Tag: samir kaji

Posted on

35 Biggest Investing Lessons from 4 Seasons of Superclusters

piggy bank, investing, coin

The title says it all. I’m four seasons in and I’m fortunate to have learned from some of the best and most thoughtful individuals in the LP industry. I often joke with friends that Superclusters allows me to ask dumb questions to smart people. But there’s quite a bit of truth there as well. I look back in Season 1, and I’m proud to see the evolution of my questions as well.

There was a piece back in 2022 where Johns Hopkins’ Jeff Hooke said that “75% of funds insist they are in the top quartile.” To my anecdotal knowledge, that seems to hold. I might say 75% of angel investors starting their first funds say they’re top quartile. And 90% of Fund IIs say their Fund Is are top quartile. So the big looming question as an LP is how do you know which are and which aren’t.

And if we were all being honest with each other, the first five years of returns and IRRs really aren’t indicative of the fund’s actual performance. In fact, Stepstone had a recent piece that illustrated fewer than 50% of top-quartile funds at Year 5 stay there by Year 10. 30% fall to second quartile. 13% slip to third. 9% fall from grace to the bottom quartile. But only 3.7% of bottom-quartile funds make it to the top quartile after its 10-year run (on a net TVPI basis).

I’ve enjoyed every single podcast episode I’ve recorded to date. And all the offline conversations that I’ve had because of the podcast itself. Nevertheless, it’s always fascinating when I learn something for the first time on the podcast while we’re recording. Excluding the longer lessons some of our guests have shared (I’m looking at you Evan, Charlotte, and much much more), below are the many Twitter-worthy (not calling it X) soundbites that have come up in the podcast so far.

  1. “Entrepreneurship is like a gas. It’s hottest when it’s compressed.” — Chris Douvos
  2. “I’m looking for well-rounded holes that are made up of jagged pieces that fit together nicely.” — Chris Douvos
  3. “If you provide me exposure to the exact same pool of startups [as] another GP of mine, then unfortunately, you don’t have proprietary deal flow for me. You don’t enhance my network diversification.” — Jamie Rhode
  4. “Sell when you can, not when you have to.” — Howard Lindzon
  5. “When you think about investing in any fund, you’re really looking at three main components. It’s sourcing ability. Are you seeing the deals that fit within whatever business model you’re executing on? Do you have some acumen for picking? And then, the third is: what is your ability to win? Have you proven your ability to win, get into really interesting deals that might’ve been either oversubscribed or hard to get into? Were you able to do your pro rata into the next round because you added value? And we also look through the lens of: Does this person have some asymmetric edge on at least two of those three things?” — Samir Kaji
  6. “85% of returns flow to 5% of the funds, and that those 5% of the funds are very sticky. So we call that the ‘Champions League Effect.’” — Jaap Vriesendorp
  7. “The truth of the matter, when we look at the data, is that entry points matter much less than the exit points. Because venture is about outliers and outliers are created through IPOs, the exit window matters a lot. And to create a big enough exit window to let every vintage that we create in the fund of funds world to be a good vintage, we invest [in] pre-seed and seed funds – that invest in companies that need to go to the stock market maybe in 7-8 years. Then Series A and Series B equal ‘early stage.’ And everything later than that, we call ‘growth.’” — Jaap Vriesendorp
  8. “[When] you’re generally looking at four to five hundred distinct companies, 10% of those companies generally drive most of the returns. You want to make sure that the company that drives the returns you are invested in with the manager where you size it appropriately relative to your overall fund of funds. So when we double click on our funds, the top 10 portfolio companies – not the funds, but portfolio companies, return sometimes multiples of our fund of funds.” — Aram Verdiyan
  9. “If you’re overly concentrated, you better be damn good at your job ‘cause you just raised the bar too high.” — Beezer Clarkson
  10. “[David Marquardt] said, ‘You know what? You’re a well-trained institutional investor. And your decision was precisely right and exactly wrong.’ And sometimes that happens. In this business, sometimes good decisions have bad outcomes and bad decisions have good outcomes.” — Chris Douvos
  11. “Miller Motorcars doesn’t accept relative performance for least payments on your Lamborghini.” — Chris Douvos
  12. “The biggest leverage on time you can get is identifying which questions are the need-to-haves versus nice-to-haves and knowing when enough work is enough.” — John Felix
  13. “In venture, we don’t look at IRR at all because manipulating IRR is far too easy with the timing of capital calls, credit lines, and various other levers that can be pulled by the GP.” — Evan Finkel
  14. “The average length of a VC fund is double that of a typical American marriage. So VC splits – divorce – is much more likely than getting hit by a bus.” — Raida Daouk
  15. “Historically, if you look at the last 10 years of data, it would suggest that multiple [of the premium of a late stage valuation to seed stage valuation] should cover around 20-25 times. […] In 2021, that number hit 42 times. […] Last year, that number was around eight.” — Rick Zullo (circa 2024)
  16. “The job and the role that goes most unseen by LPs and everybody outside of the firm is the role of the culture keeper.” — Ben Choi
  17. “You can map out what your ideal process is, but it’s actually the depth of discussion that the internal team has with one another. […] You have to define what your vision for the firm is years out, in order to make sure that you’re setting those people up for success and that they have a runway and a growth path and that they feel empowered and they feel like they’re learning and they’re contributing as part of the brand. And so much of what happens there, it does tie back to culture […] There’s this amazing, amazing commercial that Michael Phelps did, […] and the tagline behind it was ‘It’s what you do in the dark that puts you in the light.’” — Lisa Cawley
  18. “In venture, LPs are looking for GPs with loaded dice.” — Ben Choi
  19. “If I hire someone, I don’t really want to hire right out of school. I want to hire someone with a little bit of professional experience. And I want someone who’s been yelled at. […] I don’t want to have to triple check work. I want to be able to build trust. Going and getting that professional experience somewhere, even if it’s at a startup or venture firm. Having someone have oversight on you and [push] you to do excellent work and [help] you understand why it matters… High quality output can help you gain so much trust.” — Jaclyn Freeman Hester
  20. “LPs watch the movie, but don’t read the book.” — Ben Choi
  21. “If it’s not documented, it’s not done.” — Lisa Cawley
  22. “If somebody is so good that they can raise their own fund, that’s exactly who you want in your partnership. You want your partnership of equals that decide to get together, not just are so grateful to have a chance to be here, but they’re not that great.” — Ben Choi
  23. “When you bring people in as partners, being generous around compensating them from funds they did not build can help create alignment because they’re not sitting there getting rich off of something that started five years ago and exits in ten years. So they’re kind of on an island because everybody else is in a different economic position and that can be very isolating.” — Jaclyn Freeman Hester
  24. “Neutral references are worse than negative references.” — Kelli Fontaine
  25. “Everybody uses year benchmarking, but that’s not the appropriate way to measure. We have one fund manager that takes five years to commit the capital to do initial investments versus a manager that does it all in a year. You’re gonna look very, very different. Ten years from now, 15 years from now, then you can start benchmarking against each other from that vintage.” — Kelli Fontaine
  26. “We are not in the Monte Carlo simulation game at all; we’re basically an excel spreadsheet.” — Jeff Rinvelt
  27. “A lot of those skills [to be a fund manager] are already baked in. The one that wasn’t baked in for a lot of these firms was the exit manager – the ones that help you sell. […] If you don’t have it, there should be somebody that it’s their job to look at exits. ” — Jeff Rinvelt
  28. “Getting an LP is like pulling a weight with a string of thread. If you pull too hard, the string snaps. If you don’t pull hard enough, you don’t pull the weight at all. It’s this very careful balancing act of moving people along in a process.” — Dan Stolar
  29. “Going to see accounts before budgets are set helps get your brand and your story in the mind of the budget setter. In the case of the US, budgets are set in January and July, depending on the fiscal year. In the case of Japan, budgets are set at the end of March, early April. To get into the budget for Tokyo, you gotta be working with the client in the fall to get them ready to do it for the next fiscal year. [For] Korea, the budgets are set in January, but they don’t really get executed on till the first of April. So there’s time in there where you can work on those things. The same thing is true with Europe. A lot of budgets are mid-year. So you develop some understanding of patterns. You need to give yourself, for better or worse if you’re raising money, two to three years of relationship-building with clients.” — David York
  30. “Many pension plans, especially in America, put blinders on. ‘Don’t tell me what I’m paying my external managers. I really want to focus and make sure we’re not overpaying our internal people.’ And so then it becomes, you can’t ignore the external fees because the internal costs and external fees are related. If you pay great people internally, you can push back on the external fees. If you don’t pay great people internally, then you’re a price taker.” — Ashby Monk
  31. “You need to realize that when the managers tell you that it’s only the net returns that matter. They’re really hoping you’ll just accept that as a logic that’s sound. What they’re hoping you don’t question them on is the difference between your gross return and your net return is an investment in their organization. And that is a capability that will compound in its value over time. And then they will wield that back against you and extract more fees from you, which is why the alternative investment industry in the world today is where most of the profits in the investment industry are captured and captured by GPs.” — Ashby Monk
  32. “I often tell pensions you should pay people at the 49th percentile. So, just a bit less than average. So that the people going and working there also share the mission. They love the mission ‘cause that actually is, in my experience, the magic of the culture in these organizations that you don’t want to lose.” — Ashby Monk
  33. “The thing about working with self-motivated people and driven people, on their worst day, they are pushing themselves very hard and your job is to reduce the stress in that conversation.” — Nakul Mandan
  34. “I only put the regenerative part of a wealth pool into venture. […] That number – how much money you are putting into venture capital per year largely dictates which game you’re playing.” — Jay Rongjie Wang
  35. “When investing in funds, you are investing in a blind pool of human potential.” — Adam Marchick

Photo by Andre Taissin 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 Complexity of the Simple Question (DGQ 20)

Last week, Youngrok and I finally launched our episode together on Superclusters. In the midst of it all, we wrestle with the balance between the complexity and simplicity of questions to get our desired answer. Of course, we made many an allusion to the DGQ series. One of which, you’ll find below.

In many ways, I started the DGQ series as a promise to myself to uncover the questions that yield the most fascinating answers. Questions that unearth answers “hidden in plain sight”. Those that help us read between the lines.

Superclusters, in many ways, is my conduit to not only interview some of my favorite people in the LP landscape, but also the opportunity to ask the perfect question to each guest. Which you’ll see in some of the below examples.

  1. Asking Abe Finkelstein about being a Pitfall Explorer and how it relates to patience (1:04:56 in S2E1)
  2. What Ben Choi’s childhood was like (2:44 in S1E6) and how proposing to his wife affects how he thinks about pitching (1:05:47 in S1E6)
  3. How selling baseball cards as a kid helped Samir Kaji get better at sales (45:05 in S1E8)

In doing so, I sometimes lose myself in the nuance. And in those times, which happen more often than I’d like to admit, the questions that yield the best answers are the simplest ones. No added flare. No research-flexing moments. Where I don’t lead the witness. And I just ask the question. In its simplest form.

For the purpose of this essay, to make this more concrete, let’s focus on a question LPs often ask GPs.

“Tell me about this investment you made.“

In my mind, ridiculously simple question. Younger me would call that a lazy question. In all fairness, it would be if one was not intentionally aware about the kind of answer they were looking to hear OR not hear.

The laziness comes from regressing to the template, the model, the ‘what.’ But not the ‘why’ the question is being asked, and ‘how’ it should be interpreted. For those who struggle to understand the first principles of actions and questions, I’d highly recommend reading Simon Sinek’s Start with Why, but I digress.

Circling back, every GP talks about their portfolio founders differently. If two independent thinkers have both invested Company A, they might have different answers. Won’t always be true, but if you look at two portfolios that are relatively correlated in their underlying assets AND they arrive at those answers in the same way, one does wonder if it’s worth diversifying to other managers with different theses and/or approaches.

But that’s exactly what makes this simple question (but if you want to debate semantics, statement) special. When all else is equal, VCs are left to their own devices unbounded from artificial parameters.

Then take that answer and compare and contrast it to how other GPs you know well or have invested in already. How do they answer the same question for the exact same investment? How much are those answers correlated?

It matters less that the facts are the same. Albeit, useful to know how each investor does their own homework pre- and post-investment. But more so, it’s a question on thoughtfulness. How well does each investor really know their investments? How does it compare to the answer of a GP I admire for their thoughtfulness and intentionality?

(Part of the big reason I don’t like investing in syndicates because most outsource their decision-making to larger logos in VCs. On top of that, most syndicate memos are rather paltry when it comes to information.)

The question itself is also a test of observation and self-awareness. How well do you really know the founder? Were you intentional with how you built that relationship with the founder? How does it compare to the founder’s own self-reflection? It’s also the same reason I love Doug Leone’s question, which highlights how aware one is of the people around them. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?

Warren Buffett once described Charlie Munger as “the best thirty-second mind in the world. He goes from A to Z in one go. He sees the essence of everything even before you finish the sentence.” Moreover in his 2023 Berkshire annual letter, he wrote one of the most thoughtful homages ever written.

An excerpt from Berkshire’s 2023 annual letter

As early-stage investors, as belief checks, as people who bet on the nonobvious before it becomes obvious, we invest in extraordinary companies. I really like the way Chris Paik describes what we do. “Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.”

And just like there are certain companies that can’t be described in a single sentence — not the Uber for X, or the Google for Y — their founders who are even more complex than a business idea cannot be described by a single sentence either. Many GPs I come across often reduce a founder’s brilliance to the logos on their resume or the diplomas hanging on their walls. But if we bet right, the founders are a lot more than just that.

Of course, the same applies to LPs who describe the GPs they invest in.

In hopes this would be helpful to you, personally some areas I find fascinating in founders and emerging GPs and, hell just in, people in general include:

  • Their selfish motivations (the less glamorous ones) — Why do this when they can be literally doing anything else? Many of which can help them get rich faster.
  • What part of their past are they running towards and what are they running away from?
  • All the product pivots (thesis pivots) to date and why. I love inflection points.
  • If they were to do a TED talk on a subject that’s not what they’re currently building, what would it be?
  • Who do they admire? Who are their mentor figures?
  • What kind of content do they consume? How do they think about their information diet?
  • What promises have they made to themselves? No matter how small or big. Which have they kept? Which have they not?
  • How do they think about mentoring/training/upskilling the next generation of talent at their company/firm?

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

How One of VC’s Biggest LPs Builds Relationships | Abe Finkelstein | Superclusters | S2E1

Abe Finkelstein, Managing Partner at Vintage, has been leading fund, secondary, and growth stage investments focused on fintech, gaming, and SMB software, among others, leading growth stage and secondary investments for Vintage in companies like Monday.com, Minute Media, Payoneer, MoonActive and Honeybook.

Prior to joining Vintage in 2003, Abe was an equity analyst with Goldman Sachs, covering Israel-based technology companies in a wide variety of sectors, including software, telecom equipment, networking, semiconductors, and satellite communications. While at Goldman Sachs, Abe, and the Israel team were highly ranked by both Thomson Extel and Institutional Investor.

Prior to Goldman Sachs, Abe was Vice-President at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, where he helped launch and led the firm’s Israel technology shares institutional sales effort. Before joining Piper, he was an Associate at Brown Brothers Harriman, covering the enterprise software and internet sectors. Abe began his career at Josephthal, Lyon, and Ross, joining one of the first research teams focused exclusively on Israel-based companies.

Abe graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania with a BS in Economics and a concentration in Finance.

Vintage Investment Partners is a global venture platform managing ~$4 billion across venture Fund of Funds, Secondary Funds, and Growth-Stage Funds focused on venture in the U.S., Europe, Israel, and Canada. Vintage is invested in many of the world’;s leading venture funds and growth-stage tech startups striving to make a lasting impact on the world and has exposure directly and indirectly to over 6,000 technology companies.

You can find Abe on his socials here:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/abe-finkelstein/

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

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

Brought to you by Alchemist Accelerator.

OUTLINE:

[00:00] Intro
[03:22] How did Abe get his first job?
[15:30] The currency of trust
[17:12] How does Vintage view mistakes and weaknesses?
[20:03] How Vintage organizes team offsites
[28:42] The lessons Abe gained on people and long-term potential
[33:47] Type 1 and Type 2 errors when evaluating GPs
[36:00] How does Vintage work with their GPs and the GPs’ portfolio companies?
[45:06] What Abe likes to see in a cold email
[49:33] Funds that Abe says no to
[51:18] When does fund size as a function of stage not make sense for Vintage?
[54:51] Carry splits within a fund
[1:02:08] What kinds of funds does Vintage not re-up in?
[1:05:23] How did Abe become a Pitfall Explorer?
[1:07:38] What Abe has learned over the years about patience?
[1:11:05] One of Abe’s biggest blows in his career
[1:16:23] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:18:58] Like, comment and share if you enjoyed this episode!

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

Do Founders Like You For Your Money?

club, party

Would the founders in your portfolio let you in on the cap table if you weren’t an investor? If you had no money? If they could only borrow your brain for two hours every three months, and that’s it?

The uncomfortable truth is that most founders won’t.

But to find the founder who will take that deal is the person you want to be focusing on. They’re the archetype of founder you want to win — that you put your whole heart into perfecting your craft for that founder.

Play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. Where do you have home field advantage?

Why does this matter?

All cards on the table, it won’t matter if you plan to stay a boutique VC firm or angel whose check size for an investment never goes past $250K. Even better if you don’t have any pro rata. But if you plan to institutionalize your firm — and I don’t mean to say this is the only way to institutionalize — you need to hire. To hire, you need enough management fees to support a team of that size. And to get enough management fees, most of the time, that requires you to scale your fund size.

Whereas in Fund I and maybe II, you played the participating investor. Squeezing in great deals. And everyone’s your friend. Founders love you. Your co-investors love you. With larger funds, you may end up scaling your check size. If you don’t, you start diversifying your portfolio more and more. And most large LPs prefer concentrated portfolios. Why?

They often do the diversification work in their own model. They pick their own verticals and stages they want exposure to. The product they want to buy is not to be their portfolio for them, but that it is just one asset in a larger portfolio. A lot of LPs also fear diversified portfolios in managers because at some point, managers will be investing in the same underlying asset. No LP wants to invest in 10 funds and have four of them all be investors in Stripe. If that’s the case, they might as well invest directly in Stripe via co-investment.

But at the end of the day, if your checks are bigger (along with ownership targets), it’s hard to always be 100% friendly with other investors since they have their own mandates. And at some point, the founder is forced to pick: you or any of those other interested investors.

And for you to win that deal, you must have something enduring that founders want outside of capital.

Examples

Of course, there are different ways to prove that you can win deals to your prospective LPs. The list below is by no means all-encompassing, but may help in giving you an idea of how people who have walked the path before you have done so.

  • Being chosen as the independent board member in other companies you didn’t invest in (Kudos to Ben Choi for sharing this one in our episode)
  • Having a platform to generate customers/leads for your portfolio companies. Like Packy McCormick‘s Not Boring or Harry Stebbings‘ 20VC.
  • Winning pro rata in past subsequent rounds
  • Even better if super pro rata (rarely happens though, especially after Series A)
  • (Co-)Leading rounds (met an emerging GP last year who syndicated the whole $2M round)
  • Repeat founders (with previous exits >$100M) let you invest in oversubscribed rounds with a check larger than $250K
  • Founders letting you invest on previous round’s terms (or highly preferential treatment)
  • Incubating the company
  • Evidence or repeatable ability for you to pre-empt rounds before founders go out to fundraise
  • Some combination of the above

In closing

Unintentionally, this blogpost is the unofficial part two of my first one on the topic of sourcing, picking, and winning. Part one was on sourcing. This one is on winning. No guarantees on picking, but who knows? I may end up writing something.

For the uninitiated, this was said by both Ben Choi and Samir Kaji on the Superclusters podcast. That to be a great investor, you need to be great in at least two of three things: sourcing, picking, and/or winning. If you only have great deal flow, but don’t know how to pick the right companies that come your way or have the best founders pick you, then you don’t have an advantage. If you’re really good at winning deals, but no one comes to you or you pick the wrong deals to win, then you also don’t have anything. You need at least two. Of course, ideally three.

But as you institutionalize, the third may come in the form of another team member or as you build out the platform.

Photo by Long Truong 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

An Individual LP’s Guide to Investing Like an Institution | Samir Kaji | Superclusters | S1E8

Samir Kaji is the CEO and Co-Founder of Allocate, a private markets technology company that pairs origination with portfolio management tools to allow investors to efficiently construct and manage their alternatives portfolios. 

Prior to Allocate, Samir spent 22 years in venture banking between SVB and First Republic Bank and closely worked with and advised over 700 venture capital and private equity firms. During this time, he completed over $12B in structured debt transactions and has invested personally in over 75 funds and companies, including early-stage investments into Carta (seed), Side (seed), PolicyGenius (Series A), and FanDuel (Series B) as well as Growth investments into Reddit, Alto Pharmacy, and Carbon Health. He has also invested in over 40 funds across various investment types.

Samir completed a finance undergraduate degree at San Jose State University, a finance MBA from Santa Clara University, and completed the prestigious Kauffman Fellows venture program in 2017. Samir is also the host of Venture Unlocked, a top venture capital podcast available on Itunes, Spotify, and Substack.

You can find Samir on his socials here:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Samirkaji
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samirkaji/

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
[04:15] What will be the biggest change in the next decade for the LP universe?
[08:45] Portfolio allocation for emerging LPs
[12:32] How has Samir’s LP investment strategy evolved over the years?
[16:04] Why Samir invested in Bullpen Capital’s Fund I
[17:43] GP-business model fit
[19:40] GP red flags
[21:00] The one question Samir asks to see if GPs understand how to do portfolio math
[23:31] The art of asking good questions
[29:44] What is the Minimum Viable Fund?
[36:14] How to pick 10 funds out of 4000 VC funds
[42:19] How did Samir pitch Allocate to his investors?
[48:11] The first hires at Allocate
[50:53] How Samir defines work-life integration
[56:38] The first two emerging fund managers Samir backed at First Republic Bank
[59:41] The lesson Samir’s father shared with him when he thought about leaving SVB
[1:02:41] What happens when you overanalyze
[1:07:27] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring!
[1:10:02] If you liked it, give us a like or share!

SELECT LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE:

SELECT QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE:

“When you think about investing in any fund, you’re really looking at three main components.

  1. It’s sourcing ability. Are you seeing the deals that fit within whatever business model you’re executing on?
  2. Do you have some acumen for picking?
  3. And then, the third is: what is your ability to win? Have you proven your ability to win, get into really interesting deals that might’ve been either oversubscribed or hard to get into? Were you able to do your pro rata into the next round because you added value?

“And we also look through the lens of: Does this person have some asymmetric edge on at least two of those three things?”

“When you’re investing in a fund, especially when you’re making an ex ante decision, meaning you’re not buying a secondary, you’re actually just looking at what’s the probability of success in the future. You want to focus on process, more than just outcomes in the past. The process is how they think.”

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

Launching Superclusters

Hello friends,

I did a thing.

I started a podcast.

So why the name Superclusters?

I’ve always been a fan of easter eggs. Cup of Zhou also happens to be one of them. Superclusters is another. But this time, rather than leaving it for surprise, I’d love to spell out why and with that, the purpose of this podcast.

In the startup world, we always say startups are the stars of our universe. They shine the brightest and they light up the night sky. We also have tons of aphorisms in the startup world. For instance, “Aim for the stars, land on the moon”. Startups are often called moonshots. They need to achieve escape velocity. And so on.

So if startups are the stars of the universe, galaxies would be VC firms that have a portfolio of stars.

And if galaxies were VC firms, superclusters would be LPs. Superclusters are collections of multiple galaxies. For example, the supercluster that the Milky Way is in is called Laniakea (Hawaiian for “immense heavens,” for the curious).

So why a podcast on the LP world?

  1. The LP industry in ten years will be much bigger than it is today. We are not even close to the TAM of it.
  2. The LP industry will be a lot more transparent than it is today. FYI, as many of you know already, the industry is very opaque. Many want and still like to keep their knowledge proprietary. But what’s proprietary today will be common place tomorrow. I’m not here to share anyone’s deepest, darkest secrets, or anyone’s social security number. That’s none of my business. But the tactics that make the greatest LPs great are already being shared over intimate happy hours and dinners between a select few. And it’s only a matter of time before the rest of the world catches up. We saw the same happen with the VC industry, and now people are moving even more upstream.
  3. I think of content on a cartesian X-Y graph. On the X-axis, there’s intellectual stimulation. In other words, interesting. On the Y-axis, there’s emotional stimulation, or otherwise known as fun. Most financial services (for instance, hedge fund, private equity, venture capital, options trading) content tends to highly index on intellectual stimulation and not emotional. And for the purpose of this pod, I want to focus on making investing in VC funds fun AND interesting.

You can find my podcast on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts for now. In full transparency, waiting on RSS feed approval for the other platforms, but soon to be shared on other platforms near you.

You can expect episodes to come out weekly with ten episodes per season, and a month break in between each to ensure that I can bring you the best quality content. 🙂

You can find my first episode with the amazing Chris Douvos here:

Or if you’re an Apple Podcast person, here’s the Apple Podcast link.

Thank you’s

I am no doubt flawed, clearly evidenced by my verbal “ummmm’s” and “likes” in the podcast. But nevertheless pumped to begin this journey as a podcast host. I expect to grow in this journey tackling the emerging LP space and running a podcast, and I hope you can grow with me. So, any and all feedback is deeply appreciated. Recommendations of who to get on. What questions would you like answered. Formats that you find interesting. I’m all ears.

That said, I’m grateful to everyone who made this possible. My mighty editors, Tyler and JP. Without the two of you, I’d still be struggling telling head from tail on how to do J-cuts and L-cuts. The sole sponsor for the pod, Ravi and Alchemist. And while the pod itself is separate from Alchemist altogether, Ravi pushed me to make it happen. And for that and more, I am where I am now. Every single LP who took a bet on me for Season 1 when all I had for them was an idea and a goal. Chris. Beezer. Eric. Jamie. Courtney. Ben. Howard. Amit. Samir. Jeff and Martin.

And to everyone, who’s offered feedback, advice, introductions and pure energy to fuel all of this. Thank you!

And to you, my readers, I appreciate you taking time out of your busy day when there are so many things that fight for your attention, that you spend time with me every week! If I could just be a bit more self-serving, if you have the chance to tune in, I’d be extremely grateful if you could share it with one LP or one GP who could take something away from it.

Cheers,

David

P.S. Don’t worry. I’ll still continue to write on this blog weekly about everything else in between. That’s a habit I’m not willing to give up any time soon.

P.P.S. I’m already working on and recording for Season 2 of the pod, and I can tell you now that things will only get spicier.

P.P.P.S. Due to a million bugs and a half, I’m still working on launching a dedicated website for the podcast (superclusters.co), but until then, I’ll be sharing the show notes of each episode here.

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

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

Posted on

Emerging Market Funds Seem to Have Longer Deployment Periods

market

This past week, one particular graphic stood out. Endeavor shared some research they’ve been working on for a bit on the common themes in unicorn founders. And the below graphic is what came out of that.

Source: Endeavor

For any VC out there, the above may be interesting to compare to your own deal flow and portfolio. For any founders out there reading the piece, and while this is a loaded term that comes with a lot of baggage, the above is where you might see a lot of investors regress to pattern recognition. So if you don’t look like a founder that’s illustrated above, be sure to address the implicit elephant in the room early on in your pitch. The best way to do so is through metrics. The second best way is to share leading indicators of grit and market / problem obsession.

While the study itself is fascinating, and I highly recommend you taking a deeper dive into it, one particular portion is worth underscoring. “Another difference between the emerging market and US founders is how fast they grow their companies. Founders in emerging markets achieved unicorn status for their companies in an average of five and a half years, while US founders took more than six years.”

Why is that noteworthy?

So I will preface that this is completely anecdotal. I’ve seen about two dozen or so emerging market funds myself, and have chatted with about the same number of LPs who have invested in emerging market funds. And the statisticians out there may say that isn’t statistically significant. So take what I’m about to say next with a grain of salt.

In the decks I’ve seen and the conversations I’ve had, I’ve noticed something else. That funds investing in the US and Western European markets tend to have an expected deployment period of 3-4 years. I’ll caveat that this period in practice may differ from the pitch. But nevertheless the model holds. LPs in US-oriented funds often expect 6-8 years before any exits or liquidation events happen. Which is why so many LPs say it takes a fund an average of 6-8 years to settle into its quartile. (And, here’s another example.)

And it is because of that, GPs are incentivized to deploy their last net new check before year 4, and for others year 3. ‘Cause compounding takes time.

But on the flip side, I’ve seen emerging market funds err on the side of longer deployment periods. Usually 4-5 years. At least in the pitch. In my very, very basic diligence, aka asking lawyer friends who help funds set up in emerging markets, that seems to corroborate with their experience.

Reading the tea leaves

So I don’t know how much of this deployment period pitch is intentional by design, or accidental. The latter in the sense, that at least in Asian and SEA markets, professionals tend to be more conservative than in the US. So longer deployment periods help investors proceed with caution. In fairness, some investors are more intentional than others. But the logic seems to hold. If it takes less time for exits to materialize in emerging markets, for the same 10-year fund, one can afford to deploy their last net new check later.

All this to say, Endeavor’s piece was quite thought-provoking for an LP, just as much it’s been for a VC or founder.

Photo by Mark Pecar 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.

Proudly powered by WordPress