Tag: quote

Posted on

Telltale Signs of When Risk is High

jenga, risky

At the end of last week, an LP told me something quite provocative. That right now in 2024, we’re in a low-risk environment.

And in all fairness, I thought he was completely bonkers. Fear is high. Investments have slowed their pace, especially in the private markets. Markets have really yet to recover. Some believe we’ve hit the bottom and will bounce around the bottom a few times. Others think we’ve yet to see the worst of it. Hell, just yesterday, Eric Bahn tweeted the below:

Wars are raging across the world. Currency is fluctuating on a global scale. Hell, even for the average person, prices are going up at a rate unfamiliar to most people’s memory.

But his next line really made me pause. “You’re right. There’s geopolitical risk, currency risk, market risk, and valuation/pricing risk. And we can identify every single one of them. In fact, the actual risk of investing today is really low, but the perceived risk is really high. Risk is highest when you can’t tell what the risk is. That was 2020 and 2021, when you couldn’t put a finger on what kinds of risk were out there.”

And that really stuck with me. To underscore again, risk is highest when you can’t tell what the risk is.

And so paved way for this blogpost. Albeit, that last line was the punchline.

He later told me that the concept wasn’t original, but that its origin traces its way back to Ken Moelis. Regardless of the attribution, it’s worth doing a double take on.

There’s that famous Peter Drucker line, “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” And in many ways, it is just as true for risk as it is for tasks and KPIs and OKRs.

The family office for a well-known luxury brand once told me that they like to pay the complexity premium on esoteric alternatives. To them, venture is one of those esoteric alternatives. In addition, they’re also happy to overpay during bull markets. Access to a volatile and nascent asset class, to them, deserves a premium.

But taking a step back, there may be more wisdom to it than I initially thought. In bear markets, when the risk is real and discrete, there is no complexity premium to pay. After all, you can begin to manage what you do measure. On the flip side, in a bull market, where no one really knows who will win or what the macro risks are, a premium can be and often is paid as a bet on a company’s future and insurance against a margin of error that is hard to define.

Of course, one can say that the premium is often hype-driven instead of risk-driven. But really, hype is just long-term risk donned with a new set of clothes. A short-term luxury with a buy-now-pay-later tag that comes in quarterly installments of belt-tightening and regret.

While I personally have always believed that as an investor it’s better to be disciplined and to “dollar cost average” across vintages vis a vis time diversification, there are several great investors who believe price is a trap. At the top of my head, Peter Fenton and Keith Rabois. The latter shared his thoughts earlier this year on why. At least for seed and Series A. That in summary, there is no limit on how much you pay for a great company at the seed and Series A (likely the pre-seed as well) that won’t return you multiple-fold back. And that debates on price really are leading indicators on conviction or lack thereof.

The last part of which I agree to an extent.

All that to say, I think a useful exercise to go through whenever making a major (investment) decision is to take out a notepad and write down all the risks you can think of. If you can think of it, you can probably find a way to hedge against it. On the flip side, if you’re about to make a decision and you can’t think of any risks, that’s probably the biggest risk you’ll take.

As my mom told me since I was a kid, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

But if you do come up with a good list, and the world around you is still scared, and you think there might be something special in the opportunity in front of you, sometimes it pays to be bullish when others are bearish.

Photo by Naveen Kumar on Unsplash

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

The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

Posted on

A Jerk’s Guide to Being Kind

dog, bully, fight

First off, my lizard brain that optimizes for immediate gratification thought “A Jerk’s Guide to Being Kind” would be a fun title. Clickbait-y (kinda). Great for SEO. So I used that as my prompt for this public journal entry. 🙂

So, if you didn’t come for a public apology and how I say no, I’ll see you in next week’s blogpost.

Secondly, I was reading Chris Neumann’s blogpost this week, aptly named “The Beginner VC’s Guide to Not Being a Jerk.” And realized, holy frick, I’m a jerk. In it, he describes five things that VCs do that come off as jerkish.

  1. Don’t Use Possessive Adjectives
  2. Don’t Multitask When a Founder is Pitching
  3. Don’t Badmouth Founders
  4. Don’t Mansplain
  5. Don’t Ghost Founders

And of the five above, I know I’m an offender of three of the above. Using possessive adjectives. Multitasking. Ghosting. Probably in that order from most frequent to least frequent. (Sorry, Chris. Sorry to founders I’ve done this to.) The first two I don’t do intentionally, nor do I do the either of them often.

Not sure if it makes too much of a difference, but rather than say “my company” or “our companies,” I do say “our portfolio companies.” Just with one extra word in there. Occasionally, will let it slip when I’m trying to shorten the sentence I’m saying.

I know I’m more prone to multi-task when I’m not the only investor in the room, and definitely when I’m not the primary investor. Again, don’t do it often, but it happens. And I never do so when I’m the only other person in that conversation. 99% of the time I do let the founders and GPs I talk to know that I’m just taking notes of our conversation. Personally don’t use the AI notetakers, but that’s a discussion for another day.

And ghosting. My goal is to get to inbox zero every day. And I really do my best not to ghost. But three things will always happen:

  1. Some email or text always ends up slipping through my inbox. Either it goes in spam, or during certain days, I’m bombarded with hundreds of emails and it slips through the cracks. And I do give every founder and GP who pitch me the right to re-surface past emails if it does slip through.
  2. If the email or message seems like it came out of an automation or mail merge AND I’m not interested, I do let it drop. I read EVERY email for sure. But if that email looks like the same one that you send to every investor, those have been going straight into the archives more and more. That also means that some emails just read like it’s an automated email even if it doesn’t, and it slips through.
  3. There’s a shortlist of people who have abused my old personal policy of responding to every email I get. And so for those people, I’m not sorry if I do ghost you. That said, it’s a pretty short list of people (probably 30-40 people as of now).

And lastly, well, I’ve made founders pitching me cry. Not something to brag about. But in sharing what I thought was honest feedback, I made tears flow.

So, in summary, I’m probably a jerk.

In my mind, a jerk is someone who prioritizes their own beliefs and priorities to the point that they either intentionally ignore or severely de-prioritize others’. Although I try my best not to ignore what other might want or need, but I do often prioritize my own. So to add on to all the above, I’m sharing some situations where my jerkiness comes out and what I say in those moments.

When having tough conversations

I actually learned this while listening to Lenny’s podcast with Matt Mochary. When I need to let someone go. When I need to call a friend out on their bad behavior. Or when my partner and I get into a fight. “Preface hard conversations with: This is going to be a difficult conversation. Are you ready?”

In addition, I also preface with how long I think the discussion will take. “May I have thirty minutes of your undivided attention?” And what the topic will be on. No point in blindsiding the other person.

It helps set the stage. And if the other person needs more time, they have the option to back out. Moreover, all tough conversations are 1:1 conversations. At least for me, even if it relates to many, I start notifying them all on a 1:1 basis.

When trying to leave a conversation at an event

This one also isn’t original. I learnt from a friend of mine who is far more eloquent than I am. Not all conversations at events are created equal. And sometimes, at an event, especially a networking event, my goal is to say hi to the event host or to talk to someone else on the floor. And in between, I may find myself in another serendipitous. Case in point, yesterday, I ended up meeting a founder who sold his last company for $500M exit to a large Fortune 50 company in the parking lot and who was figuring out his next thing. Serendipitous. And super fun, but I was going to be royally late for another event if I stayed chatting in the parking lot.

So, when I need to leave a conversation, instead of excusing myself to go to the bathroom or get more food, I’ve learned to say, “I’d love to ask you one last thing that I’d beat myself up tonight if I didn’t ask before I need to go say hi to XXX.”

One, it timeboxes the next few minutes of the conversation. Two, I’m still interested in the individual and I want them to get the last word before I head out.

For 1:1 conversations

I usually let people know at the very beginning of the conversation that I have a “hard stop” at a specific time. Which 90% of the time is true. Usually another meeting. Or I have just way too much work on my plate that I need to get to.

When turning down a meeting (for now)

I wish I had more time in a day to talk to awesome people. I also wish I had more energy in a day to talk to awesome people. But unfortunately, I only have 24 hours in a day. And well, I’m an introvert. As in, I enjoy writing this blogpost you’re reading right now since 5AM in the morning than telling someone in a live conversation what I will end up writing here.

As such, if I’m interested in meeting at some point, I usually say something to the tune of: “I would love to meet, but if I do so within the next XXX weeks / months, I would have failed in my promise to the people I care about. So if you’ll allow me to be a good friend / family member / supporter of my existing projects and investments, could we revisit this in YYY weeks / months?”

Other times to save everyone’s time, since I won’t find my interest levels gravitating towards said topic, I let people know it just isn’t of interest to me in the foreseeable future, and that their luck may be better elsewhere.

When turning down an investment opportunity

This is actually something that was inspired by one of Jason Calacanis’ podcast episodes. And while there are many things I may not agree with him on, I really like the phrasing he uses to turn down founders who push back against his investment decision. And I’ve added some lines that best fit the way I talk. Which I also included this in my 99 series for investors.

“I always have to accept the possibility that I’m making a mistake. The venture business keeps me humble, but these are the benchmarks that the team and I all believe in.”

In closing

Sometimes I think it’s inevitable to appear as a jerk to some people out there. While one can try to reduce the splash damage, the truth is sometimes what you have to say may not be what the other person wants to hear or see. But as long as you hold yourself to a high degree of integrity and do so in as kind of a way as you can, I think that’s all that really matters.

Often times, I do believe it’s more important to be kind than nice. I hope the above helps.

Photo by David Taffet 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 #87 Shower Thoughts on Great Founders and Great Investors

expo, markers, whiteboard

I’ve been doing some thinking as of late in and out of the shower. In conversations. In reexamining my own investment thesis. And changing it as a function of scar tissue and tears of joy. As such, sharing a few shower thoughts below that for the below, might be better described as a tweet than in a long-form blogpost.

About founders

  1. A community or 1000 true fans built without big brands and logos is far more impressive than a community built by leveraging someone else’s brands.
  2. 20 years of experience is more impressive than 20 one-year experiences for deeply technical problems.
  3. 20 one-year experiences is more impressive than 20 years of experience for cultural (consumer) problems.
  4. Great founders don’t delegate understanding. Senior execs aren’t hired until founders themselves prove out the playbook.
  5. In the age of AI, new information is more valuable than remixes of old. Standing out is more important than fitting in. The latter of which will be replaced with by AI given the wealth of data out there. (Ironically, this line is inspired by old conversations plus Sriram Krishnan’s blogpost)
  6. Revenue matters more than traffic for consumer products since AI bots can now mimic simple digital human behavior.
  7. Silicon Valley / SF Bay Area is strong because of the high quality of eavesdropping. There are so many ideas being thrown around in coffee shops. It’s quite easy to stumble across a world-class lesson without paying $2000 for a conference ticket. Things sure have changed since ’08.

About investors

  1. In early stage venture, debates on price is a lagging indicator of conviction, or more so, lack thereof.
    • Price also matters a lot more for big funds than small funds.
    • Price also matters more for Series B+ funds.
    • Will caveat that there’s an ocean of difference between $10M and $25M valuation. But it’s semantics between $10M and $12M valuation. How big your slice of the pie is doesn’t matter if the pie doesn’t grow.
    • Not saying that it’s correlated, but it does remind me of a Kissinger quote: “The reason that university politics is so vicious is because stakes are so small.”
  2. The reasons Fund I’s and II’s outperform are likely:
    • Chips on shoulders mean they hustle more to find the best deals. They have to search where big funds aren’t or come in sooner than big funds do.
    • Small fund size is easier to return than a larger fund size.
    • Rarely do they have ownership targets (nor do they need significant ownership to return the fund). Meaning they’re collaborative and friendly on the cap table, aka with most other investors, especially big lead investors.
    • Price matters less. Big funds really have to play the price game a little bit more since (1) likely to be investing in multiple stages with reserves, and price matters more past the Series A than before, and (2) they’re constrained by check size, ownership targets, and therefore price in order to still have a fund returner.
  3. “Judge me on how good my good ideas are, not how bad my bad ideas are.” — Ben Affleck when writing Good Will Hunting. A lot of being a VC is like that. Hell, a lot of being a founder is like that.
  4. We like to cite the power law a lot. Where 20% of our investments account for 80% of our returns. But if we were to apply that line of thinking two more times. Aka 4% (20 x 20%) of our investments account for 64% of our returns. Then 0.8% account for 51.2% of our returns. If you really think about it, if you invest in 100 companies, we see in a lot of great portfolios where a single investment return more than 50% of the historical returns.

Photo by Mark Rabe 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 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.

Posted on

When Helpful is an Action Verb | Aakar Vachhani | Superclusters | S2E5

Aakar Vachhani is a Managing Partner and a member of Fairview’s investment committee. He is involved in research, due diligence, investment monitoring, and business development for Fairview’s venture capital and private equity partnership and direct co-investment portfolios.

Prior to joining Fairview, Aakar was with Cambridge Associates, a leading investment advisor to foundations, endowments and corporate and government entities. He was responsible for analyzing private equity and venture capital investments in support of the firm’s clients and consultants. In addition, he led research and data analytics projects on the firm’s private equity and venture capital database. Aakar also spent time with MK Capital, a multi-stage venture capital firm with a sector focus on software and cloud services.

Aakar Vachhani holds a B.S. in Economics-Finance from Bentley University and an MBA in Finance and Entrepreneurship & Innovation from the Kellogg School of Management. He is a member of the Board of Directors of San Francisco Achievers and the New Breath Foundation. On top of that, Aakar established and leads Fairview’s San Francisco office.

You can find Aakar on his socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/aakar15
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aakarvachhani/

And huge thanks to this episode’s sponsor, Alchemist Accelerator: https://alchemistaccelerator.com/superclusters

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also watch the episode on YouTube here.

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[04:29] Growing up in a household of 10
[09:36] Aakar’s leadership style when he was a child
[12:12] Why Aakar turned down a job in insurance back at home
[17:25] The third time Aakar applied to Cambridge Associates
[21:56] How Fairview aligns incentives with each investment they make
[26:15] How Fairview helps their GPs
[28:58] How Fairview gives pitch feedback to GPs
[32:54] Reasons Fairview passes on a GP
[34:58] How does Aakar define what a “new manager” looks like?
[37:55] How did Aakar build out Fairview’s SF Bay Area practice?
[44:26] Fairview’s onboarding process for new hires
[47:21] Why Fairview’s investment decisions need to be unanimous
[52:17] The balancing act between a narrow thesis and a big market
[56:09] Why Fairview invested in Eniac Ventures
[57:56] What does a helpful LPAC member look like?
[59:30] Typical questions GPs bring to their LPAC
[1:01:13] How do the best GPs communicate strategy drift to their LPs?
[1:03:01] Why LPs dislike strategy drift
[1:06:28] What new technologies does Aakar think LPs should pay attention to?
[1:08:30] Aakar’s core memories
[1:11:45] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:14:22] If you enjoyed the episode, it would mean a lot if you could like, comment, share, or subscribe!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

Follow David Zhou for more Superclusters content:
For podcast show notes: https://cupofzhou.com/superclusters
Follow David Zhou’s blog: https://cupofzhou.com
Follow Superclusters on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuperclustersLP
Follow Superclusters on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@super.clusters
Follow Superclusters on Instagram: https://instagram.com/super.clusters

Posted on

DGQ 19: Does the overall level of the team make me question if I’d be a good enough to play in this industry?

“I won’t forget the first time I saw Jason Peters do a one-on-one pass set with Trent Cole, and being amazed at the speed, balance, and power I just witnessed. It reminded me, or looked like, a grizzly bear wrestling a panther. It was so impressive, it made me question if I was good enough to play in this league.”

Much of this DGQ was inspired by Jason Kelce’s retirement speech, delivered with the prose and candor befitting of a legend. Which for those who have yet to read/listen to it, it’s 24 minutes that will be well-spent, whether you’re a sports, football, or Eagles fan or not.

There’s something really special about being the underdog. Whether you feel it or others say it. That slight chip on the shoulder, that measured level of imposter syndrome, is fuel to the fire. There is a distinct advantage for being the dumbest person in the room, knowing that there are mentor figures on the team you can learn voraciously from, even if by osmosis. And if you do have naysayers, you have the greatest privilege to prove them wrong. It means that you have space to grow. That journey ahead, at least for me, is quite exciting.

After all, in Jason’s 2018 Super Bowl Parade speech, he quoted another line from Jeff Stoutland. “Hungry dogs run faster.”

Although not framed nearly as eloquently as Jason Kelce put it, it’s something I think about a lot. Does the overall level of the team make me question if I’d be a good enough to play in this industry?

Challenge is as scary as it is thrilling.

Similarly in VC, we often say it’s an apprenticeship business. And it’s true. Almost every great investor I know had someone who took them under their wing and showed them the ropes. Sometimes a set of people. And it’s incredibly hard to learn and check your blindside without someone who plans to dedicate a good portion of their time to do so. That said, the next best you can get is to learn by osmosis.

You are the average of the five people you hang out with most. So if you have the chance to live and breathe alongside people who intimidate you with their skill, intellect and the way they execute in a good way, take it.

Photo by Vicky Sim 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 Proliferation of LP Podcasts

I am under no illusion that there is a hell of a lot of interest in the LP landscape today. Not only from GPs who are realizing the difficulties of the fundraising climate, but also from aspiring and emerging LPs who are allocating to venture for the first time. The latter of which also have a growing set of interests in backing emerging GPs. And in the center console in this Venn diagram of interests lies the education of how to think like an LP.

I still remember back in 2022 and prior, we had Beezer’s #OpenLP initiative, Ted Seides’ Capital Allocators podcast, Notation Capital’s Origins, and Chris Douvos’ SuperLP.com. Last of which, by the way, can we start a petition to have Chris Douvos write more again? But I digress. All four of which trendsetters in their own right. But the world had yet to catch storm. Or maybe, the people around me and I had yet to feel the acceleration of interest.

Today, in 2024, we have:

There is no shortage of content. LPs are also starting to make their rounds. You’ll often see the same LP on multiple podcasts. And that’s not a bad thing. In fact, that’s very much of a good thing that we’re starting to see a lot more visibility here and that LPs are willing to share.

But we’re at the beginning of a crossroads.

A few years back, the world was starved of LP content. And content creators and aggregators like Beezer, Ted, Nick, and Chris, were oases in the desert for those searching. Today, we have a buffet of options. Many of which share listenership and viewership. In fact, a burgeoning cohort of LPs are also doing their rounds. And that’s a good thing. It’s more surface area for people to learn.

But at some point, the wealth of information leads to the poverty of attention. The question goes from “Where do I tune into LP content?” to “If I were to listen to the same LP, which platform would I choose to tune into?“

After all, we only have 24 hours in a day. A third for sleep. A third for work. And the last competes against every possible option that gives us joy — friends, hangouts, Netflix, YouTube, hobbies, exercise, passion projects and more.

In the same way, Robert Downey Jr. or Emma Stone or Timothée Chamalet (yes, I just watched Dune 2 and I loved it) is going to do multiple interviews. With 20, 30, even 50 different hosts. But as a fan (excluding die-hard ones), you’re likely not going to watch all of them. But you’ll select a small handful — two or three — to watch. And that choice will largely be influenced by which interviewer and their respective style you like.

While my goal is to always surface new content instead of remixes of old, there will always be the inevitability of cross-pollination of lessons between content creators. And so, if nothing else, my goal is to keep my identity — and as such, my style — as I continue recording LP content. To me, that’s the human behind the money behind the VC money. And each person — their life story, the way they think, why they think the way they think — is absolutely fascinating.

In closing

There’s this great Amos Tversky line I recently stumbled upon. “You waste years by not being able to waste hours.” And in many ways, this blog, Superclusters, writing at large, and my smaller experiments are the proving grounds I need to find my interest-expertise fit. Some prove to be fleeting passions. Others, like building for emerging LPs, prove to be much more.

Photo by Jukka Aalho 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

Winning Deals Based on Check Size (VCs versus LPs)

scale, weight, size

I know I just wrote a blogpost on how LPs assess if GPs can win deals. But after a few recent conversations with LPs in fund of funds, as well as emerging LPs, I thought it would be interesting to draw the parallel of not only proxies of how GPs win deals, but also proxies of how LPs win deals. And as such, coming back with a part two. Maybe a part one and a half. You get the point.

The greatest indicator for the ability to win deals as a VC is to see what the largest check (and greatest ownership target) a world-class founder will take from you. (That said, if you are only capable of winning deals based on price, you might want to consider another career. You should have other reasons a brilliant founder will pick you.) And even better if they give you a board seat.

The greatest indicator for the ability to win deals as an LP is to see what the smallest check a world-class GP will take from you. And even better if they give you a seat on the LPAC.

In the world where capital is more or less a commodity, the more capital one can provide (with some loose constraints on maximums), the better. But if someone who has no to little trouble raising is willing to open doors in a potentially over-subscribed fund for you, that’s something special.

An LP I was chatting with recently loves asking the question, “How big of a check size would you like me to write?” And to him, the answer “As much as you can.” Or “I’ll take any number.” is a bad answer. According to him, the best GPs know exactly how much they’re expecting from LPs, and sometimes as a function of how helpful they can be, especially in a Fund I or II. But always as a function of portfolio construction. Your fund size is after all your strategy, as the Mike Maples adage goes. While I don’t know if I completely agree with this approach, I did find this approach intriguing, and at least worth a double take.

I’m forgetting the attribution here. The curse of forgetting to write things down when I hear them. But I was listening to a podcast, or maybe it was a conversation, where they used the analogy that being a VC is like watching your child on the playground. You let your child do whatever they want to. Go down the slides. Climb the monkey bars. Sit on the swings. And so on. You let them chart their own narratives. But your job as the parent is once you see your kid doing something dangerous, that’s when you step in. When they’re about to jump off a 2-story slide. Or swing upside-down. But otherwise your kid knows best on how to have fun. In the founders’ case, they know how to build an amazing product for an audience who’s dying for it.

Excluding the fact that you’re a good friend or family that go way back, you likely have something of great strategic value to that GP — be it:

  • Network to other LPs
  • Operational expertise and value to portfolio companies (to a point where you being an LP will help the GP win deals with founders)
  • Operational expertise to the GP and the investment team
  • Investment expertise to help check the GP’s blindside
  • Access to downstream capital
  • Deal flow, or
  • Simply, mentorship

At the same time, ONSET Ventures once found that “if you had a full-time mentor who was not part of the company’s management team, and who had actually run both a start-up and a larger business, the success rate increased from less than 25% to over 80%.” (You can find the case study here. As an FYI, the afore-mentioned link leads to a download of the HBS case study.)

That’s the role of the board. The LPAC. Of the advisory board. For a founder or emerging GP, the full-time availability of said board members or LPAC members is vital.

A proxy of a mentor’s availability is pre-existing relationships between founder/emerging funder and said investor or advisor. Another is simply the responsiveness of the investor or advisor. Do they take less than 12 hours to reply? Or 3-5 business days? It’s for that latter reason Sequoia’s Pat Grady once lost out on an investment deal to his life partner, Sarah Guo. Being responsive goes a long way.

In sum, for LPs in fund of fund managers, small things go a long way.

Photo by Piret Ilver 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

When Trying Something New

new, apple, vision pro

The great Jim Collins has this line I really like where he says fire bullets then cannonballs. “The right big things are the things you’ve empirically validated. So, you fire bullets, you validate, then you go big — bullets, then cannonballs — it’s both.”

Too often — something I see in me as much as I see in founders — when trying something new, we bottle it up. We charge the entropy of our creativity. Waiting to release it all at one big moment. A cannonball. No one else should or needs to know know. Sometimes it’s a fear of someone else stealing your idea. Sometimes, well, speaking more for myself, I just like surprises. I love the mystique. And on the slim chance you’re right, albeit rare, then awesome. But 999 out of 1000 times, you’re likely not. At least not in the first try.

I’m forgetting and also can’t seem to find the attribution. But I read somewhere that the only difference between vision and a hallucination is that others can see it. You see… the greatest YouTubers test their ideas with test audiences several times. In fact, they even test their video titles with select audiences a number of times before launching. (Instagram even added the ability to do it at scale for creators too.) Reporters do too with their headlines. Legendary investor Mike Maples at Floodgate once said, “90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.” ONSET Ventures also found in its research1 that founded the institution back in 1984 (prescient, I know) that there is a 90% correlation between success and the company changing its original business model.

All to say, one’s first idea may not always be the best and final idea. So, test things. With small audiences. With trusted confidants.

And while I may not do this all the time, with my bigger blogposts (like this, this, and this), I always run it by co-conspirators, subject-matter experts, lawyers, writers, bloggers, and people who love reading fine print. And sometimes the final product may not look like the one I initially intended, which will be true for an upcoming bigger blogpost. For events, like one I recently worked with the team at Alchemist on — redefining what in-person Demo Days look like at accelerators, we tested the idea with 20 other investors and iterated on their feedback before launching on January 30th this year. And still is not even close to its final evolution.

As Reid Hoffman once said, “If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.”

Now that it’s out there…

One of the greatest Joker lines in The Dark Knight is: “Trust no one, salt and sugar look the same.”

It’s true. Whether people like something or not, they’ll always tell you things were good. It’s the equivalent of when one goes to a restaurant, orders something that’s a bit saltier than one’s liking, but when the server comes by to ask, “How is everything?”, most people respond with “Everything’s fine.” Or “good.”

You’re not going to get the real answer out of people oftentimes. Unless people really do love or hate something you did passionately. So… you must hunt for them. You must lure out the answers. You need to force people to take sides. There can be and shouldn’t be middle ground. If there are, that means they don’t like it.

Maybe it’s in the form of the NPS question. On a scale of 1-10, how likely would you recommend this product to a friend? And you cannot pick 7.

In the event space, I’ve come to like a new question. If I invited you to this event the week of, would you cancel plans to make this event? And to add more nuance, what kinds of events would you cancel to be here? What kinds of events would you not cancel?

Sometimes it helps to seed examples on a spectrum (although I try not to lead the witness here). Would you cancel a honeymoon? Or would you cancel going to another investor/founder happy hour? What about an AGM (annual general meeting, annual conference in VC talk)? What about a vacation?

As Joker said, salt and sugar look the same. So you have to taste it. Looking from afar won’t help. And if you want to iterate and improve, you need what people really think. I’d rather have people hate or dislike something I’ve created than have a lukewarm or worse, a “good” reaction.

In a way, if you’re not getting enough of an auto-immune response from the crowd, and the antibodies don’t start kicking in (aka the naysayers), you’re not really doing something new.

Photo by Roméo A. on Unsplash

1 FYI, the research link redirects to its HBS case study, not the original research. Couldn’t find the latter unfortunately. But the point stands.

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

The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

Posted on

v28.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

A reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, this year…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.

Proudly powered by WordPress