and a specific podcast whose name is inspired by astrophysical concepts. I asked about 20 VCs and LPs each. Whose fund sizes ranged from 7-figures to 10-figures. Whose tenures in investing ranged from five years to thirty years. Geographically, all except two I asked reside in North America, but many also invest into geographies external to the star-spangled banner and the home of the maple leaf.

There was no particular reason as to why I sampled as such, other than an availability bias. All of whom I could text or ping pretty quickly and get a response. After all, I incubated the idea for this post earlier this week. Also, by default, all recommendations were kept anonymous.

But without further ado, I’ve compartmentalized the below content into:

  1. What VCs consume
  2. And, what LPs consume

You’ll notice some do overlap, which goes to show how timeless some things are.

What VCs consume

Blogs:

Books:

Papers:

increasing conviction while saving timeDownload

Podcasts:

People to follow:

Manifestos:

Source: Holstee Manifesto

What LPs consume

Blogs:

Books:

  • The Psychology of Money: Timeless Lessons on Wealth, Greed, and Happiness by Morgan Housel
  • The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of the New Future by Sebastian Mallaby
  • The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself by Sean Carroll
  • Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts by Annie Duke
    • The amazing Jamie shared the below bullets as to why Annie Duke’s book is just that good, and Jamie’s words were too good not to include:
      • Embrace Uncertainty: I can make more rational and less emotionally driven decisions
      • Resulting: People judge the quality of a decision based on its outcome rather than on the decision-making process. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN VC!!!! Annie argues that a good decision can lead to a bad outcome and vice versa, so it’s crucial to focus on the process rather than just the results.
      • Probabilistic Thinking: Think in probabilities rather than absolutes. By estimating the likelihood of different outcomes, individuals can make more informed decisions. This approach helps in managing risks and setting realistic expectations.
      • Learning from Feedback: Learning from both wins and losses is crucial, instead of attributing success solely to skill or failure to bad luck, understand what contributed to the outcome
      • Decision Groups: Forming decision groups where members can share insights and challenge each other’s thinking- this can help identify biases and improve the quality of decisions, I would say a key part of what happens at Screendoor 
      • Importance of process: Developing and following a structured approach, individuals can make better decisions even in the face of uncertainty.

Lectures:

Podcasts:

People to follow:

Additionally, one LP shared their more comprehensive list of content they revisit often. One that’s well-worth bookmarking.

I don’t know about you, but I know what I’m doing this weekend.

Big thanks to all the LPs and VCs I reached out to for recommendations, including Jamie Rhode, Eric Bahn, John Rikhtegar, and everyone else who shared their thoughts on short notice before we had a chance to get the compliance’s blessing.

P.S. John had probably the most unique pieces of evergreen content he regularly revisited. While I won’t spoil which, you can probably guess based on which of the above seem like recommendations off the beaten path.

Photo by Anthony Rosset 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

The Strength of Battle-Tested Friendships

These days I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about succession and key person risks. Definitely influenced by a number of conversations I’ve had with a partnership I invested in who broke up and LPs who take the long-term perspective on investing in funds.

When I say long-term, I mean when those LPs invest in a firm, it’s not just a single check into one fund. They plan to budget out $XX million dollars over the next three funds or so. Or across 9-10 years primarily to invest in this fund manager. We’ve talked about how underwriting a solo GP is actually much easier than underwriting a partnership, at least on the key person risk side of things.

If a solo GP dies, they die, and the firm naturally cannot go on. And any capital reserved for them automatically goes towards net new investments. If a partnership loses a key partner, then it’s this awkward dance to figure out if the remaining partners are worth re-upping on. And a re-underwriting needs to occur.

Before I go any further, let me first define key person risk for the uninitiated. Key person risk is the risk created when a single person leaves or dies that creates meaningful knowledge, brand, or performance loss at the institution. Simply put, when shit hits the fan in a partnership, how volatile will the transition be?

As such, my recent conversations informs much of what I write below. For the purpose of this blogpost, I’ll focus on partnerships as opposed to solo GPs and founders.

All great relationships are battle tested. Battle-hardened. In fact, when I ask a set of co-founders how they resolve disagreements, and they say, they never disagree, I run in the opposite direction fast. So fast that I could be cast as Barry Allen. Maybe. If my acting were better. If two people never disagree, they’re either the same person (which is hard, ’cause even biological twins disagree) or they’ve never truly worked on something together that they would call their life’s purpose.

To me, the formula for battle-hardened relationships has two key variables.

  1. Depth – High stakes
  2. Breadth – Time for the stakes to manifest

High stakes

Even if artificially high stakes. Even if in the moment, all parties involved must truly believe that this is the be all, end all. That there is no Plan B. There’s no going back. That everyone has to see it through. In Hollywood, I believe it’s called the inciting incident. A clear market in time that after a set of events that there is no way one can go back to their old life. Whether it’s the state championships for a sport among high school students, or fighting for survival in the middle of nowhere. For artificially high stakes, one must distort the reality, so that at the minimum they must convince themselves of the gravity of the situation.

Why do high stakes matter? Because only then does one put their all into something. And when you truly care, you hold nothing back. High stakes reveals the character you are. If people can accept and embrace you at your worst, everything else is a cherry on top.

Time for the stakes to manifest

This varies for different people. Sometimes it takes time to care. Other times, it takes time to fully realize what’s at stake. And others still, may never get to that point of realization. For example, in a ball game with four quarters, sometimes it isn’t until the score is neck and neck in the fourth quarter do you give it your all.

In practice

So in practice, I love spending time with folks to talk about their past. Their origin story. And get into the weeds on key inflection points not only in their own lives, but also in the time they’ve gotten to know each other. When did they first work together? When did they realize they were more than just colleagues? At what point did they introduce their families to each other? What was the point of realization?

Most investors focus primarily on length of a relationship, which is definitely valuable information, but without depth, it’s easy to know someone for decades and care very little for their growth and success.

Photo by Kimson Doan 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

DGQ 22: If you were hiring someone underneath this person, what skills would they have?

hire

I’ve had Harry’s episode with Peter Lacaillade under my saved episode list on Spotify for a long minute. And Benedikt Langer‘s semi-recent piece on Embracing Emergence finally got me over the activation energy to listen to it. (Sorry, Harry)

But I’m so glad I did. In it, Harry shared a question he likes asking “If we were hiring someone underneath me to support him, what skills would they have?” In many ways, it’s the same as another question Doug Leone shared on his podcast as well. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?

It comes down to simple purpose of trying to ask about someone’s weakness without asking them “what’s your weakness?” Why does it matter? When you’re too forward with your question, say the weakness one, recipients always end up finding ways to explain their “weakness” as a byproduct of their strength, or not really sharing a true weakness. “I’m too honest.” “I work too hard.” And so on.

While the above set of questions may not work for everyone, and probably even less so now that Harry and Doug shared it in a public arena, I can’t help but appreciate the linguistic gymnastics to find the right combination of words that gets one the answer they want. Nevertheless, I’m sure there are many more on this planet who still have yet to be exposed to those questions.

Similarly, I find it to be a damn good question to ask when doing references on potential investments. The truth is every founder or GP one invests in will have weaknesses. And that’s okay. Everyone’s a human. But in reference calls, there are two hurdles that one most overcome in their diligence:

  1. Getting the reference to share an honest assessment of the person they know. This is especially hard when these are on-list references. In other words, references that the person being diligenced is providing themselves. Naturally, this list is full of people who are almost guaranteed to say positive things about said individual. Besides, there is absolutely no incentive to badmouth another person. Neither do most people aim to do so.
  2. How high on the priority list is this person’s weakness? Can I get conviction on this deal even if I were to accept this weakness? Does it matter as much in a Fund I? Fund II? Fund III? If they need to hire someone to fundraise for them, is that a question of ability or network? And how crucial is it not only to the firm’s survival, but also their outperformance? If they need to hire someone to manage their calendar, that may be lower on the priority list of risks for most LPs.

Nevertheless, I find Harry’s question a great one to ask former colleagues, occasionally portfolio or anti-portfolio founders.

Photo by Clem Onojeghuo 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

Emerging Manager Products versus Features

mug, comparison

Inspired by John Felix in our recent episode together, as LPs, we often get pitches where GPs claim they’re an N of 1. That they’re the only team in the venture world who has something. Usually it’s the fact that they have brand-name co-investors. Or they run a community. Or they have an operating background, like John says below. And it isn’t that unlike the world of founders pitching VCs.

The truth is most “unfair advantages” are more commonplace than one might think. Even after one hears 50 GP pitches, one can get a pretty good grasp of the overlap.

For the purpose of this blogpost, the goal is to help the emerging LP who has yet to get to 50-100 pitches. And for the GP who hasn’t seen that many other pitches to know what the rest of the market is like. Obviously, the world of venture shifts all the time. What’s unique today is commonplace tomorrow.

For the sake of this post, and to make sure I’m not using some words too liberally, let’s define a few terms I will use quite often in this blogpost:

  • Product: A fully differentiated edge that an emerging manager/firm has. In other words, a must-have, if the firm is to succeed.
  • Feature: A partially differentiated edge, if at all, an edge. In many cases, this may just be table stakes to be an emerging manager today. In other words, a nice-to-have or expected-to-have.

Networks

ProductFeature
Differentiated community
(high/consistent frequency of engagement)		Alumni network (school or company)
Downstream investors that prioritize your signalsIn-person events
Keeper testVirtual events
Co-investors

Networks, in many ways, are synonymous with your ability to source. It’s the difference in a lot of ways from co-investing versus investing before anyone else (versus investing after everyone else). The latter of which is least desirable for an LP looking for pure-play venture and risk capital.

The quickest check is simply an examination of numbers. LinkedIn or Twitter followers. Newsletter subscribers. Podcast subscribers. Community members. While it’s helpful context, it’s also simply not enough.

Here’s a simple case study. Someone who has 5,000 followers on LinkedIn with hundreds of people engaging with their content in a meaningful way is usually more interesting than beat someone who has 20,000 followers on LinkedIn, who only has 10s of engagements. Even better if one generates a substantial amount of deal flow with their content alone.

One thing that is hard to evaluate without doing an incredible amount of diligence is your founder network referring other founders to you. From one angle, it’s table stakes. From another, true referral flywheels are powerful. In the former, purely having it on your pitch deck without additional depth makes that section of the deck easily skippable.

One of my favorite culture tests is Netflix’s Keeper test. That if a team member were to get laid off or fired, would you fight to keep them or be relieved? The best folks, you would fight to keep. And as such, one of my favorite questions during diligence to ask the breakout / top founders in each GPs’ portfolios is: If, gun to head, you had to fire all your investors from your cap table and only keep three, which three would you keep and why?

Do note I differentiate breakout and top founders. They’re not mutually exclusive, but sometimes you can be brilliant and do everything right and things still might not work out. But smart people will keep at it and start a new company. And maybe it was a smaller exit the first time, but the second or third time, their business may really take off. Of course, sometimes I don’t have the same amount of time to diligence each GP as an LP with a team, so I generally ask the question: If all of your portfolio founders were to drop what they’re currently doing regardless of outcome, and start a new business, who are the top 2-3 people you would back again without hesitation?

At the end of the day, for networks, it’s all about attention. It’s not about who you know, but about how well you know them AND who you know that TRUSTS what you know. In an era, where there is more and more noise and information everywhere, a wealth of information leads to a poverty of attention. But if you have a strong foothold on founders’ and/or investors’ attention in one way or another, you have something special.

Experience/expertise

ProductFeature
Early hire at a unicorn company
+
Grew a key metric by many multiples		Operating background
(marketing, sales, operations, talent, community, etc.)
Hired top operators who’ve gone on to change the worldExperience at a larger firm where you didn’t lead rounds / fight for deals
Independent board member

Experience only matters here where there are clear differentiations that you’ve seen and can recognize excellence. In a broader sense, having an operating background is unfortunately table stakes. As John mentioned, any generalities are.

While strong experiences help you source, its main draw is that it impacts the way you pick and win deals. Only those who have experience recognizing excellence (working with or hiring) know the quality in which A-players operate. Others can only imagine what that may look like. That’s why if you’re going to brag that you’re a Xoogler (or insert any other alumni), LPs are going to care which vintage you were at Google. A 2003 Xoogler is more likely to have that discerning eye than a 2023 Xoogler. The same is true for schools. Being a college dropout from a Harvard and Stanford is different from dropping out of college at a two-year program. Not that there’s anything wrong with the latter, but you must find other ways to stand out if so.

Given a large pool of noise when it comes to titles, it’s for that reason I love questions like: “What did you do in your last role that no one else with that title has done?”

Additionally, when it comes to references, positive AND negative references are always better than neutral references. Even better is that you stay top of mind for your founders regularly. A loose proxy, while not perfect, is roughly 2-3 shoutouts per year in your founders’ monthly updates. It takes a willingness to be helpful and for the founders to recognize that you’ve been helpful.

Process

ProductFeature
Response time/speedSome generic outline of an investment process
Evidence of a prepared mindDoing diligence
Asking questions during diligence most others don’t know how to

Yes, response time (or speed in getting back to a founder, or anyone for that matter) is a superpower. It’s remarkably simple, but incredibly hard to execute at scale. By the time, you get to hundreds of emails per week, near impossible, without a robust process. One of my favs to this day happens to be Blake Robbins’ email workflow who’s now at Benchmark.

Now I’m not saying one should rush into a deal, or skip diligence, but making sure people aren’t ghosted in the process matter immensely. As my buddy Ian Park puts it, it’s better for a founder or an LP to know that a GP is working on it than to not feel heard.

You’ve probably heard of the “prepared mind.” The idea that one proactively looks for solutions for a given problem as a function of their lived experiences, research, and analyses over the years.

Its origin probably goes as far back as Louis Pasteur, but I first heard it popularized in venture by the folks at Accel. Anyone can say they have a prepared mind. From an LP’s perspective, we can’t prove that you do or don’t have it outside of you just saying it in a pitch meeting. That’s why a trail of breadcrumbs matter so much. Most people describe it as a function of their track record or past operating experiences. Unfortunately, there may be a large attribution to hindsight bias or revisionist’s history. Being brutally honest with yourself of what was intentional and what was lucky or accidental is a level of intellectual honesty I’ve seen many LPs really appreciate. As an example, I’d really recommend you hearing what Martin Tobias has to say on that topic.

But the best way to illustrate a prepared mind is easier than one thinks. But it also requires starting today. Content. Yes, you can tweet and post on social media or podcast. But I’d probably rank long-form content at the top.

Public long-form writing (or production in general) is arduous. The first draft is rarely perfect. Usually far from it. With the attentive eye and the cautious mind, you go back to the draft again and again until it makes sense. Sometimes, you may even get third parties to comment and revise. Long-form is like beating and refining iron until it’s ready to be made into a blade. And once it’s out, it is encased in amber. A clear record of preparation.

In closing

Pat Grady had a great line on the Invest Like the Best podcast recently. “If your value prop is unique, you should be a price setter not a price taker, meaning your gross margins should be really good. A compelling value prop is a comment on high operating margins. You shouldn’t need to spend a lot on sales and marketing. So the metrics to highlight would be good new ARR/S&M, LTV:CAC ratios, payback periods, or percent of organic to paid growth.”

In a similar way, as a venture firm, if your value prop is truly unique, you’re a price setter. You can win greater ownership and set valuation/cap prices. If your value prop is compelling, the quality of your sourcing engine should be second to none, not just from being present online, but from the super-connectors in the industry, be it other investors, top-tier founders, or subject-matter experts.

Of course, all of the above examples are only ones that recently came to mind. The purpose of this blog is for creative construction and destruction. So if you have any other examples yourself, do let me know, and I can retroactively add to this post.

Photo by Mel Poole 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

How Long is the VC Asset Class?

bridge, long

Axios’ Dan Primack recently wrote a great update on the shifting tides of institutional LPs allocating to venture. Smaller LPs often need liquidity, given limited capital inflows. And unfortunately, cannot afford to play the long game. Those with access to additional sources of capital, as well as aren’t constrained by mandatory capital outflows, tend to have deeper desires to continue allocating to venture.

Source: Dan Primack, Axios

In conversations with a number of LPs who write $3-10M checks, many have learned first-hand venture’s J-curve. Something these emerging LPs have underestimated in the last few years. As such, a number of foreign LPs are holding back. Moreover, there are looming concerns of currency risk. For instance, US-based LPs who have historically invested in funds domiciled outside of the US, are now accounting for currency depreciation. Ranging from 20-30%. Which means, what normally would have been a 4X net fund based in, say, Japan, is now underwritten as a 3X net. And a 10X would be an 8X.

Early liquidity is nice. But any DPI in the first few years is almost never meaningful and often gets recycled back into the fund to make new investments.

With VC being underwritten to 15-year time horizons, as a GP, you need LPs who can afford that time horizon. Yes, most funds have 10-year fund terms, with the two-year extension. But if the 2008-2012 vintages have taught us anything, it’s that GPs will ask for extensions beyond that. Simply since the best companies stay private longer. Airbnb was private for 12 years. Klaviyo, 11 years. Reddit, 19 years.

Of course, some of these companies are outliers. But the average tech company still stays private for 9-10 years. Assuming venture’s three-year deployment period, the last (hopefully great) investment out of a fund may take till Year 13 to finally achieve a large exit, not including the lock-up period too. That’s not accounting for a growing number of funds pitching four to five-year deployment periods. Excluding emerging market funds, where emerging market companies go public faster.

Moreover, companies need double the revenue they needed back in 2018 to go public. Shoutout to Tomasz Tunguz for the graphic.

Source: Tomasz Tunguz

To make things even more spicy, an interesting trend right now is where we see VC firms moving into PE, and PE moving into VC. At the same time, you have some large institutions who are now investing across multiple asset classes, including public markets. Consequentially, an interesting discussion commences. Should private investors hold public assets?

I was fortunate to be in an LP discussion group recently where we debated that exact question. The general consensus was no. VCs are paid to be private market investors, not public markets. Where their expertise does not lend itself well to watching market movements closely. The only exceptions are crossover funds who build out specific public markets teams. And so when an LP invests, they know exactly what they’re getting themselves into. The expectation is to return the capital back to the LPs right after the lock-up period.

But if the narrative ever changes, prepare for an even longer haul. Good thing, most LPs also agree that evergreen funds don’t make sense for venture either. But that’s a discussion for another day.

Photo by Sven Huls 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 #89 The Palate Setter

cheese

Around the time I wrote a blogpost on culinary tips I had amassed from various chefs, I ended up getting one more piece of advice from a James Beard award winner. The culinary equivalent of a Pulitzer. In fact, one piece of advice that came in right after I clicked publish on that blogpost. Which I subsequently failed to include.

I had asked, “How do you know the palate you come into the kitchen with today is the same as the one that you came in with yesterday? And similarly, what about the one tomorrow?”

To which he responded, “I don’t know.” For a brief second, there was silence. Both of us knowing that the void will be filled, but left there for dramatic effect. “Swiss cheese.”

“Huh?”

“Swiss cheese. Not the fancy stuff, the one you find in the refrigerated section in the supermarket. Every day, when I go into the kitchen, I take a bite of swiss cheese. To me, it has the perfect balance of umami, salt, nuttiness. And the supermarket brand one is always produced with a consistency in their quality. If my bite that day is not as salty, then my palate is muted, and I should salt my dishes that day a little more. And so on.”

And I found that fascinating. Recently, I was reminded of that advice when I was chatting with my friends on preparation rituals. When we start something, to get us in the right mindset, what is the set of practices in which we use to orient ourselves?

Back when I was still swimming competitively, we used to always say the hardest part about swimming is getting in the water. Effectively, starting. The below were some other rituals that came up in that conversation. Part in hopes that it may inspire you to start your own, partly to make sure that I immortalize these practices for myself.

Music

The tuner in many ways is the swiss cheese in music. Something so consistent that it becomes the benchmark for what sound should be. Is your instrument too sharp or too flat?

But from a ritualistic perspective, I’ve seen many play the scales to loosen their fingers, but one of my favorites from my buddy who plays the flute in the orchestra is beatboxing, while playing the happy birthday song. The song choice itself matters less than using one’s entire mouth to enunciate certain beats. And so, by the end of the song, the windpipes and larynx are fully massaged and ready to go.

Podcasts / Streaming

For me, it’s doing 20 burpees while listening to a collection of my favorite podcast clips that I’ve saved from other podcasters, then sitting down and skimming through this list of catchphrases that I’ve since called “The Rookie Guide for Veteran Podcasters.”

For another friend, who’s far more accomplished than I am on this front, it’s doing a series of vocal exercises and facial massages. The former of which expand in both pitch and volume (from a whisper to singing in a voice suited best for operas).

From a third friend, it was religiously taking a 1-hour nap about an hour before the recording session.

Giving live talks

This isn’t from any of us in the room at the time. But Tim Ferriss has also gone on record sharing what he did in preparation for his first SXSW talk when we just launched the Four-Hour Workweek. That he was staying in a friend’s home who had cats. And he kept practicing his talk in front of the cats trying to get their attention. None of which, I assume, knew anything about what he was talking about, yet if he could convey his intent, energy and emotions through to the cat, he’d have a fighting chance getting the audience’s attention at SXSW.

Photo by Camille Brodard 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

The Power Law of Questions

question, mark

Recently I’ve been hearing a lot of power law this, power law that. And you guessed right, that’s VC and LP talk. Definitely not founder vocabulary. Simply, that 20% of inputs lead to 80% of outputs. For instance, 20% of investments yield 80% of the returns.

Along a similar vein… what about questions? What 20% of questions lead to 80% of answers you need to make a decision? Or help you get 80% of the way to conviction in a deal?

‘Cause really, every question after those delivers only marginal and diminishing returns. And too much so, then you end up just wasting the founder’s or GP’s time. As the late Don Valentine once said, “[VC] is all about figuring out which questions are the right questions to ask, and since we don’t have a clue what the right answer is, we’re very interested in the process by which the entrepreneur get to the conclusion that he offers.”

While I can’t speak for everyone, here are the questions that help me get to 80% conviction. For emerging GPs.

I’m going to exclude “What is your fund strategy?” Because you should have either asked this at the beginning or found out before the meeting. This question informs if you should even take the meeting in the first place. Is it a fit for what you’re looking for or not? There, as one would expect, you’d be looking into fund size, vertical, portfolio size, and stage largely. Simple, but necessary. At least to not waste anyone’s time from the get go.

Where are you at as a GP by Fund III? What does Fund I and II look like by Fund III?

Discipline. In the first 4 years of a fund, you’re evaluated on nothing else except for the discipline and the prepared mind that you have going in. All the small and early DPI and TVPI mean close to nothing. And it’s far too early for a GP to fall into their respective quartile. In other words, Fund I is selling that promise. The prepared mind. Fund II is selling Fund I’s strategy and discipline. Fund III, you’re selling the returns on Fund I.

Vision. Is this GP thinking about institutionalizing a firm versus just a fund? How are they thinking about creating processes and repeatability into their model? How do they think about succession and talent? And sometimes I go a few steps further. What does Fund V look like? And what does the steady state of your fund strategy look like?

What value do you bring to your portfolio companies?

This is going to help with reference calls and for you to fact check if an investor actually brings that kind of value to their portfolio companies. So, in effect, the question to portfolio companies would be: How has X investor helped you in your journey?

On the flip side, even during those reference calls, I like asking: Would you take their check if they doubled their ownership? And for me to figure out how high can they take their ownership in a company before the check is no longer worth it. There are some investors who are phenomenal $250K pre-seed/seed checks for 2.5-5% ownership (other times less), but not worth their value for $2-3M checks for the same stages. To me, that’s indicative of where the market thinks GP-market fit is at.

I also love the line of questioning that Eric Bahn once taught me. “How would you rate this GP on a scale of 1 to 10?” Oftentimes, founders will give them a rating of 6, 7, 8, or if you’re lucky 9. And the follow up question then becomes, “What would get this investor to a 10?” And that’s where meaty parts are.

Of course, it’s important to do this exercise a few times, especially with the top performers in their portfolio to truly have a decent benchmark. And the ones that didn’t do so well. After all, our brand is made by our winners. And our reputation is made by those that didn’t.

In the trifecta of sourcing, picking, and winning, this is how GPs win deals.

How do you resolve conflict or disagreement in the partnership?

This is really prescient in a partnership. Same as a co-foundership. If someone says, we never disagree, I’m running fast in the other direction. Everyone disagrees and has conflicts. Even twins and best friends do. If you don’t, you either have been sweeping things under the rug or one (or both or all) of you doesn’t care enough to give a shit. Because if you give a damn, you’re gonna have opinions. And not all humans have the same opinions. If everyone does, realistically, we only need one of you.

Hell, Jaclyn Freeman Hester even goes a step further and asks, How would you fire your partner?

Jaclyn on firing partners and team risk

Personally I think that last question yields interesting results and thought exercises, but lower on my totem pole (or higher if you want to be culturally accurate) of questions I need answers to in the initial meetings.

How are you finding companies? How are you building your pipeline?

This is always a question I get to, but especially valuable, when I ask it to spinouts. Building a repeatable and scalable sourcing pipeline is one of the cruxes of being a great fund manager. But in the age when a lot of LPs are shifting their focus to spinouts from top-tier funds, it’s an important reminder that (a) not all spinouts are created equal, and (b) most often, I find spinouts who rely largely on their existing “brand” and “network” without being able to quantify the pillars of it and how it’s repeatable.

For (a), a GP spinning out is evaluated differently than a partner or a junior investment member. A GP is one who manages the LP relationships, and knows intimately the value of what goes in an LPA, on top of her/his investing prowess. And the further you go down the food chain, the less visibility one gets of the end to end process. In many ways, the associates and analysts spinning out need the most help, but are also most willing to hustle.

Which brings me to (b). Most spinouts rely on the infrastructure and brand of their previous firm, and once they’ve left, they lose that brand within a year’s time. Meaning if they don’t find a way or have an existing way to continue to build deal flow, oftentimes, they’ll be left with the leftovers on the venture table. This question, for me, gives me a sense of whether an investor is a lean-in investor or a lean-back investor. The devil’s in the details.

What are the top 3 reasons I shouldn’t invest?

This is a test to see how much self-awareness a founder/GP has. The most dangerous answer is saying “There are no reasons not to invest.” There are always reasons not to. The question is, are you aware of them? And can you prioritize which risks to de-risk first?

In many ways, I think pitching a Fund I as illustrating the minimum viable assumption you need to get to the minimum viable product. And Fund II is getting to the minimum lovable strategy (by founders and other investors in the ecosystem). And with anything that is minimally viable, there are a bunch of holes in it.

Another way to say the above is also, “If halfway through the fund we realize the fund isn’t working, what is the most likely reason why?”

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 21: What’s going to get you excited to be at this business in 5 years?

watch, time

This one was inspired by Harry Stebbings’ episode with Dan Siroker that I tuned into earlier this week. In it, Dan describes his most memorable VC meeting, which happened to be with Peter Fenton at Benchmark. Where Peter asks Dan, “Dan, what’s gonna get you excited to be at this business in five years?”

In sum, what are your future motivations going to look like? Nine out of ten times, it’s likely not going to be exactly the same as the one today. And given that it will look differently, can you still stay true to the North Star of this business as you do today? What’s gonna change? What’s gonna stay the same?

For the most part, the people and the problem space are likely to stay the same. The product may look quite different though. And it’s highly likely that in five years, you would have found product-market fit. So, that’s Act I. Is it the advent of the next chapter of what your company could look like that gets you excited? Hell it might be. You can then tackle a bigger problem. A larger market. An adjacent market. Or what Bangaly Kaba calls the adjacent users. For some founders, it’s the market they always wanted to tackle, but couldn’t when they realized their beachhead market must be something else.

While I can’t speak for everyone, here are some of the answers I’ve personally come to like over the years. From either founders or fund managers:

  • There is no other industry that offers the same velocity of learning that this one provides.
  • I want my company’s legacy to outlive my own. And I want to empower the next generation of builders with the resources and the power to solve the greatest needs of our generation.
  • I want to go home and tell my my wife/husband/kids that I lived my fullest life today. And this is what gives me endless joy.
  • Act I was solving a problem I faced. Act II is solving a problem others face in our space.
  • Getting on the phone with a customer and hearing how much our product changed their lives makes me really happy.
  • If I’m not regularly putting the firm’s reputation on the line, we’re not trying hard enough. And I live for that challenge.
  • I want to build a world where people don’t settle for “It is what it is.”
  • No one else is solving the problem I want to solve in the way that I believe it should be solved.
  • I want to continue to be a superhero, a role model, for my daughter/son.

In many ways, it’s quite similar to the question I ask first-time GPs or aspiring GPs about their motivation.

Things in venture exist on long time horizons. For founders, it’s at least 7-9 years before an exit. For fund managers, it’s 10-15 years per fund. And that’s just a single fund. Anything more is longer. So in order to compete against the very best, you need to have long time horizons. You must have the resolve to stay the course. As Kevin Kelly says, “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”

Along the same vein, there’s also a Jeff Bezos quote I really like: “If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people… Just by lengthening the time horizon, you can engage in endeavors that you could never otherwise pursue.”

Photo by Luke Chesser 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

The Phantom Testimonial Corollary

thumbs up, scenery, testimonial

I’ve always admired the way Mike Maples has thought about backcasting. In summary, he proposes that true innovators are visitors from the future. Or as he puts it: “Breakthrough builders are visitors from the future, telling us what’s coming.” Such that they “pull the present from the current reality to the future of their design.” In other words, start from the future, then work your way backwards to figure out what you need to do today to get there.

And I find it equally as empowering to do the same exercise as an emerging manager. Hell, for any aspiring institutional investor. Be it from an angel to a GP. Or an individual LP to a fund of funds.

Start from your ideal fund model. Your ideal LP base. Your ideal pitch deck. Then work backwards to figure out what you need to do today. For the purpose of this blogpost, I’ll focus on reference checks.

For everyone in the investing world, especially in the early-stage private markets, we all know that reference checks is a key component of making investment decisions. Yet too often, founders and emerging managers alike think about them retroactively. Post-mortem. Testimonials that are often not indicative of one’s strengths. And especially not indicative of how a GP won that investment, as well as how they can win such investments in the future.

An exercise I often recommend investors do is write your ideal reference you would like to get from a founder. Be as specific as you can. What would your portfolio founders say about you? How have you helped them in a way that no one else can? What do founders who you didn’t fund say about you?

Another way to think about it is if you were to own a word — something that would live rent free in people’s minds — what would you own? Hustle Fund owns “hilariously early.” Spacecadet Ventures owns “the marketing VC” and they live up to it. Cowboy’s Aileen Lee created the idea of “unicorns.” “Software is eating the world” is attributed to Marc Andreessen.

On the flip side of the token, what are testimonials that should never be written about you?

Hell, at this point, if you’re an aspiring institutional investor, and have yet to spell things out, create the whole deck. Fill in the numbers and the facts later, but for now, make up your ideal deck. When leading indicators become lagging, then update it and fill it in.

Then be that kind of investor for every founder you help. As Warren Buffett once said, “You should write your obituary and then try and figure out how to live up to it.”

Photo by Nghia Le 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