Tag: questions

Posted on

Non-obvious Hiring Questions I’ve Fallen in Love with

read, book, child, question

Recently, I’ve been chatting with a number of GPs and LPs looking to make their first hires. Many of whom hadn’t built a team prior. Now I’m no expert, nor would I ever claim to be one. But I’ve been very lucky to hire and work with some stellar talent.

They asked me how I think about interviewing, selecting, as well as onboarding. I’ll save the last of which for a future blogpost, but for the purpose of this one, if you frequent this blog, you’ll know I love good questions. And well, I get really really nerdy about them. So, as I shared my four favorite, nonobvious interview questions as of late with them (some I’ve used more than others), I will also share them with you.

I won’t cover the table stakes. Why are you excited to be here? What skills are you a B+/A- at? And what are you A+++ in? Why you? Etc.

If you had to hire everyone based only on you knowing how good they are at a certain video game, what video game would you pick?

I recently heard Patrick O’Shaughnessy ask that question to a guest on his podcast, and I found it inextricably profound. While the question was directed at Palmer Luckey, who has a past in video games, the words “video game” can easily be replaced by any other activity or topic of choice and be equally as revealing. Be it sports. Or an art form. Or how they grasp a certain topic. Even, putting them in front of a Nobel Prize winner and see how quickly they realize they’re in front of one.

The last example may be stretching it a bit, but has its origin in one of my favorite fun facts about the CRT — the cognitive reflection test. Effectively, a test designed to ask the minimum number of questions in order to determine someone’s intelligence. But in a parodical interpretation of the test, two of the smartest minds in the world, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, decided to make an even shorter version of the test to measure one’s intelligence. The test would be to see that if one were to put you in front of Amos Tversky, one of the most humble human beings out there despite his intelligence, how long it would take you to realize that the person sitting across from you was smarter than you. The shorter it took you, the smarter you were. But I digress (although there’s your fun fact for the day).

The reality is that any activity that requires a great amount of detail, nuance, resilience, frustration and failure probably qualify to be mad-libbed into that question. Nevertheless, it’s quite interesting to see what someone would suggest, and a great way of:

  1. Assessing how deep a candidate can go deep on a particular subject,
  2. How well they can relay that depth of knowledge to a layperson, and
  3. How they build a framework around that.

I hate surprises. Can you tell me something that might go wrong now so that I’m not surprised when it happens?

Simon Sinek has always been one for great soundbites. And the above question is no exception. It’s a great way of asking what is one of your weaknesses. Without asking what is your weakness? Most, if not all hiring managers are probably accustomed to getting a rose-tinted “weakness” that turns out is a strength when asking the weakness question to candidates. It is, after all, in the candidate’s best interest to appear the most suitable for the job description as possible. And the JD doesn’t include anything about having weaknesses. Only strengths… and responsibilities.

At the same time, while the weakness question makes sense, when there is an honest answer, I’ve seen as many hiring managers use the associated answer to discount a candidate’s ability to succeed in the role, before given the chance. While this is still throwing caution to the wind, for one to be open-minded when asking this question, at the very least, you’re more likely to get an honest one. At least until this question becomes extremely popular.

Another version, thought a lot more subtle, is: What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?

I won’t get into the nuances here, but if you’re curious for a deeper dive, would recommend reading this blogpost. The TL;DR is that when we describe others (especially those we know well), we often use adjectives that juxtapose how we see ourselves in relation to them.

What did you do in your last role that no one else in that role has ever done?

This is one of my favorite professors, Janet Brady’s, favorite questions, and ever since I learned of it, it’s been mine as well. Your mileage may vary. Of particular note, I look for talent with entrepreneurial natures to them. Most of what I work on are usually pre-product-market fit in nature. In other times, and not mutually exclusive to the former, requires us to re-examine the status quo. What got us here — as a team, as a company, as an industry, or as a citizen of the world — may not get us there.

And there is bias here in that I enjoy working with people who push the boundaries rather than let the boundaries push them. And I love people who have asked the question “What if?” in the past and has successfully executed against that, even if it meant they had to try, try again.

What haven’t you achieved that you want to achieve?

Steven Rosenblatt has always been world-class at hiring. By far, one of the best minds when it comes to scaling teams. For a deeper dive, and some of his other go-to questions, I highly recommend checking out this blogpost.

When you’re building a world-class team, you need people to self-select themselves in and out of the culture in which you want to build. Whether it’s Pulley’s culture of move fast and ruthlessly prioritize to build a high-performance “sports team or orchestra” or On Deck’s non-values, it’s about making it clear that you’re in not because you’re peeking through rose-tinted glasses, but that you know full well, that you will be confronted by reality, yet you still remain optimistic. To do that, you need:

  1. A tight knit team who hold the same values
  2. And folks with a chip on their shoulder

The latter is the essence of what Steven gets at with the above question. And does one’s selfish motivation align with where the company wants to go and what the role will entail.

Photo by Aaron Burden 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 18: If you lived your life 1000 times, what would be true in 999 of them?

luck, clover, serendipity

I first heard this question from Morgan Housel quoting a Navalism (for the uninitiated, that means has its source tracing back to the one and only Naval Ravikant). And it makes you think, that in the multiverse, where each version of you lives a different life and makes different choices, what would stay constant?

These are things that are not attributed to luck. And as Morgan mentioned, “those are the things you want to focus on in life.” When predicting the future, many try to predict what will change, but the best bets with long time horizons are on those that don’t change. Things that aren’t attributed to luck. Or chance. In this world we live in, you’d be quite surprised the number of small, accidental decisions we make that lead to life-changing events.

Like you being 10 minutes late to a party meant that you somehow just showed up at the same time as your future spouse. And it was because of that, that led you to have a two-hour long conversation with him/her. Otherwise, you’d have spent the entire party hanging with your college friends.

Or because you forgot to bring your umbrella on a day it rained, it made you run into a hotel for shelter, where you stumbled upon the investor who led your Series A round. Because he/she too forgot to bring an umbrella.

Of course, I could play hypotheticals forever. Although I find it’d be a fun exercise to really examine how much of your most life-changing moments were due to serendipity.

As someone who makes their living on attempting to predict the future, that means we have to go back to first principles. For instance, human nature. Reid Hoffman’s framework that all great consumer products tap into one of the seven deadly sins. Something that despite innovation is timeless. Anecdotally, I do find some of the greatest investors — LPs and GPs alike — to be avid students of history, philosophy or psychology.

In the same interview I alluded to above, Tim Ferriss mentions another line once written by Don Knuth when he was quitting the use of email:

“Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things.”

In life, while catchy and interesting and the talk of the town for that brief moment, sometimes it’s better to get to the bottom of things than to stay on top of things. After all, you only have so many letters on your tombstone.

Photo by Yan Ming 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

Timing is Only Obvious in the Rearview Mirror

watch, time, clock

There’s this line I love in Jerry Colonna’s Reboot, and I’m loosely paraphrasing just because I’m travelling and I don’t have the book in front of me, “The saying is buy low, sell high; not buy lowest, sell highest.”

The reason I bring up that line is that I’ve been hearing a lot of investors talk about timing the market. At least that was the case before this wonderful trip I’ve been taking across the Pacific, as I sip my hojicha atop my hotel in the backdrop of the Kyoto evening metropolis. When’s a good time to sell? What price makes sense on the secondary market? Should I be investing now? When’s a good time to re-up? Is it a good idea to re-up? Should I be generating DPI for my investors now? Or should I hold? When should I start my fund? When should I begin fundraising?

Now, I don’t pose the above questions as if I have all the answers. In fact, I don’t. I try to. But I don’t. Although I’ve heard 50-60% is the discount secondary buyers have been able to get for great companies that became overvalued in the pandemic days. On the flip side, while Dave and I did published a blogpost not too long ago on early DPI, the truth is there are different ways to make money. Ed Zimmerman shared some of his investments’ data recently to illustrate that exact point.

Another obvious truth is that as investors for an alternative asset class — hell for any asset class, our job is to make our LPs money. Ideally, more money than we were given. For other asset classes, it’s measured in percentages. For venture, it’s multiples. And because of that raison d’être, it’s our job to think not only about the upside, but also the downside protection. Hence, why early DPI matters in some of your best outliers. It always matters.

But from what I’m seeing and hearing, it matters more in a bear market, like today. Than the bull we were in yesterday. Why?

  1. Liquidity is a differentiator.
  2. Because of the point 1, giving LPs some liquidity back makes it easier to get to conviction as you raise your next fund.
  3. Point 2 holds the most weight if you’re an emerging manager on Funds I through III, or have sub $100M AUM. Although Funds I and II, you have little to go off of. As such, sticking to your strategy may be more important to some LPs. In other words, consistency.
  4. Also seems to matter more if your LPs are investing off balance sheet. For instance, corporates.

While I was in Tokyo earlier this trip, I caught up with a colleague. We spent the evening chatting about fund managers and current deployment schedules. (In case you’re wondering, no, we didn’t spend the whole time talking the biz.) And we see a lot of folks slowing down their pace of deployment. Could be the case of deal flow contraction, as Chris Neumann recently wrote about. Could be the case of loss of conviction behind initial fund strategy. We’ve also seen examples of VCs stretching their deployment schedule as their fundraises have been extended to 2024. All in all, that means VCs’ bar for “quality” has gone up.

But let me explain in a bit why I put “quality” in quotation marks.

So, timing comes down to two things:

  1. Entry point
  2. Exit point

I’ve seen a plurality of investors consider exit options as a means to *crossing fingers* convince existing LPs to re-up to the next fund. Debatable on how effective it is. As many LPs I’ve chatted with are “graduating” a lot more of their GPs than years prior. In other words, fancy shmancy word for they’re not re-upping on certain existing managers. Some LPs say it’s an AUM problem (but I’ve also seen them make exceptions). Others say it’s strategy drift. But more so say that certain GPs haven’t been a good fiduciary of capital, which ends being a combination of:

  • High entry points
  • Faster than promised deployment schedules (i.e. 1-1.5 years instead of 2-4 years)
  • Investing in a company where the preference stack is greater than the valuation of the company (similar to the first bullet point)
  • Reactive communication of strategy drift, instead of preemptive and proactive
  • Logo shopping which led to strategy drift

All that to say, there are a good amount of LPs who, though appreciate the extra liquidity from partial exits, are not re-investing in existing managers. In addition, they’re holding off until on new ones till earliest Q1 next year to build the relationship earlier. Especially those $5M+ checks.

So, quality, for both GPs and LPs, is this new sugar coating of a term to account for time it takes to figure out where they want to put the next dollar. Investors on both sides are waiting to pull the trigger at 90% conviction, instead of the usual 70%. And realistically, for pre-product market fit companies and firms (i.e. pre-seed, seed startups and Funds I-III), 90% usually never comes until it’s too late. Meaning one misses their entry point.

I have no doubt (as well as many if not all my peers) that the greatest companies of the next generation are being built today. But only a small handful will make it out the gauntlet of fire. Even good companies won’t make it, unfortunately.

So, for the one building, the importance of communicating focus and discipline will be more powerful than ever. My buddy Martin also recently tweeted by an unrelenting focus on a niche audience may serve more useful than targeting a seemingly large TAM.

For the one investing, there is no good time. Our job is to buy low, sell high. Not buy lowest, sell highest. Waiting for the right moment will only have you miss the moment. In the surfing analogy, where the market is the wave, the product is the board, the team is the surfer, and you need all three to be a great surfer, you don’t want to be on the shore when the wave hits. It is better to be paddling in the water before the wave hits than on the shore when the wave does hit. Timing is only obvious in hindsight, never in foresight.

There’s also a great Chinese proverb that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the next best time is today.

So in this flight to quality, consider what quality actually means. Is it a function of you doubting your original thesis? Then re-examine what caused the doubt. Was your thesis founded on first principles? For consumer, which is where I know a little bit more about, is it founded on the basis and habits of the human condition? Is it secular from technological and hype trends?

Is quality waiting on numbers or external validation? That’s fine if you’re a growth or late stage investor. You’re never going to get it if you’re a true pre-seed and seed. If you’re waiting on a large amount of traction, you’re not an early-stage investor. Round-semantics aside.

You built a fund around a 10-15 year vision. Deploy against that. Or… although we don’t see this much these days, return any remaining capital back to your LPs.

Photo by Alex Perez 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

To Define or To Be Defined By

dictionary, definition, defined

One of my recent favorite soundbites is Rich Paul‘s. For the uninitiated, he’s the agent behind LeBron James and Draymond Green. And in his recent Tim Ferriss episode, he said: “Some people define the business card and some people are defined by their business card, and so I don’t carry a business card.”

Some of the most exciting conversations I’ve been having as of late have been in the world of family offices. There’s this shift in generational wealth transfer, but often times without sufficient knowledge transfer. At the same time, there are many next gens leaning more into risk and philanthropy. Many want to increase their exposure to venture and private equity as an asset class, but are still learning how to underwrite such risk.

My conversations echo a lot of what Citi’s been seeing as well. Two in five family offices wanted to increase their exposure to illiquid asset classes, namely the PE and VC asset classes. And while many bucket VC and PE in the same asset class, the truth is the assets operate very differently. Even within venture, underwriting the risk and performance of a sub-$40M fund versus a $40-100M fund versus a $100-500M fund versus a $500M+ VC fund are completely different. Some LPs may disagree on the exact benchmarks (for instance, sub-$100M funds and everything else), but the reality of assessing an emerging manager and an established manager are different. But I digress.

The rest are either rebalancing or figuring out their re-up strategy. Yet, as I’m sure GPs are seeing today, that shift in strategy, requires time, research, and confidence before family offices can pull the trigger. Many are waiting to Q1 next year, but engaging in conversation today.

I’ve also written before about one of my favorite lines from Engineering Capital’s Ashmeet Sidana, “A company’s success makes a VC’s reputation; a VC’s success does not make a company’s reputation. In other words to take a concrete example, Google is a great company. Google is not a great company because Sequoia invested in them. Sequoia is a great venture firm because they invested in Google.”

And I’m seeing a similar vein with family offices. The next gen don’t want to be defined by their predecessor’s goals and records. They want to define their own legacy.

There’s also the saying: If you know one family office, you only know one family office. So any broad-stroke generalizations are loosely correlated at best. That said, anecdotally, having talked with about a hundred or so family offices, here’s what I’ve come to notice.

My crudely drawn 1D scale of whether venture capital is an asset class or an access class

Smaller and/or emerging LPs see VC as an access class. Larger and more sophisticated and established LPs see VC as an asset class.

The Mendoza line — the line that separates the emerging LPs from the established ones —seems to be around 20-30 managers or over 6-7 years of venture data. For the latter, that means, you’ve seen Fund I’s and II’s graduate to Fund III’s and IV’s.

So the question for many of the next generation leading family offices has flipped from: Are you defined by your surname? To: Do you define your surname?

For those that pursue the latter, they’re a lot more proactive than previous generations. They participate in communities. Go to events. Seek education on the matter. Network with their existing managers to discover new ones. Some have also built covenants to co-invest in their manager’s breakout winners. Quite a few are building emerging manager programs or would like to. They’re hungry. Hungry to learn.

The problem I’m seeing with many managers is that they’re seeking transactional relationships. The urgency to get to their first or final close leads them to optimize for LPs who can close fast. And I get it, that’s been the game historically. But it’s leaving a massive opportunity in the market for those who have the time and are willing to educate their and prospective LPs. Who are willing to spend time building a relationship through giving first.

Photo by Edurne Tx 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

Are Conferences Worth It If You’re Fundraising?

audience, conference, event

Warning: This blogpost may be controversial.

Simple answer, no.

Longer answer, it depends.

So, what do I mean?

All cards on the table, I love conferences. It’s a great exchange of ideas. And every once in a while, you meet some really cool people. In fact, I’ve met quite a few of my now-great friends via large events. And hell, I love swag! Like, frickin’ love them! Arguably too much so.

I also love events, and have deep respect for not only the magnitude, the effort, but also the creativity that goes into making great events great. And if you’re a regular fan of this humble piece of internet real estate, you’ve seen me write about it. If not, would recommend searching up “social experiment”, “community”, or “events” in the righthand side bar. But I digress.

So, all of this transpired, when a founder asked me publicly in a Slack community, “Is TechCrunch Disrupt worth going to, to meet investors?”

I love TC, and all it stands for! But if you’re looking to raise and meet VCs who’ll be interested in listening to you pitch, your bang for buck is better elsewhere. Not saying it’s not possible, but if you’re not on stage, it’s just a lot of wasted effort. Why?

  1. VCs who are there are not looking there for deal flow, at least the good ones who have great pipelines.
  2. ‘Cause most people who are there are looking for investors as well. You’re not getting as much facetime with the right people as you would like. The ones you wanna get in front of are always the most popular ones.

On the flip side…

Why I think TC (or similar) is worth attending?

  1. Conversion. Conferences should not be top of funnel for you. ‘Cause if it is, you’re one step too late. Maybe two steps. Use it as a conversion tool. Set up Zooms with investors prior. Then use IRL time to convert them into fans or reinforce why you’re awesome. I mean, have you ever been to a networking event where strangers intro themselves to you and you forget their name within 5 seconds? The same is true for most investors unless you have a story that’ll make you go viral. If that’s the case, then you really don’t need conferences anyway. (Unless you’re on stage.)
  2. Hosting your own event/happy hour/fireside chat. Better to be a host of even a small intimate 6-8 person dinner than to be a participant. Participants are for the most part, forgettable. As a host, you’ll be able to live rent-free in someone’s mind for at least a few weeks.
  3. Or purely for fun. Then yes, go have fun. Everything else is a cherry on top. Did I mention conference swag is usually really awesome?

In closing

Do I personally go to conferences?

No. Usually. This doesn’t have any bearing to a conference’s quality. In fact, I think events like Saastr’s, Upfront’s, All-In, just to name a few are very well-organized.

  1. I’m just too busy.
  2. I enjoy intimate conversations more. I’m an introvert, what can I say.
  3. I like letting my creativity run wild by hosting my own.

So if you’re a founder fundraising, hopefully the above might be some helpful context when you are next at a crossroads in relation to event attendance. And yes, I find the above to be true if you’re an emerging manager fundraising as well.

Photo by Headway 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

To Court or Not to Court (Big LPs)

volkswagon, mini, big, van

I’ve had multiple conversations with emerging managers currently fundraising over the past few weeks, and the common theme, outside of the usual no’s, seems to be that larger LPs are saying, “If you were raising a larger fund, we would invest.”

And so there’s this catch 22 in the market right now. In one Fund I GP’s words, “either raise a larger fund and be told by the large checks that they don’t do Fund I’s. Or do a smaller fund, and be told by the high quality LPs that they’re too small.”

As a note, for the uninitiated, most large, seasoned LPs usually don’t want their check to be more than 10% of the fund. Why? Too much exposure in a single asset. And the need to diversify. Every year, there are really 20 great companies that are made. Or on the higher end, as Allocate’s Samir Kaji recently wrote, “30-50 companies drive the majority of returns.” Your goal as an LP, is to get as much exposure to those as possible. And they rarely all come out of just 1-2 funds.

If LPs are open to taking up more than 10% of the fund, they usually come with rather aggressive terms. For instance, investing into the GP stake, as opposed the to the LP. That’s a conversation for another day though.

As such, I’ve seen many a manager play both angles. They call it the “toggle.” If we raise a target of $10M fund, we’ll only do pre-seed. We’ll also have no reserves. If we raise a $25M fund, we’ll have 20% reserves and more seed checks. But if we’re able to close a $50M fund, we’ll have 33% reserves and do 50% pre-seed and 50% seed. The deltas between some fund managers’ targets and caps have grown as wide as the Grand Canyon. I was chatting with a Fund I GP yesterday who had a $10M target with $40M cap. Still relatively reasonable. Another GP raising their Fund I two weeks ago told me he had a $15M target and $70M cap. Far less reasonable. In fact, I might even say, a $15M fund and a $70M fund are two completely different strategies.

So begs the question, as a Fund I or II GP, is it worth raising a larger fund to possibly close large LPs or staying disciplined in your pre-product-market fit fund?

Spoiler alert… I don’t have the silver bullet. So if you’re looking for one, this blogpost isn’t worth your time.

But if you’re not, here’s how I’ve been thinking about it.

The short answer is really, whoever’s willing to give you money. Not the most sophisticated answer, but if you know large LPs well and they’re willing to invest in you, go bigger. Otherwise, you need to consider a more grassroots approach.

If you have a strong, portable, relevant track record that’s either returned good distributions already OR that has persisted for at least 6-7 years, larger LPs may be more open to investing in you. If not, you may need to play the numbers game with smaller LPs, that are liquidity-constrained as of now. And for that, you either take smaller checks, or prove you are the best option for their $250K LP check, that it somehow outcompetes the S&P, 3-year treasury bonds (because of interest rates), real estate and so on.

Also, remember that LPs are always nice in meeting #1. I’ve heard of very few instances where they’re not. A lot are just in exploratory mode. No pressure to commit. You will also need a great barometer of what nice looks like and what kindness looks like. Otherwise, you will waste a lot of time.

What does that mean? It is easier for a large LP to tell you “I will invest if your fund was bigger” than to tell you “No.” It’s the equivalent of VCs telling founders, “You’re too early for me.” And the same as recruiters and hiring managers telling job candidates “We have a highly competitive pool, and while we loved meeting you and you’re great…” There might be some truth to it, but a lot of smokes and mirrors, and a fear to offend people. I get it. We’re all people.

Just don’t lie to yourself.

Taking the hard road, which will be true for the vast majority of managers raising now, is to keep the fund size small and disciplined. Aim for a minimum viable fund. And deploy.

The minimum viable fund

Simply put, what is the minimum you need to execute your strategy? To set yourself up to raise a larger fund 1-2 funds from now?

What assumptions are you trying to prove?

What does your ideal Fund III look like? And What does fund-market fit look like to you? Be as detailed as you can. It could be that you’re getting four high quality deals per quarter. And that you have $30-40M to deploy per senior partner. That you’re leading rounds for target post-money valuations between $10-20M. That you have early DPI from Fund I by then. And so on.

Then work backwards. If that’s what Fund III looks like, what does Fund II look like? What does Fund I look like? As you’re backcasting, to borrow a Mike Maples Jr. term, each fund when you work backwards in time is focused on testing 1-2 key assumptions that you and LPs need to get conviction on. Assumptions that require data.

I’ll give an example of one kind of assumption. Your ability to win allocation.

If Fund III is where you lead pre-seed and seed rounds and have strong ownership targets, then Fund II is where you have to test if founders and other downstream investors will let you take pro rata for more than one round. And, if you can win or negotiate for that pro rata. It all comes down to, will a founder pick you over another awesome, possibly brand-name VC? And if so, why?

Some LPs prefer co-investment opportunities. And while it is helpful for them to go direct, part of the reason for it, is even if your fund can’t execute on the pro rata, just the ability to negotiate that is powerful for the day you need to lead. And if that’s Fund II, Fund I may be, can you win allocation in hot rounds and/or can you discover non-obvious companies before they become obvious?

Let’s say your Fund I is focused on the latter. You’re probably investing on $5-10M post-money valuations, and you’re going to try to maintain 5% ownership till the A-round. That’s $250-500K checks. $250K would be your base check, trying to get at least 30 shots on goal. That’s a $9-10M minimum viable fund, hoping for more than a 2% outlier rate in the generalist market, or north of a 10% outlier rate in bio, hard sciences, healthcare, or deep tech space.

Any less than 30 companies, you’re going for the hyper-concentrated portfolio and it’s a lot more about ownership and the greater the pressure, you need to pick well. But the goal is to get to a 3x net minimum for your fund by the time you get to a Fund III.

I heard from LPs with more miles on their odometer that once upon a time, it was normal for GPs to give undeployed capital back to their LPs. Circa 2002-2005 vintage funds. Where GPs don’t execute on 50% of their capital calls. But we don’t live in that era anymore. For better or worse.

Some LPs don’t even want their capital back early because then they need to pay taxes AND find another asset that compounds at the same or better rate your fund currently is. Say 25% IRR or CAGR. That’s hard. Because minus the inflated marks of the last 5 years, 25% is a hard benchmark to hit for the vast majority of funds.

So sometimes to be the best fiduciary, that means raising a small fund today (easier to return too) to set you best up for tomorrow.

The questions to ask

If you are in the midst of conversation and trying to court a large LP, do ask the following:

  1. Have you invested in an emerging manager in the last two years? — If not, you’re unlikely to be their first. If you’re not seeing demonstrable progress from intro to partnership meeting to diligence within three meetings, move on. If they did so, 20 years ago, doesn’t count. That means investing in emerging managers is not top of mind for them.
  2. What is your minimum check size? And how often, if ever do you deviate from it? If so, why was the last time you did so? — Multiply this number by 10. If it’s greater than your fund size, you might find more success elsewhere.
  3. What is the typical process look like? — Find out what their process is and see if you’re progressing forward. If not, very clear they may not be interested.
  4. (If the person you are talking to does seem to really like you) What are the questions you’re being asking in your investment committee? — Figure out the bottlenecks as soon as you can. And determine if that’s something you can solve for in the near future or not. If it’s track record, you realistically can’t.
  5. What is the thing you hated most in the last few years? — Understand their red flags early on in the process. And cross your fingers, it’s not something that’s relevant to you or your fund. If it is, move on.

Of course, the above, while useful pre-qualifying questions, are mentioned in broad strokes. Your mileage may vary. Have there been examples of large LPs betting on small funds? Yes. But far and few in between. But don’t expect you will change many minds.

In closing

Fundraising is all about momentum and time you’re in market. You can theoretically spend six months trying to close one large LP, but your time might be better spent closing smaller checks in the beginning from people who believe in you and strong referenceable names. And if you so choose, come back to the large LP in the second half of your fundraise.

Photo by Alexei Maridashvili 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 Cure to the Loneliness Epidemic

lonely, alone

This past weekend, in my endless doom-scrolling, I stumbled across one of Olivia Moore’s amazing threads.

The most provocative part was when she posed the question: If you need an app to make friends, is that a negative signal?

The solution, in her words, “the long term winner here is likely to be… interest-graph social networks.” Furthermore, “platforms that give people an ‘excuse’ to gather, either IRL or digitally” are immensely powerful. Where friendship is a byproduct of usage but not the main or sole purpose of being on these platforms.

I agree that dual-purposed social networks and platforms are a wonderful solution, but, and I may be biased, I don’t think it’s the only solution.

As a former power user of networking or friend apps like Shapr and Lunchclub (yes, I used an app to make friends), I’ve made some great friends via both of those platforms. But at the same time, I was an early user for both. Both had yet to be widely adopted at the time.

For Lunchclub, I was using it at a time when everything was in-person, and you only had the option to meet people on Fridays at 2PM or 5PM at either Sightglass Coffee on 7th Street or Caffe Centro in South Park in SF. The latter unfortunately closed recently. And that was it. There were no other options. I had often joked with friends that as you were meeting your friend match that week at Sightglass, you would be sitting next to the person you would match with next week AND the person sitting five feet over would be who you matched with last week. It was a tight community, even if it was an unintentionally designed community. A group of hackers, early adopters, investors, and people just doing cool things.

Then, as Lunchclub pursued scale, quality declined. And as Olivia shares in her thread above, bad actors ruined the experience altogether. The same was true for Shapr. For Clubhouse. Just to name a few.

But dating apps nailed it. They’ve reached widespread adoption. Olivia postulates it’s because they offer data points and filters that you can’t find anywhere else. For instance, who’s single. She’s right. But there’s another reason. These apps promote interest in others. Or amplifying inherent motivation to be on said apps.

Let me elaborate.

Be interesting and interested

I’ve written about the above line before. Here. And here. And likely a few other places that’s escaping my memory at the time of writing this piece.

The thing is most platforms promote being interesting. The heavy profile customizations. The ability to share your own thoughts. Platforms that incentivize you to go from a consumer to a creator. A lot of it is about me. Look at me. Look at how cool I am. How cool my life is. The strive for perfection.

How can I ever be like the person I’m following? My life is nowhere near as awesome as her/his is. Most social platforms prop users up as a point of comparison.

All that to say, there are a lot of apps that help you be interesting, but not enough that help you be interested. The latter takes work. There’s a line that Mark Suster recently shared on a podcast, and I love it! Citing the late Zig Ziglar (which by the way, is an awesome name), Mark shared, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

I want to underscore that line one more time.

“People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

It’s why I love my buddy Rishi’s recent piece on how to build and maintain meaningful relationships.

Source: Rishi Taparia’s Building Relationships Through Research

In Rishi’s essay, he shares that there are three levels to doing your homework — each deeper than the last — and show that you care:

  1. Level 1 – The Basics: LinkedIn, Common Connections, Google, and Company Website
  2. Level 2 – Digging in: Social Media
  3. Level 3 – Going Deep: Podcasts, Writing, YouTube et. al

The purpose isn’t to be all-encompassing, but to show that you care for the human sitting across from you. It’s the intention that matters.

The late David Rockefeller built prolific Rolodexes to show that he cared. In fact, it’s cited that his handwritten notes on others stood five feet tall and accounted for 100,000 people. Alan Fleischmann once wrote in reference to David Rockefeller that, “If you were so fortunate to be a fly on the wall for any of his countless meetings and interactions, you would hear him inquire about the smallest details of his guest’s life, from a child’s ballet recital to a parent’s recent health concern. Rockefeller’s interactions were said to be ‘transformational, never transactional.'”

And it’s also the small things that matter.

In closing

The reason why I think Lunchclub was so popular in the beginning is in two parts:

  1. The platform reduced the friction — the back-and-forths — of scheduling. They gave you two times, and you either made it or you didn’t.
  2. The platform’s early users were innately curious individuals. When I was invited on the platform, my friend pitched it as, “I’ve learned so much from the people I met.” And my friend was and is already one of the foremost subject-matter experts in her field. The same was true when I began using the platform. People spent more time asking questions than talking about themselves. In fact, in many conversations, it’d be a battle of who can delay talking about themselves more than the other.

People were simply interested. There was no agenda. And no agenda was the best agenda. No one was trying to peddle anything to you. No one was trying to ask you for money or intros. People were the ends in and of themselves, and not a means to an end.

All in all, while there are incredible platforms that help you build friendships through interest and hobby alignment, I do believe there is room for a friend app for the curious. Or at least to help you be a really good friend.

So if you’re building something there, ring me up. That said, no matter how great technology is, with AI and all, every great relationship still needs that human touch. AI and platforms and apps might be able to get you 90% of the way there. But if you don’t complete that last 10% trek, 90% is still incomplete. For those of you reading who are American football fans, running the ball 90 yards from one endzone is still an incomplete. It’s still not a touchdown. You need to run the full 100.

If there’s anything to take away from this blogpost, it’s to be both interesting AND interested. Emphasis on the latter.

And in case you’re curious as to how I approach caring, these might be helpful starting points:

Photo by Lukas Rychvalsky 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 #81 Against All Odds

sunrise, sunset

A few days ago, I caught up with an old friend from college. Amidst our conversation on how I was spending my time, he asked me, “Wouldn’t your time be more valuable helping the winners in your portfolio than the others?”

And I told him, albeit a bit more defensively than I would have liked, “Our brand is determined by our winners. Our reputation is earned by helping everyone else.” One of my better ad hoc lines, if I say so myself.

But more so, and I might be naïve in saying so, I may not get the most number of hours for sleep a night, but I will say, when I hit the bunk, I have the best sleep out of anyone you might know. And I do so because I know I’ve meaningfully touched someone else’s life. And by extension of them, indirectly, a few others.

Just because most startups fail doesn’t make each of their endeavors any less important.

Malia Obama once asked her dad, our former president what’s the point in working on climate change if the difference is so miniscule. That the world is burning. And what can one person do?

To which, Obama said, “We may not be able to cap temperature rise to two degrees Centigrade. But here’s the thing. If we work really hard, we may be able to cap it at two and a half, instead of three. Or three instead of three and a half. That extra Centigrade… that might mean the difference between whether Bangladesh is underwater. It might make the difference as to whether 100 million people have to migrate or only a few.”

In the world of startups, which isn’t exclusive to our world by any means, there’s a saying that people love quoting. Aim for the stars; land on the moon. And regardless if you hit the stars or not, aiming for it gets you the escape velocity to be extraterrestrial. In other words, it’s not always about whether you hit your goals or not, but rather… it’s the pursuit of lofty goals that gets you further than if you didn’t try in the first place.

I’m reminded of a great line by Dr. Rick Rigsby quoting his dad. “Boys, I won’t have a problem if you aim high and miss, but I’m gonna have a real issue if you aim low and hit.”

So, in this week’s short dose of optimism, don’t aim low and hit. Stay awesome!

Photo by Mohamed Nohassi 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

Venture Capital Is Not Made For Trillion-Dollar Businesses

fish, school, multiple, sea, ocean

Let me elaborate.

VCs win upon liquidity event. And that happens either via M&A or via going public. After that, the shares are transferred to the hands of the LPs and they choose how they’d like to liquidate or keep. To date, we have neither seen a trillion dollar acquisition nor a trillion dollar IPO. I’m not saying it’ll never happen. I’m sure it will, at some point. A combination of inflation and companies finding more liquidity when private markets are bullish.

As Charles Hudson suggests in his one of his latest posts, the venture world has been changing. What was once a cottage industry gave way to multi billion dollar funds. While there are still many small sub-$100M funds, LPs have started evaluating venture capital not as just one big industry, but segmenting it by size of fund. Small funds, sub-$100M. Medium-sized funds, $100-500M. And big funds, funds north of $500M assets under management (AUM for short). And as the Mike Maples dictum goes, your fund size is your strategy.

Returning a billion-dollar fund requires different kinds of investments and math for it to work compared to returning a $50M fund. And one day, as large funds continue to expand into multiple stages, check size, but also eventually into public markets, we might see them start to bet on trillion-dollar outcomes. Because to return a 11- or 12-figure fund, you need to do just that. But given the market we’re in now, I imagine that won’t be in the near future.

The 10,000-foot view

So the thing you have to gain conviction around, as a macroeconomist, is not how big a venture fund should be. Nor the debate on how many VC funds is too many. The number nor the size truly matter in the grand scheme of things.

For an illiquid asset class like venture, where you’re betting on the size of the home runs, not one’s batting average, what you have to gain conviction around is:

  1. How many truly great companies are there every year
  2. How much capital is needed to get these companies to billion dollar outcomes

For the latter, there are two main ways to get to billion dollar exits: going public or getting acquired. And while there are outliers, the best way is for these businesses to get to $100M of recurring revenue.

And everything else is downstream of that.

As an LP once told me, “In the 1990s, it took $7 million to get to first revenue. In the 2000s and into the early 2010s, it took $700K. Now it takes $70K.” With each era and each wave of technological development, founders become more capital efficient. There are less barriers to get to market. Now with AI, it might just be $7K to get to first revenue, if not sooner.

The question is how much capital is needed to get to $1M ARR. If we take a decent burn multiple of 1.5x, then we underwrite an assumption that it’ll take $1.5M to get to $1M ARR. And possibly $4.5M to get to $3M ARR. And somewhere in there, that founder will find product-market fit and turn on the growth engine. CAC (customer acquisition cost) falls. And lifetime value increases. Payback periods shorten. And if all goes well, founders may find themselves with a sub-one burn multiple. And after they hit $1M ARR, and they triple the first two years, double the next three, they’re at $100M ARR. Of course, I’m illustrating the above all in broad strokes. The best case scenario. But most things don’t go according to plan.

Then an investor has to figure out if one should only make net new investments or re-capitalize a select few of their existing investments.

Then as LPs, what is the minimum ownership percentages that can return funds at each differentiated stage and fund sizes? And due for possibly another blogpost altogether, how does a 7-8x multiple on forward-looking ARR impact round sizes and valuations across bull and bear markets?

All this admittedly is both art and science. But I will admit that larger fund sizes and playing the AUM game may not be the answer.

In closing

My friend recently sent me this letter that Sam Hinkie wrote when he retired as GM of the 76ers. In it, he quoted the great Sage of Omaha when he closed down Buffett Partnership. “I am not attuned to this environment, and I don’t want to spoil a decent record by trying to play a game I don’t understand just so I can go out a hero.” And it’s for that same reason, Sam stepped down. The same reason Jerry Seinfield turned down $110 million to do another season of Seinfeld. Even though the sequel business does quite well.

There is no shame in knowing when to hang up the cleats. And there is great power in being disciplined. In fact, it’s one of the most sought-after traits in fund managers. If not, the most sought-after.

In VC, it comes in all sizes, ranging from:

  • Fund size discipline. There a lot of GPs out there who have gone on to raise 9- to 10-figure early stage funds. A mathematical equation that becomes increasingly harder to prove true, given outputs need to reflect inputs. In other words, larger funds are harder to return. There are a lot of VCs who would rather play the AUM (assets under management) game than stay disciplined on returns. Not just paper returns, but real cold hard cash. In the words of my friend Chris Douvos, “moolah in da coolah.” To quote another line from Chris, “OPM (other people’s money) is like opium. It’s addicting.” Something one too many investors have gotten addicted to.
  • Thesis discipline. As a friend who’s been a VC across multiple economic cycles once told me, it’s much better to turn down an off-thesis hot deal led by a top tier firm than to take it.
  • Career discipline. To echo the words of Sam Hinkie above.

And of course, knowing that we underwrite billion dollar outcomes, rather than trillion dollar ones. Then again, that’s just a subset of fund size and portfolio construction.

Photo by NEOM 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 Anatomy of the Future

pinky promise, trust, future

There was a fascinating episode on the Tim Ferriss Show recently, where we get the inside baseball on how David Maisel, founder of Marvel Studios, raised half a billion on a promise for a company who’s public market cap at the time was only a fifth of a billion. Naturally, not only was he against a lot of headwind externally, but internally as well. According to the board at the time, they would only greenlight the idea of producing their own films (as opposed to licensing their IP out) if “Marvel had no risk. Not little risk, but no risk.”

On the cusp of Captain America and Thor being licensed away, David asked the board to give him six months. The “zero risk” pitch then came in the form of external funding, huge financial upside (if things worked out), market timing, and a promise.

Financial upside for Marvel

As David puts it:

“First to my board, the argument, was if we own our own studio, it means we get the full financial upside that they understood very well.” As opposed to licensing, their traditional business model. Where Marvel only got five cents on every dollar of profit. As was the case with SONY and Spiderman.

“Number two, we decide on greenlight when the movies get made that they also understood because they only sold toys really at the time, and the toys were contingent on a movie, which they then control the timing. Now when you’re doing a public company and you’re giving guidance every year, how can you give guidance if you don’t even know what movies are going to get made? And so controlling greenlight was important, full creative control.”

Moreover, the team was able to take 5% of revenues as the producer fee AND keep all non-film revenues (i.e. toys, video games, etc.). And even if four out of the five films lost capital, they’d still make $25M in revenue each. In other words, $100M in sum. Half of Marvel’s public market cap at the time. Whose cap was only based on toy sales.

Market timing

“The bond bubble of 2004 was happening,” as David shared, “so it was a time where there was loans being made that shouldn’t have been made. And a lot of people were enamored with Hollywood as they get enamored every few years.”

Zero downside

Instead of funding the studio off balance sheet, David would go out to fundraise from others. So what was the external pitch?

“Give me four at bats, and if one of them hits, then every movie’s a sequel after that.”

On top of all the above, to me, there were some interesting terms for the investment that helped sweeten the deal:

  • Merrill Lynch got a 3% success fee upon the $525M closing.
  • David got a low interest rate loan from Merrill by getting it insured by MPAC, therefore the debt became AAA debt, which “was easy to sell to pensions and easy to sell to individual investors” in case things went awry.

Now I’m not sure if this is standard Hollywood practice. But I imagine it’s not, at least back in ’03 and ’04. I’m a venture guy after all. And as one, the above is news to me.

That said, the banks David went to fundraise from were not taking equity. It was “pure debt. So very low interest rate. And the only collateral were the film rights to ten Marvel characters of which we could make for the movies.” Which, to me, ten characters sounds like a lot for a company whose business is characters. I also imagine these were characters that had some level of historical fanbase, so they weren’t random ones from the archives.

But David clarifies. “A lot of people misunderstand that they think we pledged ten of our characters as collateral. It wasn’t that at all because in the worst case scenario, it only got collected if we lost money on those first four movies. And then those six characters, we owned all the rights besides film. And if a film was ever made by the bank, whoever collected this collateral, we got the same license fee that we get if we just license it that day to a party. So there was no opportunity cost.”

And the promise

This is history now, but at the time, was a bold claim. The idea was borne out of frustration as an entertainment investor. That:

  1. Marvel couldn’t capture a large part of enterprise value through productions with just licensing
  2. The first movie business was horrible. Sequels, on the other hand, were a lot more predictable. So, the focus after the first movie would not be on predicting profit, but maximizing profit margins.

So David had a thought. “What if after the first movie, every movie after that was a sequel or a quasi-sequel, which required all the characters, or a lot of the characters, to show up in multiple movies?”

The idea of sequel snowballed into what we now know as the MCU — the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Bringing it back to venture

It’s a nice corollary to raising a Fund I, where you’re also selling a promise. A world vision. A painting of the future. Nothing’s proven yet. You’re sure as hell not selling a repeatable strategy yet, and definitely not any returns. Since there’s a good chance you haven’t returned capital to LPs before.

And this is true for not just funders, but also founders. In the words of Mike Maples, “Breakthrough builders are visitors from the future, telling us what’s coming. They seem crazy in the present but they are right about the future.

“Legendary builders, therefore, must stand in the future and pull the present from the current reality to the future of their design. People living in the present usually dislike breakthrough ideas when they first hear about them. They have no context for what will be radically different in the future. So an important additional job of the builder is to persuade early like-minded people to join a new movement.”

Dissent is a luxury

The truth is loads of people will disagree with you. You’re not looking for consensus. In fact, it’s better to be wrong and alone than right and with the crowd if you’re in the venture world. Either as a founder or an emerging GP. It’s something I recently learned from the one and only Chris Douvos. If you imagine a 2×2 matrix… On one axis, you have right and wrong. On the other, you have with the crowd and alone. You want to be in the right and alone quadrant for sure. That’s where “fortune and glory” exists. It’s where alpha exists. It is how you become an outlier and achieved outsized returns.

But the prerequisite to be there is to have the guts to start in the wrong and alone quadrant. If you start from being right and in the crowd, you’re one among many. And that doesn’t give you the liberty to have independent thinking. You’re constantly trapped in noise.

It’s as Abhiraj Bhal says. “If you are a category-defining company, you will always have a TAM question, if the category is defined by somebody else, you will not have a TAM question.” You want people to question you. And as humans, we like to fit in. But to create something transcendent, external doubt is your best friend.

As such, your promise of the future must seem bizarre.

Don’t start with the product, start with your customers

When you have a promise, admittedly, the easiest way is to start engineering it right away. Without market validation. Without stress testing. Which pigeonholes a number of founders. I forgot the origination, but there’s a great line that says, “The only difference between a hallucination and a vision is that other people can see the latter.”

And in order to test that, you need to get in front of potential users and customers first. Max, someone I had the joy of working with, once wrote the below timeless tweet:

And I won’t go too deep into why I like it since I’ve written about it before. One way, like Max illustrated, is to write in public. Another is to sell without a product. It’s what Elizabeth Yin did back at LaunchBit.

As Elizabeth once shared: “We decided that we’d start with no product. We would not build anything. And, we just started selling ads. We manually brokered deals with publishers and advertisers and took a cut in between. We got our customers by emailing people and setting up the copy and links ourselves. People would pay me through my personal PayPal account. It was only when we realized we were onto something that we started building technology to remove bottlenecks.”

On the investor side, it’s building a thesis where great investments fall into. It’s a way of looking at the world in a perspective that may seem foreign to others, but almost obvious in retrospect. The thesis should elicit the response, “Why didn’t I think of that first?” But no matter how obvious, you are the best positioned to bring the thesis to life. That doesn’t mean you need returns yet. Although good graduation rates certainly help as a leading indicator.

In that regard, it’s quite similar to how David Maisel foretold of the Universe to come. Obvious once explained, yet still met with resistance from legacy players.

Photo by alise storsul 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