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?
The LP industry in ten years will be much bigger than it is today. We are not even close to the TAM of it.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Kajirecently 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:
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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 Susterrecently 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.
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:
Level 1 – The Basics: LinkedIn, Common Connections, Google, and Company Website
Level 2 – Digging in: Social Media
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 Rockefellerbuilt 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 Fleischmannonce 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:
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.
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:
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.
In one of the recent All-In podcast episodes, Bill Gurley shared that both VCs and LPs aren’t marking down their portfolios. For GPs, inflated numbers helps you raise the next fund. For LPs, they’re given their “bonus on paper marks. So, they don’t have an incentive to dial around to their GPs and say, ‘Get their marks right.’ ‘Cause it’s actually going to reflect poorly on them if they were to roll those up.”
The last few years, enterprise value has been largely based on multiple expansion. The truth is we’re not going to see much of it in the incoming years. Even AI that’s exploding right now will see a contraction of their multiples in due time.
Companies that should not be in business today will see their ultimatum too in the next few years. Hunter Walk recently wrote “they’re 2017-2021’s normal failures clustered into current times.”
So, while some GPs do pre-emptively mark down their portfolio by 25-30% — we’re seeing this behavior more so in pre-seed and seed funds — the only people in this whole dance that are incented to mark down portfolios are new LPs trying to figure out if they want to commit to a new fund.
And while the advice applies to newer VCs, the same is true for experienced investors. Of course, most investors aim to be in the upper right-hand corner, but that’s really, really hard. In truth, most notable investors fall in two cohorts: marketers and tastemakers.
Marketers:
Share a high volume of deal flow,
Lower quality opportunities,
Have relatively low conviction on each deal compared to their counterparts, the tastemakers,
Have comparatively diversified portfolios,
And could have adverse effects on branding and positioning in the market.
Tastemakers, on the other hand:
Share a lower volume of deals,
Usually higher quality opportunities,
Higher conviction per deal,
Have comparatively more concentrated portfolios.
And the downside may simply be the fact that their volume may not warrant raising a fund around, and might be better off as an opportunistic investor.
And speaking of concentrated versus diversified, the interesting thing, as Samir Kaji shared on his recent podcast episode, is that “at 85 companies [in the portfolio], you had over 90% chance of getting a 2X. But a very low chance at getting anything above a 3X. And with smaller portfolio sizes [between 15-25 companies], there was much higher variance — both on the top and bottom. Higher chance that you perform worse than the median. But a much higher chance of being in the top quartile and even beyond that, in the top decile.”
It’s also so hard to tell what high quality companies look like before the liquidation event. Naturally, high quality funds are even harder to tell before the fund term. It’s ’cause of that that a few LPs and I wrote the post last week on early DPI. But I digress. At the end of the day, many, for better or worse, use valuation and markups as a proxy for quality.
But really, the last week’s valuation in this week’s market environment. Rather than chasing an arbitrary number, a lot more LPs when evaluating net new fund investments, and GPs making net new startup investments, care about the quality of the businesses they invest in. It’s not about the unicorns; it’s about the centaurs. The $100M annualized revenue businesses.
Samir Kaji’s words in 2022 ring true then as they do today. “Mark-downs of prior vintages are starting to occur but will take some time given valuation and reporting lags.” We’re still seeing many who have yet to go back to market. As many say, the flat round is the new up round. But until folks go back to market, there are many who won’t jump the gun in writing down their portfolio. But they are cautioning themselves, so that hopefully they won’t make the same mistakes again. The goalposts have changed.
I’m reminded of Henry McCance’s words channeled through Chris Douvos. “When an asset class works well, capital is expensive and time is cheap. What we saw in the bubble was that capital got cheap and time got expensive.”
We’re now back at a time when capital is expensive and time is cheap.
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.
In an industry that is heavily apprenticeship-driven, the more tactical advice one gets, the faster they grow. Historically, that meant a senior partner taking you under their wing. Or maybe 2-3. While I’ve been lucky to work and learn alongside some of the world’s most exceptional minds in the funding landscape, I’ve always found it helpful to have multiple teachers. Some in the form of books. Others in the form of shorter form content. Tweets. Social posts. Podcasts. And of course, from the insightful conversations that I have weekly. At the same time, in hopes of supporting the growth of others in this industry (such a small world, but it just isn’t helpful enough), this blog has been and will continue to be my vehicle for stewarding information and insights from the best.
Just like in both of my initial pieces of 99 pieces of advice for investors and founders I wrote in April 2022, this will be a continuation and an evolution of the last. While this will cover more of the same topics as last time, like startup investing, pitching to LPs, and fund strategy, I’m personally really excited about the some new categories, like succession planning, tax, and how to think about exiting positions.
And while I do write long form posts most of the time, and have been guilty of well… longerrrrrr form essays (and maybe one day with even more r’s), like this or this… I digress. While I do enjoy long form expositions, some things are best shared without superfluousness.
Most of the advice below captures the essence of a TikTok or Instagram Reel or a YouTube short. Choose your fancy. Many of which answers the age-old podcast question: “If you were to share one piece of advice with your [insert age]-year old self, what would it be?” Or “What advice would you give someone starting their first fund today?“
And now with “new and improved UI” (don’t get too excited, just number count of soundbites in each category), each fall in one of ten categories:
1/ You can’t be in every good deal, but every deal you’re in better be good.
2/ “You’re not defined by your worst investment. All angels will have failures in their portfolio. It’s part of the process.” – Brian Rumao
3/ “The weird thing is when late stage went from the hardest part of venture to the easiest. And that should have been the flag to everybody.” – Jason Lemkin*timestamped May 2022
4/ “The older you get, the younger your mentors should be.” – Samir Kaji
5/ “Your brand is what people say about you when you’re not in the room. It’s their first reaction when they see an email from you in their inbox. You build that brand — or not — with every interaction.” – Chris Fralic
6/ “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” – Winston Churchill
7/ When there’s risk involved, don’t let the outcome determine the quality of your decision. – Andy Rachleff
Investing — Deal flow, theses, diligence
8/ When assessing startups against their incumbents, consider their incumbents’ ability to hire top talent. For instance, if the incumbents are banks that are known for slower logistical and bureaucratic procedures, it’s easy to hire the best talent out there. On the other hand, if the incumbents are Coinbase, that’s still a fairly young, sexy company that’s innovating quickly, hiring top (technical) talent is more challenging. Shared by a former executive and founder with 2 exits, turned fund manager with 2 funds.
9/ If you’re not getting a call from a founder when they’re in trouble, you’re probably not getting a call from a founder when they’re raising their next big round. – Zach Coelius
10/ Pick great market inflection points to bet on. “The founder is the surfer. The product is the surfboard. The market is the wave. The wave matters most.” If you bet on a good surfer on a bad wave, they’re not going to get you the returns you want. Some Sequoia partner.
11/ Ask for investor updates (before investing). Before you invest, ask for the most recent investor updates. Helps you understand how founders think and communicate. – Brian Rumao
12/ Align with the founders, but also employees on valuations and dilution. – Nikhil Basu Trivedi
13/ The earlier you invest and the more you care about ownership, the more active role you’re expected to take in your portfolio company. You can’t expect to take large ownerships, and not actively help anymore. If you want to be a hands-off investor, you don’t have a right to fight for ownership. In a bull market, founders get picky about who’s on their cap table (as they should be). Focus on your check size to helpfulness (CS:H) ratio. Inspired by Jason Lemkin.
14/ “We have no fear. If we could find God’s phone number, we’d call him.” – David Beirne of Benchmark Capital fame, cited in eBoys. You are never too good to cold-call.
15/ Create a list of your favorite builders (i.e. engineers, community managers, executives, etc.). Then scrape Delaware incorporation docs regularly to see if any on the former list pop up in the search. If so, reach out to them early.
16/ Ask the founders to see different versions of the pitch deck. While we always say, “investors invest in lines, not dots”, oftentimes it’s hard to measure the slope (rather than y-intercept) when you’re meeting only with a founder at the beginning of their fundraise and not sooner. But one way to see is watch how much the pitch decks changed over time (and how quickly the founders incorporated feedback).
17/ Invest in companies that will be timeless. Where there will still be customers in a recession.
18/ If the competitors of the startup are being bought by private equity firms, then it may be a lucrative space to invest into. The competitors’ innovation slows, and optimizing for profit and the balance sheet becomes a priority when PE firms come in. – David Sacks
19/ There is a superpower to be speaking the same native language as the founders you back (and for them to their customers). Try to understand them for their position of strength.
20/ “The market you’re exiting in is not the one you’re funding now.” – Ben Narasin
21/ “There’s another phenomenon that happens in a time like this: Google’s not hiring. Facebook’s not hiring. People are clamping down. Guess what happens to their most advanced projects? They go. And guess who are the best people in any large company? The best people are working on the most advanced projects. They are the ones who want to do visionary things. They’re the fodder entrepreneur for venture capitalists. So I think many more of the best people — not because they’re not getting paid huge raises in compensation — but because they’re working on less interesting projects — will leave to follow their vision.” – Vinod Khosla (timestamped Oct 28, 2022)
23/ “Funny people are really underrated. […] Charismatic leaders are pretty funny. Humor is a really important emotion for two reasons. One is if you can evoke it a lot and be funny, you can create a sense of bonding. Generally speaking, in a remote world, there is a shortage of emotions you feel. An exchange between us now as we stare at each other in our computer monitors is maybe 1/100th of what it would have been in the real world. When you think about it, why do movies succeed? Movies substitute the real world interaction with synthetic emotion. So… horror, humor, action, drama. So you want leaders who can do the same over Zoom. That’s why Peloton instructors have all the jokes that they’re saying. It’s same exact effect.
“But there is a second reason to why humor matters, which is if you were to imagine a Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, I at least find with myself, I’m not able to think of a joke if basic stuff isn’t right. […] You do have to be careful of the ‘court jester’ type. These are people who are so insecure that they’ll do anything to get a [cheap] laugh.” – Daniel Gross. For example, cursing or vulgar jokes or making fun of others are examples of cheap laughter.
24/ For follow-on checks, Founders Fund and Saastr invest 10% of the fund in each of their “winners”. – Jason Lemkin
25/ “Whenever a CEO blames their bad performance on the economy, I knew I had a really crappy CEO. ‘Cause it wasn’t the economy, it was a bad product-market fit. The dogs didn’t wanna eat the dogfood. Sometimes the economy can make that a little worse, but if people are desperate for your product, it doesn’t matter if the times are good or bad, they’re going to buy your product.” – Andy Rachleff
26/ “[Peter Reinhardt] would put plants in different parts of the office in order for the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 to be the same. He would put noise machines in the perfectly placed areas and then reallocate the types of teams that needed to be by certain types of noise so that the decibel levels were consistent. What I don’t think people realize about founders is that they are maniacal about the details. They are unbelievable about the things that they see.” – Joubin Mirzadegan
Value add
27/ Everyone says they’re a value add investor or founder friendly. And every founder goes through these 10-15 moments in their founder journey from which they lose sleep over. How many of your portfolio founders call you first if shit hits the fan? Those will be who you’re remembered by. No other portfolio founders will remember you.
28/ The network you bring is table stakes. That will neither help you win deals or raise LP capital when it really matters.
29/ “Dirty secret of VC platform teams: they are more about scaling the GP than the founder.” – Sarah Tavel
30/ Are you uniquely positioned to get allocation on the cap table because you can be a value add to these companies? – Vijen Patel
31/ Sometimes the most helpful thing you can do is to say no. When founders ask for introductions, and you don’t think they’re a good fit for your investor network, “It’ll be tough for you to fundraise right now. And if you jump in a conversation now with these other investors, it’ll hurt your ability to fundraise when you finally iron out those 1-2 key metrics and get to that inflection point.”
32/ Before the term sheet is signed, sit down with them and say this. “‘Listen. The chances this company gets to the finish line – the finish line being this fantastic exit – we don’t know what they are. But what I do know is that there is a chance, a high probability, that the company will fail. And I want you to think about this as an opportunity cost. I want you to think about every day you walk in the door to this company or turn on this Zoom as an opportunity cost. If it is not working, I want you to tell me, ‘It’s not working.’ And let’s have just a dispassionate conversation about what that means, so that we don’t waste any more time trying to make it work. And I promise you I will do the same.’
“And if you can set those guidelines from the beginning, you can move onto something that might have better timing. The founder can. And I can. Be aware of what failure looks like.” – Maha Ibrahim
Pitching to LPs
33/ Don’t promise your LPs guaranteed co-investing rights to go directly on the cap table of your portfolio companies. Let the founders decide who gets to invest on their cap tables. – Samir Kaji.
34/ A typical emerging fund takes 1-2 years to raise <$10M. Plan for that timeframe. A fast raise is 6 months. – Elizabeth Yin*timestamped April 2022
35/ To LPs there are 4 main metrics that are of note. Gross and net IRR to show how cash efficient you are, as well as how your portfolio is marked up. TVPI and DPI to show your paper returns and cash you’ve returned to your LPs, respectively. – Chamath Palihapitiya
36/ When you’re pitching institutional LPs (i.e. endowments, pension funds, university investment offices, etc.), you’re bet against 10-year life cycles and portfolio strategies. When benchmarking metrics (i.e. IRRs and TVPIs/DPIs), you have to show you can outperform other asset classes (i.e. real estate) and the public market equivalent (PME). Comparing and contrasting is often the most effective.
37/ When you’re pitching individual LPs (i.e. angels, or “belief capital), largely true for Fund I’s and II’s, it’s about personality and promise. Do people like you? Do you bring in great top of funnel deals? Are you different?
38/ “Don’t run out of leads.” You want to be constantly meeting new investors, ’cause you don’t want to be in a situation where you have to go back and convince people who are clearly not sold. – Elizabeth Yin
39/ If your Fund I consists of mostly individual LPs (i.e. accredited investors, but not qualified purchasers), you’re going to have to fundraise from scratch in Fund II and III. Since they have less of a net worth than institutional LPs, they most likely don’t have the capital to: (a) re-commit for a subsequent fund, (b) and even if they do, they won’t have enough to meet the minimum check size, assuming Fund II/III is bigger than Fund I. Inspired by Elizabeth Yin.
40/ Ask LPs what they like and what they don’t like about the pitch deck, and use each conversation as a learning and refining process.
41/ Figure out how much money you’re capable of raising in Fund I, and raise 25% less. It’s much better to be oversubscribed than suffer from lack of momentum. And leverage the “oversubscription” to help you raise Fund II, III, and so on. Told me to by someone who has sat on over 6 LPACs(LP advisory committees) in his career so far.
42/ The median family office check into first-time fund managers is $750K, with over 80% of family offices investing into first-time managers.
43/ “Does the world need another VC fund?” Most LPs don’t think so, so you need to convince them why you should exist.
44/ Before wasting your time pitching to some LPs, ask “Are you actively investing in venture funds at this time?” Many take meetings, but aren’t. Your time is precious.
45/ You’re going to raise from friends and family in the beginning. Your second cohort of LPs will be people you have a substantial network to. In other words, investors who you have many duplicate warm connections with, so that they can easily qualify your ability. – Dylan Weening
46/ In a recessionary market, LPs find themselves rebalancing their asset allocations. As their public market assets go down, they find themselves overallocated into venture. As such, they’re investing in less new managers. So in order to raise as an emerging GP from these LPs, you need to replace someone they’re currently investing into. That means you need to: (a) outperform them (4x TVPI is table stakes), and (b) have one compelling story on why you, backed by numbers.
47/ When doing diligence, sophisticated LPs evaluate you based on consistency. They will evaluate fund/portfolio performance with AND without your top investment. Hence, they expect a minimum number of investments in your portfolio – usually 20 to 30.
48/ Some LPs have been burned by staying invested in yesterday’s firms for too long. The top firms a decade ago are not the same top firms today. These firms often have an emerging GP thesis.
49/ “This is not a one-trick-pony relationship. You’re a capital allocator. The cost of finding new relationships to build is significant. You need to seek long-term capital allocation partners. Have a three to five fund view – multi-decade relationships. How repeatable is your success?” Shared by an LP in 30 funds.
50/ “The best filter for this is figuring out what [an LP’s] minimum check size is. And, is that greater than 20% of your fund size? If so, it won’t be a good fit.” – Sarah Smith
51/ “There’s a thing called ’round tripping.’ If a fund in India invests in a fund that’s built in the US, then invests back into Indian startups, that’s round tripping. And unfortunately, not allowed.” – Shiva Singh Sangwan
52/ “Before you say yes to LPs, check the CFIUS rules. Under those guidelines, you may not be able to take money from certain countries and parties.” – Arjun Dev Arora
53/ “Valuations are not the way you judge a venture capitalist, or multiples of their fund. […] The way that I judge a venture capitalist is by how many companies did they back that grew into $100M revenue businesses.” – Andy Rachleff
Fund strategy/portfolio construction
54/ It’s often good practice to not lead syndicates the same time as you’re raising for a fund (outside of SPVs to maintain pro rata). It gives too much optionality to LPs. For the most part, it’s easier sell a deal than it is to sell a fund.
55/ Typical GP commits are 1-2% of the fund. If you’re unable to do so (or even if you are), good practices include recycling fees and deal warehousing. The latter is where you keep a portfolio of personal investments in storage before launching the fund. Warehousing deals de-risk the deal by allowing LPs to participate in marked-up deals at more lucrative, aka lower valuations.
56/ In a downturn, investors are still funding startups but adding in more terms in the form of side letters. The riskier the bet, the greater the liquidation preferences, anti-dilution provisions, and minimum hurdle rate expectations.*timestamped in April 2022
57/ “Bank loans for VC funds have short paybacks (90-180 days). The 2+ year paybacks relate to large PE funds. IRR boost is minimal in VC.” – Samir Kaji
58/ Don’t be scared to recycle carry early. Most funds suffer from under-deployment, which usually leads VCs to deploy the last 25% of capital either towards deals with high valuations or in difficult situations (down rounds, pay to play rounds). – Villi Iltchev
59/ While pro rata rights are technically legally binding, earn the right to invest in subsequent rounds, rather than just expect it.
60/ Liquidation preferences have little impact on fund returns, which makes sense when you actually think about it, but many VCs add these provisions to protect their downside. Data shows that only the bottom quartile funds see IRR impacted greater than 1% due to liquidation preferences. Returns are driven by the winners in your portfolio where liquidation preferences don’t matter. There’s a big difference in a strategy to win versus a strategy not to lose.
61/ IRR is a vanity metric for funds early in their life cycle. While it can be a useful metric for LPs to compare across vintages and their portfolio, overoptimizing for it gives a false sense of hope. Why? IRR values quick capital deployment. Recycling hurts IRR. Many things change over the span of a 10-15 year fund. – Seth Levine.
62/ Ownership and pro rata allocations are inversely proportional to the number of portfolio companies in a fund. Many managers can’t get 100% of their pro rata allocations, but rather only 50-75% of their allocations. Inspired by Henri Pierre-Jacques.
63/ Venture reserves make less sense in a bull market. Reserves are usually put into a fund’s winners. But in a hot market, a larger percentage of your portfolio companies get mark ups – making it harder to differentiate signal from noise. Reserves make sense in a bear market when it’s easier to differentiate signal from noise. In a bull market, it might be better to have no reserves, and spin up SPVs for a follow-on strategy.
64/ Your ability to get into later rounds, not just ’cause of pro-rata rights, should be a big determinant if you have a reserve strategy. Can you earn your allocation in later rounds? Will founders fight for you even when downstream investors want more equity? The best companies are hot commodities. Even if you have a follow-on strategy, you might not be able to get in those subsequent rounds.
65/ If you want to include more than 99 accredited investors in your fund, set up a parallel structure where you have one fund for accredited investors (<$10M) to include 249 accredited investors, and another fund for qualified purchasers (QPs).
66/ “The best way to protect yourself against the downside is to enjoy every bit of the upside.” – Bill Gurley
67/ If you have a parallel fund structure (i.e. one for accredited investors, one for qualified purchasers (QPs)) and you’re going through rolling closes, understand that your initial allocation in each deal will change as a function of each fund’s committed capital from LPs.
For example, let’s say you’re raising a hypothetical $100M fund – a $10M fund for accredited investors, and $90M for QPs. Let’s call the $10M fund Fund IA, and the $90M fund Fund I. On average, QPs take much longer to make a decision, so you’re likely to close your Fund IA before you close Fund I. As such, your first investments out of the fund might be 50-50 from each fund. But as you finish closing your Fund I, you will need to rebalance your allocation into earlier deals, like changing it from a 50-50 allocation between the two funds to 90-10. As such, in your term sheets, make sure you include the “right to transfer securities to affiliates.” And make it clear to your founders why that’s in there before everyone signs.
68/ If you’re building a concentrated portfolio, think about portfolio construction from a bottom-up perspective, rather than top-down. How many unicorns/decacorns do you need to return the fund? How often have you historically seen them in your inbox? That’ll be your deployment schedule. And subsequently, your capital call schedule.
69/ “Fund management is irrelevant unless there are winners in the portfolio.” – Laura Thompson
70/ Calculate your mark ups on priced rounds rather than valuation caps on SAFEs. Your TVPI and IRR may look nice in the short-term, and may help you raise from individual LPs. But once you start talking to institutions, you look deceitful or have no idea what you’re doing.
71/ Avoid overly large GP commits. If you invest too much of your own net worth into a fund, you’re going to make decisions that sacrifice the long game of the fund for short term personal liquidity, like selling secondaries to buy a house. Don’t go higher than 10% of your net worth. – Sheel Mohnot
72/ “For funds that are <$20MM, the GP commitment is fairly meaningless in the evaluation of a fund. Either the person is already taking a great opportunity cost by running such a small fund or has independent personal wealth where a small GP commitment is irrelevant to them.” – Samir Kaji
73/ “Most LPs allow you to reinvest returns 18-36 months after the investment period. The early wins are often small and don’t impact the returns so you are better off reinvesting to go for another unicorn. This is a game of outliers.” – Henri Pierre-Jacques
74/ “Management fee schedule adjustments: Pause or slow down fees in ’23 (with authority delegated to LPAC to avoid conflicts of interest)” – Chris Harvey (timestamped Feb 13, 2023). A way to leverage your LPAC to communicate fund decisions to the rest of your LPs
75/ “What % of companies successfully got funded from investment to the next round?
Seed —> Series A should be >35%.
Series A —> Series B should be >50%.
Series B —> Series C should be >50%.
And, Series C —> Series D+ should be >60%.” – Aman Verjee
76/ As a long-term investor, you have to generate at least three times the risk-free rate (3-month T-bonds, bank interest rates, etc.) to have an investment make sense in the long-term. – Chamath Palihapitiya, speaking when T-bonds’ rate is 6.5%, meaning a private investment must generate at least 20-25% for it to make sense
Selling positions
77/ “In consumer and consumer social, advocate more aggressively for selling along the way. The hype cycle of consumer means heat and traction do not have the sustainability of enterprise ARR and so more weight placed on selling some portion earlier there.” – Harry Stebbings
78/ “Pigs get fat but hogs get slaughtered. Even if we believe a company has tremendous longterm upside, it’s not inappropriate to take some money off the table in order to manage that risk. As we’re recently reminded, markets go down, not just up. Just be aware of the incentives, emotions, and other factors at play. It’s ok to behave one way before you hit your DPI target and another way after, but understand how those factors produce better or worse possible outcomes. This is also true with regards to recycling. If we can sell partially out of a position and put those proceeds into one that we believe has more incremental upside, that’s accretive to our results.” – Hunter Walk
79/ “Generally once a position is worth 3x the fund sell 1/3rd to return 1x the fund (if there is liquidity). […] For the hot names you will get a bunch of inbound. Negotiate to get a price you like. For less hot names, just talk to the investors leading the next round and see if they want to add to their position. A lot of times they do and don’t mind buying out earlier investors.” – Sheel Mohnot
80/ “For public shares, we’ve landed on the following model:
1/3rd immediately (either first-day lockup expires or immediate on direct listing)
1/3rd 6 months after
1/3rd up to our discretion
Here’s why — The first third books your win. If you do seed, you likely have a huge position by the time you hold public shares. The second third allows the stock price to stabilize after the market has been hit with lots of supply from VCs doing distributions. The last third allows you to have an opinion on the stock/market — however, you can choose to distribute this third anytime, including alongside or after the previous thirds.” – Chad Byers
81/ If you’re a reasonably good fund, you should return at least 1x your fund (1x DPI) within 5-7 years. – Chamath Palihapitiya and Jason Rowley
LP management
82/ Early funds generally have 30 LPs in the fund. Fund I is often an exception.
83/ A general rule of thumb is to not have any one LP contribute more than 25% of the fund, or else you might lose control when you have such a large “shareholder”.
84/ “After my LPs wire their money, I send them an intake form where I ask the question: How would you describe yourself as an LP? I have a number of statements they can select to indicate whether they are a newer or more experienced LP, if they’d like to be more active with founders, how often they’d like to communicate with me, and if they are interested in co-investment opportunities and events. I have another question following that: If you want to be more active, what are ways you enjoy helping?” – Sarah Smith
85/ “Be thoughtful about how you’re managing your time, so that you don’t turn into a full-time venture professor. You’re an investor, a GP. That’s what you’re getting paid to do.” – Arjun Dev Arora
86/ “Avoid LPs who ask you to give up economics as a GP or change your terms. LPs who want to negotiate lower management fees, a different carry structure, or they want to own 20% of the general partnership for the next three funds are best avoided if possible. They want to change the terms that everyone else has. I wouldn’t allow that. If other LPs find out (and they eventually do), it would cause my LPs to lose trust in me and rightfully be frustrated that they got worse terms.” – Sarah Smith
87/ “If someone does ask for it, and if they aren’t a large enough check, we tell them, ‘We like to reserve this spot for our largest LPs because they have the largest exposure in our fund. We’re open to you being a member in our LPAC, if you increase your check size.” That way, you can leave the ball in their court. Either, they won’t push further or they’ll commit more capital to the fund.” – Eric Bahn
88/ “If you’re in your Fund I or II, like I am, you’re still figuring shit out. You’re still testing what works and resonates and what doesn’t. I ask them, ‘what have you seen other managers do in this situation?’” – Paige Finn Doherty
89/ “The average, for a normal venture fund, is around 5-7 years to call 90% of the capital.” – Chamath Palihapitiya
SPVs/Syndicates
90/ There are two types of syndicate leads: “marketers” and “connoisseurs.” The former focuses on volume, which lead to more noise than signal. The latter focuses on quality, and as “tastemakers” lead to higher signal over noise. As LPs, quality may matter more than quantity, especially when you’re most likely diversified by being in several other syndicates already. Inspired by Julian Weisser.
91/ If you’re warehousing SPVs for your fund, do note that the number of unique LPs in your SPV(s) count towards your accredited investor limit.
92/ If you’re an LP in an SPV and agree for it to be warehoused into a fund, you are forgoing your right to the individual deal for access to the fund’s portfolio of deals.
93/ As the syndicate lead, set the minimum check size at or less than your own check size.
94/ Your GP commit into your SPV is directly proportional to your net worth. The greater your net worth, the more you’re expected to contribute. Any less, would be a negative signal. That said, the less of a net worth you have, the more you’re expected to be a great curator of deals.
Succession planning
95/ “The best way to think about succession planning is that you have to have team members at different parts of their life. Different generations. Even if they’re non-founding partners, if they all retire at the same time, you can’t build a legacy.” – An investor with 9-figure AUM
96/ Structure your fund to have a generational off-ramp for compensation. A lot of funds are structured so that payout is done through the management company, and so owning equity in the management company becomes increasingly more expensive as the firm matures and has greater AUM, etc. So the next generation, in order to succeed the firm, must buy out the previous generation’s equity. So, leadership transitions are not easy. Instead, structure your firm so that the management company doesn’t have value, where the value is at the GP. So transitions are a lot easier. – Maha Ibrahim
Tax planning
97/ When invest in a startup via SAFEs or convertible notes, your QSBS timer counts when the SAFE converts on equity round, not during the convertible round.
98/ As a GP who takes management fees through a management company, often LLC, you don’t receive W-2’s. As such, you can’t withhold taxes, so you have to be disciplined on cash management. “Outside of federal and state tax, there is a massive self-employment tax of 12.4% on up to $147,000 of earnings. And an additional 2.9% on any earnings.” – Jarrid Tingle
99/ The origin of the 1% GP commit comes from taxation laws prior to 1996. But even now, “in order for GPs to avoid their carried interest being taxed as ordinary income vs. long-term capital gains, many GPs still follow safe harbor.” – Courtney McCrea and Sara Zulkosky. While this isolates GPs who aren’t independently wealthy or are well-capitalized, in lieu of the typical cash contribution, I see a lot more emerging GPs warehouse deals and recycle carry.
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.
An old college friend reached out to me not too long ago and asked me if I had any tips to share on getting a mentor. And the first thing I responded with is: “Don’t ask people to be your mentor. In fact, don’t even mention the word mentorship.”
You see, mentorship is a loaded word. It comes with baggage. Centuries of it. Hell, millennia of it. And apparently, dating as far back as 3,000 years ago to Homer’s Odyssey. Mentorship comes with an expectation of commitment. While that amount of commitment differs per person, a mentorship ask from a stranger is an amorphous expectation of time and energy from a busy person who likely has a laundry list of other priorities. Without any precedence or context, it’s hard to make that decision with asymmetric information.
The best pairs of mentorship have always been a two-way street. It takes two to tango. If we were to take the equation of a line:
y = mx + b
… a mentee wants a mentor whose current b, or position and experience level in time, is greater than their own. A mentor wants a mentee whose m (rate of learning, iteration, and hustle) is as great or greater than their own. The bet is that at some point in the future, at least in my experience, mentors would like to learn from their mentees as well, and/or see it paid forward.
Yet, I see so many mentees out there who discount their own value in the relationship. One of my mentors shared with me a few years ago that the older you are, the younger your mentors should be. And I’ve carried that in my heart ever since. More recently, I found that line in the form of a tweet from Samir Kaji.
Was at a VC quarterly meeting today and the topic of aging out in VC/tech came up (which I think is BS)
Their response on how they stay fresh in mental models was around the thinking of "the older you get, the younger your mentors should be".
I can’t claim to have mentored tons of folks, but I also realize both from anecdotal experience and talking with my mentors that the best thing about mentorship is the feedback. That the mentors learn about the result of their advice as an opportunity to finetune their own learnings.
Take for example, my office hours. Of the hundred or so people I’ve met through open office hours, I’ve probably shared the same piece of advice at most five times. It gets even more interesting when you consider that the vast majority of people I’ve met via office hours come for fundraising advice. Somewhere in the ballpark of 80% of people. While there are similar thematic questions I ask people to consider, the best advice is tailored to every unique situation. That said, my advice, like any others’, starts as a product of my own anecdotal experience. A sample size of one. And as we learned in Stats 1 in high school or college, that’s a poor sample size. So, one of the best ways for me to refine my own learnings is either:
Act on it again and again. But there are some things in life I can’t do again. For instance, high school or freshman year of college or my first job. Those are experiences entombed in amber that unless I had a time machine, they’re one and done.
Learn how other people execute on that advice and what resulted of it.
One of the many joys of writing this blog is that every so often a kind reader reaches out to me and shares the results of them implementing the thoughts I’ve shared here. Then they let me know I’m either full of s**t or I drastically helped them grow. And I love both forms of feedback equally as much. After all, it’s the rate of compounded learning that helps me mature — even if it’s outside of my own anecdotal experience. Feedback and learning of others’ results gives me a sample size greater than one. The same is true for other mentors, advisors, and investors out there.
So, what does that mean tactically?
Start with the ask.
There’s a metaphorical saying in the world of venture that investors invest in lines, not dots. They want to see progression rather than stagnation. So in reaching out to anyone you’d want to learn from, don’t lead with “Can I have 30 minutes of your time?” Instead, lead with a question. Why are you reaching out? What question can only they answer?
So, that means, “should I get an MBA?” is not a good question to ask. It’s generic, doesn’t contextualize the question, and you can figure out how to do so on the internet. On the flip side, a better question would be: “I saw that you graduated from Wharton before breaking into VC. So I’m curious, did you always know you wanted to be in VC, or was that something you discovered in B-school? And what experiences did you gain in B-school that set you up for VC?”
Moreover, show you’ve spent time in the idea maze before proposing the question to the person you want to learn from. “I’ve read about X and Y, and have thought about or tried A and B already with these results. But the question still gnaws at me.”
Why does this contextualization matter? One, it gives that person context to better answer your question. Two, the last thing any person giving advice wants is for their advice to dissipate into the cosmos. For their advice to go to naught. And if you show that you’ve spend blood, sweat and tears already pondering the problem, then you’re more likely to take their advice seriously. In effect, their advice will be a lot more meaningful. And, chances are you’re going to be a lot less whimsical than the average person asking for their time. Use someone’s time in a way that won’t feel wasted.
Follow up even if they ghost you.
If they respond the first time, great. And if not, don’t give up until you’ve sent at least three emails. If they don’t respond the first time, they just might not have seen it. If they don’t respond after the ninth email, they’re just not interested.
And with each email follow up, tell them when you plan to follow up since you assume they’re busy. “If you’re too busy, I completely understand and I’ll follow up in two weeks.” On the last email if no response, thank them for their time and wish them well.
Don’t set recurring meetings (initially).
First of all, it’s a heavy ask to anyone — stranger or not. Second of all, there’s no promise that their time (and your time) won’t be wasted. Third, do you even have that much to ask about? Most of the time, you don’t. What you think you want and what you actually need are usually very different. It’s an iterative process.
Instead, start with a single question. Ask it. If they’re free for a meeting, set 20 minutes (here‘s why I like 20, instead of 30). If not, get their thoughts asynchronously. Get advice. Act on the advice (or not, but be intentional if not). The most important part is to share your results with the origin of that advice.
So, when you close out that initial meeting, ask if you can reach out to them 24 or 48 hours later after you’ve had time to mull on it or act on it. Timeframe will vary. And if you do follow up shortly after without results, limit any additional ask to 1-2 questions, max. Ideally it should take them 2-3 minutes to respond to. For any advice that takes a longer feedback loop, set a time in the future (two weeks, a month, 2 months, etc.) later to reach back out to share your learnings. And sometimes, that means you didn’t implement their advice. Why not? What did you learn from doing the counterfactual?
When you reach back out to share your learnings, see if you can jump on another 20 minute call, or shorter. And get their thoughts on the facts. Possibly get more advice. And do that again and again. Until at some point — my litmus test is usually 3-4 of these discrete exchanges, in no particular frequency —, I ask if we can get something recurring on the calendar. Nothing long. Stick to 20 minutes. And set an end date for the recurring nature. I usually do 4-5 times as the first run through.
At the end of those recurring meetings, be honest and mutually evaluate: Was it a good use of everyone’s time? If not, end it, but reach back out periodically to share your thanks, especially around the holiday season. If it does work, set another set of recurring meetings and reevaluate again in X time. And voila, you have yourself a mentor (in the traditional sense).
One more note on this… if that person is extremely busy and you know they are, sometimes a more personal touch to the email is recording a Loom and asking your question in front of a camera to that person in particular. For any Loom video, I wouldn’t go over a minute of recording time. Keep it concise, and use text to describe everything else.
Build a platform where they can share their advice with others.
Either start a podcast or a blog. Or help them find an audience that is outside of yourself —a fireside chat, a club, a non-profit, posting a Twitter thread or LinkedIn post, and so on. Their time is limited, and if they’re likely to give that same piece of advice to many others, help them find the tribe of people who are willing to listen to their advice. So instead of their advice being one-to-one, it’s one-to-many. In sum, a larger impact radius.
Of course, the caveat here is if the advice you seek is personal experience that isn’t suited for a stage, then don’t do it.
In closing
Some of the mentors I have today are folks I’ve known for years, but neither of us remember the discrete date in which it all started. Simply put, “it just happened.” There are others where we’ve never explicitly said we were mentor and mentee. Yet, I learn just as much if not more than if I had explicitly asked for mentorship. The same is true for some of the “mentees” I have.
At the same time, I wouldn’t discount the fact that you can truly find mentors everywhere in your life. Too many people focus on only finding strategic mentors, but fail to see the value in tactical and peer mentors, which I wrote more about three years back.
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!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Before we dive into this blogpost, I’ve been asked by my legal friends to include the below disclaimer. I have a version of this at the bottom of every blogpost, but nevertheless, it doesn’t hurt to reiterate it again.
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.
Back in the hallowed halls of my elementary school, I had a principal whose presence was always larger than life. He was often the optimist and, with words alone, could figuratively turn water into wine, and any mistake into an opportunity. Ironically, there was a sign that hung above the door to his office that read: Opportunity is nowhere. An odd sign that seemed to be the Hyde to his Jekyll.
I spent a whole year contemplating why. And on the last day of third grade, I finally mustered the courage to ask him.
“Mr. M, why do you have that sign above your door?”
“What sign?”
“The sign that says ‘Opportunity is nowhere.'”
He paused and chuckled, “David, it looks like I bought the wrong sign. It’s supposed to say ‘Opportunity is now here.’ But now that you mention it, you could say the only difference between no opportunities and endless opportunities is just one small space.”
In the venture market, that small space blossomed in late 2020. In a flurry of SPACs, secondary markets, and tech IPOs, exit opportunities for venture-backed companies were flourishing. There were multiple paths to liquidity. Tech employees saw their net worth grow, and more accredited investors were minted by the day. Alumni syndicates grew in membership and deal volume.
With a surplus of capital in the market, the money had to go somewhere. Not to savings accounts. But to goods and services. Crypto and NFTs. Startups. And other capital allocators.
Adjacently, the COVID days saw the (re)emergence of new markets. Ecommerce. Fintech. Remote work. Future of work. Web3 and the metaverse. Just to name a few.
In 2021, VC fundraising activity surpassed $100B in funds raised for the first time. $128.3 billion across 730 funds, to be exact. Carta also saw a massive jump in the number of Fund I’s created last year. More than ever before, there was an abundance in opportunities to invest in venture funds.
Anecdotally, in my work at On Deck Angels and at DECODE, I’ve seen a rise in the number of opportunities to invest into funds as well. Via various other platforms as well:
Revere — where you can discover and evaluate venture fund managers through a unique rating framework. They’ve also recently launched explorevc.com for those curious about who’s in their pipeline;
Allocate — an end-to-end platform that covers everything from discovery to capital calls and keeping track of your portfolio;
Arlan Hamilton famously raised $5M of her fund via Republic, an equity crowdfunding platform. More recently, Cathie Wood announced the opportunity for non-accredited investors to invest in the ARK Venture Fund through Titan.
There was and still is a wealth of noise, but a poverty of “signal” — a word that may have lost its true meaning in these past few years. When signal is everywhere, it is nowhere. So more than ever before, more than opportunities, what the world needs more of are frameworks. Frameworks on how to differentiate for yourself signal from noise.
There is a wealth of content and discourse in the broader world for investors, which include advice on personal finance, investing in stocks, option trading, and of course, quite a bit, in the world of startup investing. But surprisingly little in the realm of investing in venture funds. The only ones I could find were OpenLP and SuperLP, which if you know me I had to ask both of their authors for their latest insights here as well.
As we were wrapping up our conversation on a sweltering late summer day, Martin Tobias, founding partner at Incisive Ventures, told me:
“Somebody should write a book like Jason Calacanis’ Angels, but for LPs.”
And he’s completely right. While that is a larger endeavor altogether, hopefully, this blogpost serves as a preamble for a greater conversation.
Who is the emerging LP?
An LP, or a limited partner, in the context of this essay, is someone who invests indirectly, rather than directly into startups. While investors in syndicates and SPVs are also counted as LPs, for the purpose of this piece, I’ll focus on people who invest in funds.
If you’re an emerging LP, you’re most likely writing checks into Fund I’s. Maybe Fund II’s, if you’re lucky, can write larger checks ($250-500K+), you have something a GP wants, or some permutation of the above.
Effectively, this blogpost is dedicated to the investor looking to invest in fund managers who have yet to prove their institutional track record. And just like investing into a pre-seed founder, searching for product-market fit, the checks you are writing are… belief capital.
If it’s belief capital, assuming the GP has the underlying mechanics down (portfolio construction, fund strategy, etc.), it’s all about people. And if it’s all about people (I’m overgeneralizing), how you win as an LP is determined by your ability to differentiate the top decile from the top quartile. Part of that requires some level of intuition. But I am ill-equipped to speak on LP intuition, as opposed to VC intuition. So, I had to ask folks with more miles on their odometer.
Asher Siddiqui shared it best in our conversation from the perspective of an emerging fund manager:
“Here’s the problem that I have. Imagine you’re an emerging fund manager and you think you’re hot shit. How long do you think it takes before you figure out if you are?
“The average deployment period is 2-3 years. You launch Fund I in Year 1 and launch Fund II between Year 2 and 3. You close the second fund around Year 4. By Year 7-8, you now have some DPI from Fund I, early DPI from Fund II, and are now writing your first checks from Fund III.
“The truth is no one knows if you’re a great fund manager until you’re eight to ten years in. That means if you’re meeting a great manager, you’re meeting them when they’re already at Fund III, or when they’re raising Fund IV.”
Similarly, the truth is as an emerging LP, you probably don’t have the opportunity to invest in “hot shit.” Why?
Top-tier funds are oversubscribed, and have a waitlist to even get the chance to invest.
And if you could, due to the size of their funds, you need to be able to write checks on the magnitude of 7-figures and up.
Rather the buffet you have before you is the opportunity to support the best before they’re the best. So instead of looking for lagging indicators, like TVPI, DPI, and IRR, the conversations that sparked this blogpost is intended to look for leading, predictive indicators. But as you might guess, there is no one right answer in foresight. But I do hope the below serve as tools in your toolkit as you grow your arsenal of frameworks for investing in GPs.
As a quick note, wanted to share some quick definitions I wish I knew at one point in my life:
TVPI: Total-value-to-paid-in capital, aka paper returns
DPI: Distributions-to-paid-in capital, aka the actual money you get back, or Chris Douvos calls it: “the moolah in the coolah”
IRR: Internal rate of return, aka how fast your money appreciates per year
Net IRR: your IRR after fees, carry, expenses are accounted for, and what LPs care about more than gross IRR
GP: General partner of a VC firm, aka the head honcho at a firm
Finding the best LPs
The world of fund investing is, for lack of better words, opaque. There’s no public Rolodex of limited partners. If you stick around the venture world long enough, there are familiar names that regularly pop up in fund pitch decks or during VC happy hour. And outside of the big institutions who write $5M+ checks that you might find on ad hoc expeditions into the world of the internet, the two best places I’ve found so far for information on LPs is Sapphire Partners’ OpenLP.com. And scouring AngelList’s syndicates and PCN (Private Capital Network) for their LP networks, neither of which are public either.
At the same time, most individual LPs don’t go “shopping” for deals. They invest opportunistically into people they know and trust or alongside people they trust. In a way, this blogpost is also designed to help the individual LPs below shop for deals. By sharing the fact they LP publicly, my sell to them was that maybe this blogpost will the earliest semblances of fund deal flow to them.
Just as a fund manager brings smaller LPs on for very specific reasons, an LP should have a similar rationale to why they are investing in a GP. It’s a two-way street.
Methodology and a table of contents
I’m going to preface by saying: This isn’t an academic research paper. So as such, I may not have followed all the best practices in doing academic research. Nevertheless, I promise you won’t be disappointed. The below found its genesis scratching a personal itch that grew into:
How can I best support emerging GPs?
A first step into demystifying the black box of LP investing
Help individual LPs build thought leadership and discoverability, aka deal flow
And, building an investing playbook for pre-product-market fit funds
To each individual, I asked just four questions:
Apart from TVPI and IRR, what are leading indicators that differentiate the great GPs from the good GPs? In other words, the top decile from the top quartile?
In fairness, I iterated on the wording of this question the most because a few LPs I asked early on only had one answer: track record. And track record — in other words, TVPI and IRR, especially DPI, are lagging indicators.
Any red flags about emerging GPs that new LPs should be aware of?
What common pieces of advice should emerging LPs ignore, if any?
This was one that either completely hit or completely missed. The latter due to the fact, that there isn’t much advice, period, that is shared between LPs who don’t already know each other. One of the main reasons I believe this blogpost should exist.
Anything else you think first-time LPs should be aware of?
Some shared over text. Others over email. And a handful of others across calls and coffee.
As such, I’ve segmented this blogpost into five main sections:
In the words of my friend and colleague Gautam, “A big part of direct early-stage investing is more than just financial return. The same holds true as an LP, especially as an emerging LP. Be very clear about why you’re an LP. An investor who invested in the same fund as I did called his LP commitment the most expensive newsletter subscription he’s ever been a part of.”
Why you should be an LP
“The most important question to answer is why do you want to be an LP? To me, there are three reasons:
You want to build a career in this space – potentially a fund of funds, or manage someone’s family office.
You’re not the best at picking individually good startup deals to invest in, and you want to be strategic. For example, if David has the best deal flow in web3*, and I don’t, I want to invest in David.
This manager also has access to top deals – top deals that would otherwise be impossible for you to get into. If you invest in the fund, you also get access to the fund’s pro rata rights.”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise *Author’s Note: I don’t have the best deal flow in web3, but am flattered to be the example.
“I’m also a startup investor myself. My goal is still to uncover the best investments out there. So, there are 5 reasons as to why I invest in funds:
Investing in outliers: I invest in funds who have access to opportunities I may have missed myself. I don’t want to miss the next Gong.
Knowledge and network expansion: I want to expand my knowledge and network of what and who is out there. To become a better fund manager and uncover what’s happening out there in the market, I read other GP’s investor updates. I learn from what they learn.
Expanding my deal flow: I invest in others’ funds to get to invest in the companies they’ve invested in, and earning my right to, by being as valuable as an LP as possible.
Learning: I’m able to learn about areas that I’m very interested in. For example, I’ve spend the past year trying to learn more about web3, so I invested in web3 funds. I read the GPs’ investor updates and have effectively built a braintrust of GPs who are experts in web3.
Regional coverage: I LP into funds in emerging markets, namely, India, Southeast Asia, and Europe. I want to back someone who’s just starting with a Fund I, in a region I don’t have coverage on.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
Why you should NOT be an LP
“Venture isn’t a winning strategy for retail investors. Many investors cite that new funds outperform the S&P 500 or Russell 2000, but the truth is most venture funds have a low probability of beating the NASDAQ. Those that say otherwise are ignorant. Venture, as an asset class, is worse than the best public market alternative ($QQQ) unless you are getting the best outcomes. You need to be in the quartile, by looking for the top decile. Only then can you beat the public markets.
“If you don’t fully understand what that game is – one you’re not going to get your capital back for 10-12 years, then stick to public markets and small checks angel investing to satisfy startup investing curiosity. People are often insular to what they see and believe, especially on Twitter. Everyone is talking their own book. Do your homework.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“Adjust expectations. People think that they’re going to always make 10x on their money, but I’m reminded of a story from early in my career.
“In the aftermath of the dotcom bubble, a time during which a looooottt of people made a lot of money, a big endowment that had one of the top venture portfolios looked at their relationships in their totality and found that only three of their managers exceeded a TVPI of greater than 2.5x for the whole of their relationship (across all the funds). And if you look at VC as a whole, returns have only very rarely met the lofty expectations that most people have. We’re looking back at an extraordinary time, but I think that when people look back, especially at a landscape littered with dilettante funds, that we’ll say that as the TVPI matured into DPI (the ‘moolah in da coolah’) times were pretty good, maybe even great, but not all the trees grew to the sky like some thought they would.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“My biggest piece of advice for this audience is to actually not invest in venture. Most of the entrepreneurial network over-indexes investments to venture capital or start-ups. But our career is probably already over-indexed to this high risk asset class. I encourage entrepreneurs who start to invest to look at real estate, stocks, private equity, or private debt/BDCs. You can actually buy private debt on the public markets, called BDCs – business development corporations – that are loans out of companies and pay 10-15% yield. Or mid-market private equity generates ~20% IRR’s with far higher confidence than a venture fund. Asset allocation across these different profiles are key.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
What Makes a Phenomenal GP (As Opposed to just a Good One)
For the purpose of this section, I’m going to depart from the usual metrics – like a 3x net multiple, or a 25%+ IRR for funds longer than 5 years. Why? Since (a) if those metrics exist, these funds are no longer non-obvious, and the likelihood of you having access to these funds as an emerging LP is slim (and fund performance speaks for itself), or (b) if they don’t exist, you’re going to rely on qualitative measures — just as you would investing in most early-stage startups pre-PMF.
Consistent, clear, and preemptive communication
“Most managers are not that great when it comes to transparency around fund operations. Things like: What are your latest investments? What’s the thesis behind some of those investments? How are they performing over time?
“Some of these things get answered, if I’m lucky, on a quarterly basis, but often on an annual basis or less. So if you find a team that’s consistent about sharing progress on a monthly or at the very least on a quarterly basis and are really responsive to answering your emails and any phone calls, that’s a good sign behind a team that’s working very hard to serve the interest of its LPs and treating the job like a fiduciary.
“I’ll put a little bit of side note here. This kind of behavior is great with founders, too. When founders are really great about communications, it correlates very well to their performance over time.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“The six funds that I’ve invested in so far (listed here if that’s helpful) have all been communicative, stayed true to their thesis, and given me opportunities to learn and help to the extent that I had hoped for.”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
“Sometimes things don’t perfectly line up — a GP might discover new opportunities or areas of interest as they start investing in a fund. Or increased competition. If strategy changes have occurred, ideally the GP would have been flagging this to their LPs over the course of the two years but for a new prospective LP being able to speak to the changes is important.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
The best have a unique perspective
“As an LP who also invests directly into startups, we seek GPs who have something unique – some kind of insight. It’s not always about having the highest net return. These days, there’s not enough GPs who have a unique angle on the market. It could be how they diligence deals, how they set their investment strategy, or what top investments look like.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“The funds we have known that are top decile have a point of view, this can be expressed as being thesis driven, but doesn’t have to be. It does though provide a reason for why they invest in what they do and why an entrepreneur picks them.
“They have also, in our experience, have had multiple fund returners within one fund. Not always, if an exit is large enough with respect to the size of the fund, it is possible to have a top decile fund with just one fund returner. The power law is alive and well in the top decile funds we’ve seen. This means swinging for the fences with respect to a fund’s investments as well as supporting this with a portfolio allocation and management strategy that enables a significant exit to provide for strong returns.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“Every investor claims to have a value. There are very few cases where investors pitch otherwise. Sector specific funds may have a real value add for very early stage startups.
Uniqueness is not about investing into a vertical or type of technology, but about their ability to measure the size of an idea. Great managers know how to identify big ideas that others aren’t seeing. Even more true if you run a big fund; you must be investing in even bigger outcomes.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
Is this strategy repeatable?
“Differentiating between ‘top decile’ and ‘top quartile’ is really just going to be luck, for the most part. If you’re simply measuring and assessing ‘good GPs’ from the great ones, by track record, here would be my top few:
“What % of the portfolio comes from the top 1, 2 or 3? If you can deliver a top-quartile return WITHOUT your one winner / ‘lucky bet’, that’s really good.
What % of companies successfully got funded from investment to the next round?
Seed —> Series A should be >35%
Series A —> Series B should be >50%
Series B —> Series C should be >50%
Series C —> Series D+ should be >60%”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
“For GPs with young track records, we look at what the contributing companies are. Who are the fund returners? And can they replicate the same strategy? When diligencing GPs, we also talk to the founders they invest in. Essentially, whether there is founder/GP fit.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“I look for someone who’s very consistent. They have the integrity to stick to their word. They’re not deal-chasing, deploying all their capital in less than two years, and trying to raise their next fund too quickly. Typically, you’re signing up for multiple funds. If the deployment window is very small, the GP makes frequent capital calls, which means you’re committing more capital in less time.”
— Sam Huleatt, On Deck
“TVPI and IRR tend to be lagging indicators, not leading ones (for many reasons — including irrelevance of these metrics earlier than 5 years, changing motivations, engagement, and so on for investors, and shift in fund size/strategy, noting the Maples Dictum that your fund size IS your strategy).
“For me, the thing that tilts the odds in favor of a manager having the potential to be ‘great’ is that they are leveraging some sort of ecosystem. That can be an ecosystem built on years of success (Sequoia) or ‘prepared mind’ like Accel back in the day, or deep entrenchment in a mafia (Founders Fund). Additionally, some people build fertile ecosystems like First Round or True by investing time and attention in targeted and intentional ways. I try to look for people that are entrenched in some kind of robust ecosystem and match the moment when their upward-sloping line of experience as an investor intersects the (generally) downward sloping line of hunger. For more specifics on my thought process, see the most recent (five years old LOL) post on Super LP.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“Over the long run of course, it’s DPI, but it’s about consistency of returns, which typically is a byproduct of them understanding where their definable edges (finding product/market fit), and ruthlessly exploiting those edges through building repeatable processes on sourcing, decision making, team building, etc.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“This portfolio can’t be a one-hit wonder. Is there enough gold in the middle after you take the top two and the bottom two investments out?
“There’s a Rome in everyone’s future. You go up and then you go down. There are many funds that generated outsized alpha in the last decade but are not what they used to be.
“If you’re leveraging a network, is that alumni network today the same as it was yesterday. Did most of the smart, driven people leave? Are you borrowing or are you using that network? Were you there at the right vintage?
“Also, bet on people who do what they said they would do. Where did the returns come from? If the top returns came from their 20% discretionary funds, and not their 80% core fund, is that something worth betting on again as an LP? I would rather back a 3x return from an on-thesis fund than someone who gave me a 6x who came from off-thesis. The latter is because it came from sheer dumb luck. The question is, what do they do with that dumb luck? Do they pivot and learn, or continue to go rogue / play the roulette?
“Think about why LPs give money to GPs. Anyone can go into Vegas and play the roulette. The best GPs can do something I cannot do and they do it repeatedly.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Access > proprietary deal flow
“We have felt for a number of years now (including pre-COVID) that the concept of ‘proprietary deal flow’ is not really a thing. Proprietary access however is something we think is true, powerful and not simple to achieve (hence why powerful ).”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“I look for emerging managers who have a highly differentiated platform offering or differentiated deal flow. In addition, for someone who has won before, like winning great deals, they’re likely to win again.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
“For an emerging GP, it’s all about access. Do I have the confidence that the best founders will seek out this GP?
How I evaluate access for a solo GP is different from how I evaluated a platform. For platforms, their external brand plays a big role. What are other founders saying about them? I talk to founders they’ve backed because ultimately, founders are their customers.
For solo GPs, I evaluate the GP on their personal brand, and his or her own insight on how they are thinking about the fund as a product. Here, I think of it as more of a bet on the founder of the firm, and not a fund bet.”
— Gautam Shewakramani, Inuka Capital
“GPs also need to be able to quantify that unique access. I’m an LP in a fund that puts on a regular conference and runs a community of 30,000 [redacted job title]. Their thesis was that they’re going to fund the best ideas that come out of their [redacted] community.
“The same is true for Packy McCormick. His thesis is: ‘I help startups tell their stories. I have all these readers who are VCs and founders, and they’re going to invite me into their deal.’ So, the quantitative thing is how big is his mailing list and how fast is it growing.
“It’s the ability to quantify things that you as the GP think are proprietary about your particular access to this market segment. It’s more than just how many LinkedIn friends you have or how many Twitter followers you have; it’s specific to your thesis.
“For my thesis, I get referred deals because I’m an LP in 17 funds. I invest in deals that are too early for these other funds, and I can get them follow-on financing because I know directly the LPs in the follow-on funds. And the fact that I’m an LP in 17 funds gives credibility to that thesis.
“One of my theses is that I’m a really good pre-seed investor because my companies get a higher percentage of follow-on financing than your average VC. Mine is 72%. Techstars is 30%. I’m two and a half times better than Techstars at getting follow-on financing.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
“I’m an LP in 17 venture capital funds, and it’s very clear what separates the best from the good. Deal flow.
“I also think we are entering a new era where you’ll see specialized, smaller funds that will generate great performance because of domain expertise and proximity to the nucleus of innovation. I get really excited about this group, and think some of these <$50M funds could generate 5x+ returns.
“For this group, I look for two things:
The team climbing the hill: Why is this team special in being able to attract great deal flow? Examples could be knowledge expertise, distribution, prior experience, geographic coverage, but a compelling edge is critical.
The hill that team is climbing: Ultimately, macro matters a lot. We like to attribute performance to skill, but timing, sector, and luck play a large part of success. The worst manager in crypto in 2015 probably did pretty well. The worst fintech manager in 2010 probably crushed it. I think about what will be the area in 2030 that everyone wishes they had exposure to today.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
They don’t have to ask “How can I help?”
“Most investors are not helpful. I started a company, raised some VC money, then some from angels. And I realized that our most helpful investors were angels. I came to understand that there are two kinds of helpful investors:
Reactively helpful
Proactively helpful
“For the former, you would have a problem, reach out to your investor, and they would really help you. For the latter, it’s Alex. Alex was one of our first investors. He would often come into our office, and without being prompted, proceed to write code against our APIs. And I thought, if I were to be a VC one day, I wanted to be just like him — very hands on. I knew he would be a real value-add investor.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures *Alex is a fictitious name of a real person.
“It boils down to three questions that are all interrelated:
Does this fund manager have a brand?
Does he/she have access? Do founders need them more than the manager needs the founders?
And does he/she have something unique to provide to founders?”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise
“At the pre-seed level, where I invest, a great fund manager is someone who gets a startup to a ‘real’ round of funding. I think it’s like fording a river: a good fund attracts founders to their boat, then ferries them across to the other side. For this service, they are rewarded with allocation in a round that’s underpriced once they reach the shore.
“Great funds are ones that have a sustained, repeatable process for attracting founders and a reliable methodology to get them across. This can look like focusing on a geography, focusing on a sector, focusing on an underserved founder market, acting as a scout for a larger fund who likes your deals, or some combination of the above.
“The returns from pre-seed are really about getting early and cheaply enough to have made the risk worth it.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Are they hungry?
“I work with some good fund managers, but why are they not great? Why are they only in the top quartile, and not the top decile? They have all the ingredients of being great. They have amazing pedigree, and they went to the right high school, the right college, and worked at all the top startups in their vintage. But… they’re not hungry. They haven’t had enough adversity in their life.
“I have seen prospective LPs only look at a GP’s career history, and not their life history. You need that extra data point, that context. To take a holistic view of the unique set of experiences of a human being, and not just the professional. You look at their thesis, and their history; you look at it from birth to today; you look at their whole life and career history, and look at their thesis. If the thesis doesn’t make complete and perfect sense, then I don’t think this is a ‘great‘ fund manager. If it fits like a glove, then yes, they could be.
“I don’t believe in luck. I believe you create your own luck. How do you create your own luck? You create chaos, which creates opportunities — you then leverage your past experience and your drive to capitalize on that opportunity….”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
The devil is in the details of their portfolio construction model
“They need to have thought about deployment (schedules) and fund size. One of the quotes we both like is ‘Your fund size is your strategy.’ A fund of $10 million should have a very different strategy than a $50 million or $100 million fund.”
— Sam Huleatt, On Deck
“To us, the difference between good and very good is portfolio management. How do they think about reserves to follow on? Do they look to increase allocation into the winners?
“There’s a big difference between managing a $5 million fund and a $20-30 million one and $500 million one. How you look at portfolio management and allocation is different. Everyone tells you they can give you a 5x return, but I only need 3x DPI! Even the best firms out there struggle to return 3x on certain funds.
“Your size is your strategy. We take into account the geography you invest into. In Israel, we don’t have decacorns. And because the exits are lower, the fund size should also be lower.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
Mixed references are not as bad as you think
“I’ve backed a lot of funds across the private markets, in both private equity and venture capital, and great investors may have divisive personalities. You want to back special talents, and they may rub people the wrong way. That said, there is a difference between a prickly personality and a bad actor not treating founders right, and not being ethical in their dealings.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
Does the GP have investor-market fit?
“Success builds upon success in venture. I’m never going to attract the best talent in the neobank or fintech space. They don’t know who I am and I don’t have true domain expertise. But if you’re doing something in retail or in hardware, I can really help and you likely know what Tide Cleaners is. Folks in retail find a way to get in front of me, and likewise, I can meaningfully help these companies. Product market fit applies to VC’s, too. And we don’t talk about this enough, but also LP’s.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
The best have long time horizons
“Luck aside, I index greatly on energy, fire, thoughtfulness, and passion. Some founders or operators raise a fund after an exit because they don’t know what to do next and have money in the bank. LPs need to discern as best as possible how committed these people are to the job of investing. How much does the GP resonate with the founders they’re backing?
“GPs who are only building, but don’t understand roughly what they’re building towards tend not to resonate with me. GPs who have founder friendliness talking points, but few examples of hard conversations with founders don’t resonate with me. I get concerned when GPs don’t appear to have an understanding of what kind of bet they’re actually making. The great GPs have long-run perspectives and are willing to adapt. Startups have to execute miracles to achieve great financial outcomes. I want to see GPs have a rough mathematical understanding of their bets based on their assumptions and stories. What’s a reasonable amount of capital to startups to their milestones, knowing your home runs are going to go much further than your initial projections? What does SaaS multiples going down from 10-15x to around 8x mean? Was the GP banking on elevated multiples persisting for the math to work?”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“I want to invest in people who are going to build multiple funds, so the long-term commitment to the space is critical.
“Every fund thinks they’re solving a unique problem – most are not. A happy outcome is backing a GP that you believe in, so I’d prioritize character over potential returns. At the end of the day, you’re getting into a decade-long relationship, so you’d better like the GP as a person, not just the asset class.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Luck is a skill
“The thing is everyone’s smart, and between the top decile and quartile, luck is a big differentiator.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“The difference between top quartile and top decile is one of luck. I believe that it is impossible to predict ex ante.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“Outlier performance is a combination of luck and skill (luck is needed for massive outlier funds), but the best fund managers require less luck to consistently outperform because they have well constructed operating frameworks.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“In my early days in venture, I spoke with several investors on the Midas list. And every single one of them attributed their success to luck and timing. They still view themselves as learning and actively track their anti portfolio to see what they missed. They’re humble, and still suffer from imposter syndrome. When I ask them these two questions:
Which were the startups that you thought were going to be winners?
What startups put you on the Midas list?
“There will be some overlap, but more often than not, it’ll be a different set of names. Investing in GPs is a bit like startup investing. It’s a bit of a roulette wheel. What you’re doing is improving the odds. Any LP or GP who says otherwise is full of shit.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
The best change the status quo
“I believe great GPs aren’t just impacting the success of their portfolio companies and their LPs, but are changing entire systems that are historically pretty broken in the VC ecosystem. The vast majority of LPs, VCs and funded founders have tended to be pretty homogenous in terms of the identities they hold and approaches they take to building & funding companies. By breaking through those biases and pattern matching, not only will a new kind of emerging fund manager see better returns, but they’ll also dismantle a lot of the systemic inequities that have prevailed. TL;DR: Good managers see healthy returns, great managers see those returns and leave things better than they found them. (I wrote a bit about some of those inequitable systems here if you’d like to link to it)”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
GP Red Flags
Logo and trend shopping
“There is a concept of just logo shopping. A lot of decks are loaded up with a bunch of logos of great companies that the GPs have invested in the past.
“There are people who say they’re seed investors were able to get a slice of allocation of some hot company at the Series C or Series D for a $5,000 or $10,000 check. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that as an investor. But the way that it’s framed often looks like that they were seed investors in these hot companies as well.
“So, there’s some of that window dressing. I think that is a red flag. It just is on the edges of honesty that I’ve never really liked.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“When GPs claim to invest in a deal, one red flag is when they were only an angel in a syndicate, and the founders don’t even know the investor by name. We also look at deal attribution for GPs from bigger funds. How involved were they in winning deals at their last fund? So, we do backchannel checks.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“I’m wary of trend followers. People who follow trends without having anything unique to add to founders building in the space.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Not playing the long game
“Another [red flag] is when GPs change the terms when fundraising. As a GP gets more interest, we’ve seen some GPs change the terms – from 2% fees to 2.5 or 3%. It raises some concerns that they are opportunists which might be viewed as a sign that they weren’t committed to building a long, durable fund.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“There is never a full alignment between LPs and GP. There are many potential conflicts when it comes to VC management. You don’t want to invest in people who will not hesitate to screw you. Don’t invest in people you don’t trust. There’s a thin line between greediness and discipline. We don’t invest in investors who are too opportunistic. Discipline and strategy consistency (with an amount of flexibility) is important.
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
“Too many GPs today are obviously dilettantes. The average fund lasts twice as long as the average American marriage, so it’s a long-term commitment to your partners. I get the sense that a lot of new GPs are becoming VCs in the same way a lot of college kids end up going to law school: it just seemed like the next obvious thing to do/the path of least resistance.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“This is personal for each LP. I believe the GP’s job is to maximize returns for their LPs. So, there’s a tradeoff between GPs playing the long game and having a fiduciary responsibility to return money in the short run. So, a red flag for me is when the GPs don’t play the long game.
“There’s this weird nobility in venture, especially in the pre-seed. Sajith Pai wrote a great piece on this. Your first investor is almost like a priest. As the first check into a company, you should be a good priest. Is this person someone who will be a strong supporter of the founder, which could come at odds with short-term financial return? I won’t get immediate distributions. But at the same time, over a fund life, this could generate better financial returns across a portfolio of founders or in the form of access to better deals driven by reputation or founder friendliness.”
— Gautam Shewakramani, Inuka Capital
“People say they’re going to deploy over the next 2.5 years. But guess what everyone did in 2021. They deployed their entire fund. So LPs are asking, ‘What are you doing? We had all of this scheduled out, but you deployed so quickly, and so now we’re out of money. We can’t do your re-ups for next year, or we can’t back new managers right now.’ It’s been a real issue that has kept so much money on the sidelines.
“Saying you’re going to do something, then not doing it is a huge red flag. Do what you say you’re going to do. This is a relationship game. If you’re breaking trust, you’re playing the short game instead of the long game.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
Small funds, big reserves
“I’m wary of small funds with big reserves. For example, a $50 million fund with 50% reserves. What it means is you’re getting less shots on goals. For Fund I’s, it’s all about shots on goals.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
They lack honesty and self-awareness
“A big one is a lack of openness of what didn’t go right. Some GPs exhibit a lot of arrogance. They claim they’re great at everything. That’s not possible, and definitely not true. Everyone has flaws, but the inability to share them is a red flag for me.
“Good GPs are also very self aware of what they are and what they aren’t. These GPs manage their time well. They find partners to build a team that has complementary skill sets to their own. When I ask: Why are you not winning deals?, they have a great answer. If they can’t answer that, they probably have work to do understanding their own pitch. Moreover, the best GPs are consistent with their stories while open and willing to evolve.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“For funds I declined to invest in, it came down to the person. They often take credit than share credit. I doubted their skills and ability to follow through. A lot of projects were often started but never finished.“
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
“Managers that don’t appreciate that this is a journey, not a sprint. It’s the same as assessing a startup founder. We look for behavioral cues: approachability, willingness to accept feedback, and ability to go through pivots.
“At Revere, we share our ratings for GPs with our GPs. Say I give someone a four out of five on team, and they come back and insist on five out of five across the board. How receptive the GP is to constructive feedback (and address it) is a very telling indicator.“
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
“Usually GPs are really good at (typically) 2 or at most 3 of the following 6 things, in order to be top-decile:
Portfolio construction & management
Access to deals / networking
Ability to win deals
Company selection / financial analysis / assessing PMF and future value accretion
Active management to “add value” to those companies
Exits
“… And maybe fundraising / cost of capital.
“But if they aren’t aware of what they’re good at, that’s troubling. Once they know what they do to excel (and what they won’t) they usually become very good at focusing on what matters.
“Here are some examples:
Potential GP: ‘I am really good at all 6 GP characteristics above!’ Me: ‘Don’t call me, I’ll call you.’
Potential GP: ‘I am really good being a board member, I’m the best. I can make any shit company successful once I’m involved. I did this for three eCommerce companies in the 1980s, and I really think I can ‘turn around’ and exit eCommerce, adtech, fintech, digital health, AI / ML, beauty and fashion, etc. They’re all the same.’ Me: ‘Ummm…’
Potential GP: ‘I am great at deal sourcing from XXX network, and I specialize in AI. But vertical-wise, I see a lot of stuff, so I do a lot of stuff.’ Me: ‘Cool.’
“I also like to see more focused funds. A lack of ability to zero in on a particular thesis (e.g. B2B SaaS with certain characteristics) is at least a yellow flag, though if the GP’s core competencies support a generalized approach that’s fine.”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
The GPs are too founder-friendly
“Emerging GPs tend to be too founder-friendly. A great VC is like a personal trainer, not a cheerleader.”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
There’s no follow-on strategy
“Another red flag is not having a follow-on strategy. If you’re a small fund, you are funding companies that will never get to profitability with the money you gave them. So they all have to raise additional financing. If you don’t have reserves in your fund, you need to prove that you know other funds or have an SPV or angel network that can fund your companies. If you don’t have an answer for how you’re going to be able to fund the companies in the next round or at least introduce them, that’s a flag.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
The follow-on SPVs take management fees
“They’re charging excessive fees on SPVs to LPs. Many LPs who invest in small emerging managers are in part doing so because they want the co-investment opportunities. And those co-investment opportunities should be at fairly favorable terms. The most favorable terms I’ve seen are zero and ten. I’m not saying everyone has to do it at that, but I have seen VCs try to do it at three and thirty – at premium terms relative to the fund. I think it’s a flag on the emerging manager if he/she is proposing to charge management fees on SPVs at all.”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
They lack communication skills
“GPs sometimes don’t follow up with what the LP asked for. The follow up is very generic. For example, if the LP wants to co invest in XYZ sector, can you send names in the portfolio that might be interesting to them?”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
“Bad communicators who only answer with curt and short responses is a red flag.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
They don’t know the numbers or the rules of the game
“Plenty, but to extract one, we’ve found that managers that don’t know the numbers (i.e. what enterprise value within your portfolio will you need to get to a 3x+) is a huge red flag and leads to poor portfolio construction and decision-making. Saying you are going to return a 5X+ easily is not respecting how difficult it is, and probably comes with a lack of understanding of basic fund math.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“Managers that don’t understand basic portfolio construction and fund modeling. You would be amazed how many don’t even have a spreadsheet that tracks current investments.”
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
“Emerging GPs tend to overestimate the value of prior experience and underestimate the value of investing skills like portfolio construction and discipline (not just on things like price, but also on things like security selection — for instance, not understanding the problems with SAFEs).”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
“If they are carrying companies at valuations that seem out of whack, or indefensible (or if they can’t really articulate their valuation policy) that’s no bueno. That is ALWAYS a signal that the GP is not going to be aligned with me… I’ve known some very strong investors who have played this game and it’s a real problem for me personally.”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
They play the AUM and management fee game
“I think fund size is a real issue. The law of funds is really interesting. If you get a million-dollar allocation early on into a unicorn and it’s a smaller fund, you can return the fund multiple times over. If you do that with a $400 million fund, it’s harder to make those numbers work.
“So as an investor, you can play one of three types of games:
You can spit out rapid funds.
You can raise massive funds.
Or you can make massive carry.
“The amount of funds and management fees that have been raised recently are out of control. If you can think about taking 2% management fees on a $500 million fund – and obviously you got costs and expenses – you’re bringing home an annual income of $10 million. And that’s just one fund, and you do another and another. So, are you trying to create value or play the AUM game? And that is a red flag for me. I like small, steady, disciplined managers who are deeply passionate about early-stage and a certain sector. That typically means they won’t scale to a $1B fund.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
No investing experience
“Just like the only way to get good at wine is to drink a lot of wine. The only way to get good at investing is to see a lot of deals. A red flag would be a GP with no investing experience.”
— Lo Toney, Plexo Capital
Common Advice To Ignore
While far les prominent than investors advising founders on how they should run their business or startup investing advice at broad, there’s a small handful of commonly shared pieces of advice that new LPs often get. Certain pieces of advice might serve larger LPs who work with a different set of parameters than you do. The important part is understanding the why.
Having artificial timelines
“LPs also shouldn’t give artificial timelines. Most family offices and individuals don’t have deployment schedules. A big endowment, like Harvard, does.”
— Anonymous LP, $30B AUM Fund
The same is true for LPs as it is for GPs: Chasing logos
“Just because you spun out of a big firm doesn’t mean you’re going to do well as a new firm. These emerging managers are going to look good on paper, but they might not necessarily know what it’s like living in a chaotic environment. It’s not the same environment they grew up in when they were at a16z, or had another great name behind them. Different resources, different support, so different mentality. Connection with founders is incredibly important and you want to understand how that applies in a different environment.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
“I don’t know if this is advice that is shared, but many LPs over-index things like logos, GP commits, and early fund performance (which means very little within the first 3 years).”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“A big one is around geographic and pedigree bias. There is a trope that’s formed that if you’re a founder of GP that’s based in the San Francisco Bay Area — maybe went to Stanford or Harvard or MIT, that will position you into the very best networks to be successful.
“I’m not saying that just because you possess those characteristics that you can’t be successful. In fact, there are plenty that are. But there are also are a lot of really talented people outside of those networks too.
“I think a lot about this Warren Buffett rule: ‘To make a lot of money, you have to be both contrarian and right.’ Look a bit more widely in your funnel and invest in managers who don’t look like yourself and come from non-traditional networks and backgrounds. They’re identifying founders who may be working on some pretty amazing stuff that’s being overlooked.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
Diversification for the sake of diversification
“Many emerging LPs are told to look for differentiation, but some things are differentiated in how bad (or mediocre) they are. Hedge fund managers say they’re seeking alpha, but sometimes you find it and it has a negative sign in front of it. What really matters is sustainable competitive advantage. How do you demonstrate and articulate your SCA? What is your unfair advantage in an extremely noisy market (and it’s gotta be more than just: ‘we’re part of the SF cool kid crowd/look at our AngelList track record of $50k checks’).”
— Chris Douvos, Ahoy Capital
Should you bet on emerging GPs?
“‘Stay away from Fund I/II.’ This is the wrong advice. Don’t underestimate new GPs. Being a new GP is like being a founder; it’s a long-term commitment. And two, stay away from GPs who don’t have resilience and are not hungry to win.”
— Cindy Bi, CapitalX
Do ownership targets matter?
“There’s a lot of surface level ‘buyer beware.’ Everyone talks about ownership targets. ‘Are you hitting your ownership targets?’ For large funds, that 15-20% ownership matters. You want the proceeds of the outcome to meaningfully impact the fund. Ownership is less important for a first or second time fund, which are smaller funds where a single great outcome, even at low ownership, can return the fund.“
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
Using fund-of-funds to get into emerging funds
“I would encourage a lot of emerging LPs to not go into fund-of-funds. As an emerging manager, I want fund-of-funds to invest in my fund. But as an LP, you get double-feed. If you’re going to invest into venture funds, invest directly in the manager yourself.
“What the fund-of-funds will tell you is that they can get you into funds you can’t get into. I’m also starting to see fund-of-funds for emerging managers, which I think is a great thing. For incredibly large LPs, I think it makes sense. They get access to someone else who’s going to do all the diligence on emerging managers. But that’s not for an emerging LP whose check size is $250K to a million dollar LP commitment. Fund-of-funds are for people with a billion dollars who are already invested in Sequoia and are writing $5-10 million checks.
“Typically you would pay one and ten for fund-of-funds. Then that fund-of-funds pays two and twenty. So you’re three and thirty behind as a fund-of-funds LP.
“For emerging LPs, it’s a good exercise to invest directly in emerging managers because it’ll help with your direct investment practices as well. If you invest in fund-of-funds, you’re never going to have those co-investment opportunities because you never build a relationship with the manager.“
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Additional Tactical Tips
The below are tips that everyone were kind enough to share, but didn’t fit into the above categories. Nevertheless, I find them to be powerful in expanding how you think about being an LP.
You’re never too good to reach out.
“I will say about a third of my LP investments were into fund managers I never worked with before. I hear of these new GPs from talking with my network. If I like what they do, I’ll reach out via Twitter.”
— Sriram Krishnan, Kearny Jackson
“For every fund I’ve been in, I reached out to them, not the other way around. Every time I invest in a fund that’s either because I know the GP personally, or I know someone who knows the GP.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
See if the GP has flexibility on the minimum check size
“One thing that can be helpful to know for first-time LPs: GPs often have some flexibility on their minimum check size. I’m a pretty small check (particularly since I’ve been living on a founder salary!), but I can bring other things to the table to help the GPs I invest in (e.g. I highlighted Janine Sickmeyer from Overlooked Ventures in my Forbes column, I’m an advisor to Zecca Lehn from Responsibly Ventures, I send them deal flow from my AuthenTech community of founders). I’ve had luck with reaching out and saying ‘I really believe in what you’re doing. Please let me know if you get enough large checks and have room for some smaller LP investments.’ They’ll usually need to get enough big investments first since there are SEC limits on how many LPs they can have, and then they can let in some smaller, value-add LPs.”
— Rebekah Bastian, OwnTrail
There are multiple ways to do reference checks
“There’s a two-part reference call check that I love that I learned from Scott Cook, who is the founder of Intuit. You ask, ‘I want you to tell me about David. Rate him from 1 to 10. 10 being absolutely perfect, and 1 being horrific.’ And you can basically ignore everything that is said. Most people say 8 or 9. You know they have their answer prepared.
“But then the second question is, ‘What will get David to a 10?’ And that’s where you hear the truth. That’s where you can pay attention.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“Investing into a fund is much like investing in startups. Why does this person have an unfair advantage over everyone else? I talk to the founding GP. I read VC Guide – think Yelp reviews for investors by founders. And if I think the team has an unfair advantage, I invest.”
— Brent Goldman, Lancelot Ventures
“Ask to talk to other current LPs – you can learn a lot about how you will be treated once the fund has your money.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
“Being an LP is a ground game. It requires talking to founders and co-investors, and you won’t get much from surface-level reference checking.
“There’s no specific number that I shoot for. I once heard an LP claim to have completed 80 reference checks for one commitment. To me, that seemed like they were doing diligence for the sake of doing diligence. You could have gotten to the same answer well before 80. I reached close to 20 checks in diligence on a fund once, but I often need far less than that. The more important thing is you’re answering the questions you have that pop up in your diligence, that you only do whatever references that you need to get to a yes or no.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
“We are all operating in the business of emotions and trust. It’s best to build trust by word of mouth or references. I’ve never invested in a fund without talking to another manager or entrepreneur in the portfolio. This is across the stack. Top $100B asset managers do 20 back references on $100M venture capitalists. $100M venture capitalists do 20 back references on $10M start-ups. And $10M start-ups do back references on employees. Together, with the bond of trust, this system creates an impact on the world.
“In practice, for example, I don’t have a lot of domain expertise in web 3, but I have plenty of friends who do. So before I invested in [name redacted], I called four people and they all told me this manager was one of the top five.
“This is the under-pinning of asset allocation, but unfortunately this also leads to systematic issues. In fact, I would say this referral network is part of the issue of neglected founders, industries, and geographies not being able to get funded. It’s a huge issue in our country that 2% of women get all VC dollars. That’s horrendous and that means that >50% of our population only gets 2% of funding. That isn’t right. We need more capital to flow to underrepresented or neglected founders or industries or managers. These new managers may not have the network to build traction, but I’m loving all the new amazing, specialized emerging managers doing great work with new strategies popping up.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
“Do reference calls. Talk to some founders they’ve invested in. Talk to startups in their anti-portfolio. And talk to some of the founders that didn’t work out. For the latter, how did they manage that? What do the founders think of them? If you only talk to the winners in their portfolio, they look like cheerleaders who got lucky and got into some great companies.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Follow-on investors aren’t as big of a differentiator as you might think.
“Top-tier follow-on investors in the past 48 months are no longer a differentiator. Existing managers all talk about mark-ups. Most managers that aren’t incompetent have markups and brand name follow-on investors over the last three years.”
— @Cashflow_Cowboy
Get granular with a fund’s follow-on investors
“A lot of LPs act like they care about which funds are making investments alongside emerging managers. But who those follow-on investors and co-investors are will mean different things to different people based on the following factors.
Which partner at that established fund is actually leading the deal? Is it someone with a track record or a more junior partner?
Which fund are they investing from? Is it their core fund, or a satellite one they’re experimenting with?
“You ultimately need to get to know the people behind every investment decision.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
March 30th is more important than you think
“Ask when you will get your K-1s and insist that it is before March 30th, otherwise you will be stuck extending every year and that’s just a pain.”
— Paul Griffiths, 15 & Change
Don’t rush into investment decisions
“We don’t rush into investment decisions. It takes us time to reach conviction. Unlike early stage VC, in a fund-of-funds, you expect returns from all your investments. Conviction is required to reach trust. We might not rush into the first vintage, but based on how well we get to know the fund manager, might jump into the second vintage.”
— Itay Rotem, EdRITECH
“There are also a lot of venture funds out there, take your time and meet with a range of GPs before you invest to get a feel for what the investment opportunities are and what feels right for you for your LP program.”
— Beezer Clarkson, Sapphire Partners
“Yes, meet at least 20-30 managers before you make an investment, or use a partner. Like anything, at first you will like almost everything, but it takes reps to truly start to build pattern recognition, and manager investing is a probability based exercise; meeting just a few won’t provide enough data points to have a good sense of what meaningful differentiation looks like (i.e.. meaningful differentiation increases the probability of consistent success, much like counting cards in blackjack. It doesn’t guarantee a payout, but you want someone that has their own version of ‘counting cards’.”
— Samir Kaji, Allocate
“Emerging LPs shouldn’t be taking any advice or making any decisions until they’ve met with at least 100 investment firms (and as many different types of firms as they can).
“The reality is that LPs don’t help each other as much as they should. There’s this cooperation versus competition dynamic, this friendly competitiveness, and LPs will be more helpful in less access-constrained deals. That’s something you need to understand as a new LP.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
TVPI hides good portfolio construction
“When I do portfolio diligence, I don’t just look at the multiples, but I look at how well the portfolio companies are doing. I take the top performer and bottom performer out and look at how performance stacks up in the middle. How have they constructed their portfolio? Do the GPs know how to invest in good businesses?
“I’m not just bothered by my TVPI. I also try to look at the companies and the revenue they’re bringing in. Some of a fund’s portfolio companies that haven’t raised a subsequent round, which may not look as good in TVPI, but they may not have needed to raise any subsequent capital to scale further. The point is to assess the quality of the underlying portfolio of ‘businesses’ — so factor that in and look at likely exit opportunities for those companies.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Don’t invest in ESG for the sake of ESG
“Avoid ‘ESG’ if they reduce financial returns, are comprised of unaudited made-up metrics that won’t get reported (e.g. ‘we love the environment, and will only invest in ‘green’ companies’ but the LPA doesn’t provide mention of reportable, audited environmental goals or KPIs, or define what ‘green’ means).”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
Past performance is not indicative of future performance
“It takes three funds worth of track record to make it meaningful. But even then, it’s even more complicated. Your strategy and risk-to-return profile for a $5 million Fund I will look meaningfully different than yours for a $150 million Fund III. I wouldn’t recommend relying on these blunt instruments for the emerging manager category. So the advice here is that LPs cannot rely on past performance of earlier funds if the latest fund’s strategy has shifted.”
— Eric Woo, Revere VC
Have an LP thesis
“LPs should have a portfolio construction model. What percent are you investing in generalist funds? What percent in thesis-driven ones? And also, what stages? Pre-seed? Seed? A- and B-funds? Multi-stage?
“You should take the total amount you want to put into funds and separate it with a portfolio construction model that makes sense for your risk tolerance.
“Is your portfolio allocation driven by financial returns or certain goals you have? A lot of LPs might want to invest for non-financial reasons – could be diversity, geographic coverage, verticals, or stage. They might want to support female founders, or ESG. Just like I encourage angels to have a thesis, LPs should have one too. Why am I doing this?”
— Martin Tobias, Incisive Ventures
Why are you helpful as an LP?
“As an LP, you also have to think of your unique value-add. If you have a brand, your name helps with credibility of the fund and helps the GP reach more LPs. On the other hand, you have to think about what kind of LPs a GP would offer their pro rata rights to? For an SPV strategy, those are LPs who:
Backed and believed in the GP from Day 1.
Has written big checks, and/or
Can help the fund’s portfolio companies.”
— Shiva Singh Sangwan, 1947 Rise
“We did have several of those established, persistent performers in the PE/VC portfolio in my prior role though, and that’s because those GPs look for more than just money. They may be looking for someone who’s strategic to their portfolio, but more so they’re looking for kindred spirits. Show why you’re also a convicted investor, like them, because they’re really just looking for true believers.”
— Anonymous LP, Private Wealth Management Firm
Don’t put your eggs in one basket.
“Putting money into an early-stage fund is a very, very high-risk alternative asset category. Every normal family office puts maybe 10 to 15% of their total net worth behind this asset category. Don’t concentrate behind a single manager. Spread it across five, possibly ten, managers who have truly varied networks.”
— Eric Bahn, Hustle Fund
“Invest in a larger number of fund managers than you might think is appropriate. Focus on smaller, tightly managed micro-VCs (I’m assuming that the LP can’t get into the Sequoia / Founders Fund / Benchmark types). Really dig into their strategy, their edge, and their pipeline. And, spend time with them and learn the trade, get into their co-investment program and be ready to execute!”
— Aman Verjee, Practical VC
“Does it make sense to have 17 funds all in web3? Or 17 funds in fintech? Or even 8 in web3 and 9 in fintech? My own fund is counter-cyclical, and I think an LP needs to build a portfolio of top managers across the economy. Healthcare, IoT, fintech, web 3, and other differentiated strategies can comprise an excellent portfolio.
“If an entrepreneur is building in climate tech, there are 10 amazing funds out there who really know climate tech. If you’re building in web3, there are several funds that are so close to the nucleus of innovation and that’s what it matters. But if you’re building in hard industries, we’re trying to become one of the ten. A portfolio that consists of a basket of these top ten funds makes a lot of sense if you believe in investing in venture.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
“LPs can get very excited about tech and venture. They still need to remember this is a high-risk asset class. They should have clarity of what their expectations are. Venture used to traditionally be 5% of private equity. This is funny money – play money. It’s less so now, but still is. LPs do it because it has the potential to provide outsized, risk adjusted, returns.”
— Asher Siddiqui, Sukna Ventures
Patience is a virtue
“It may take seven to ten years (or longer) to see any real return, so be patient.”
— Cindy Bi, CapitalX
“The reason I chose a lot of managers is also so I can start tracking data. I won’t do re-ups right away because I want to see how they’ll perform over a couple decades or even over 6 years.”
— Vijen Patel, 81 Collection
In closing
The above is by no means all-encompassing as you refine your craft as an LP. Nevertheless, if you’re looking to dive deeper into the art of investing in non-obvious capital allocators, I hope this blogpost serves as a launchpad for your career. Make new mistakes rather than old ones. The world is better off learning from and supporting each other.
If you learned something from the above, I urge you to reach out to any of the above legends and share your appreciation with them. And if you employ any of their tactics, let them know how empowering it was.
Trust me, it’ll go a long way.
*I’ve made light edits to the above quotes for clarity and since my hand can only take so many notes per second.
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.
These past two years, we’ve seen many investors and founders alike lose their pricing discipline. A number of whom believed anything north of a 10-15x multiple was the new normal. Expectedly, it wasn’t here to last. And I fear there may be an overcorrection to revert back to the mean.
Signal was heavily weighted on the names of other investors, whereas it’s now weighted on strictly traction and revenue. As Samir Kajipublished not too long ago, “The market reset provides a return to a rational environment where underwriting of deals has shifted away from a “growth at all costs” mentality, and inclined toward fundamental metrics such as margins, capital efficiency, and the current public market comps.”
The pandemic years
I’ve written before why it’s better to get 70% conviction, than 50 or 90%. 50% is a gamble. And for the past two years, investors made many more and much larger gambles than would have been kosher. When capital became a commodity and we saw a convergence of value adds in the early-stage investing world, one of the only differentiators between firms became more capital, better terms, or more introductions. Quantity became the selling point rather than quality. Subsequently, that also bolstered many a founder to take bigger risks.
Companies were overcapitalized. Companies then hired more talent than they needed, which meant, on average, each employee needed to do less work than previously required. It wasn’t rare that we saw the best talent out there working more than one job. In fact, in a study by Nielsen, over 50% of talent worked for two companies without either knowing. As such, we’ve the trimming of fat over the past few months with massive company layoffs.
Very few investors were going to spend an extra week or two to dig deeper – do a little more homework to get the extra 20% conviction. Why? Because if they did, they’d miss the funding window. They’d miss the opportunity to invest in the next big thing.
I also saw many founders working on 10% improvements and features, rather than building robust, 10x, non-cyclical products. Founders rushed to product-market fit, followed by massive injections to put fuel on the fire, as opposed to taking time to A/B test for channel-market fit and minimum lovable products. Founders also became less scrappy with the surplus of capital. Growth at all costs was revitalized as the memo of the future. We were left with a world that too quickly forgot the importance of cash in the bank in the few months from March of 2020 till the summer.
Where is money after the market correction?
Today, investors are going for 90%, much of that on fundamentals, rather than a technical analysis on markets. People have become more focused on the beta portfolios than the alpha in portfolios – not saying the latter isn’t important. It still is.
The good news is that there are still many more dollars to deploy. The nine- and ten-figure funds aren’t going anywhere. The bad news is while there’s technically already money allocated to invest in early-stage companies, they’re getting deployed more slowly. But we’ve seen a slowdown in the deployment of capital. And while capital calls are usually leading indicators of capital deployment schedules, they became lagging indicators in March’s slowdown.
What are capital calls? No LP keeps a massive amount of money parked in a checking account with 0% interest, aka a VC fund. So, capital calls are a VC’s legal right to call forth a portion of the money promised to them by LPs. Usually capital calls are made semi-annually.
From 2015 to 2018, this metric hovered in the 20% range, however a step change came into effect in 2019 and we’ve been sitting in the 30% range ever since. pic.twitter.com/fF3kOWMGe9
Last year we saw capital call schedules rise from 20% to 32%. As such, timelines were compressed. Funds were deployed in 1.5-2 years. I even saw one-year deployment periods. Today, I’m anecdotally seeing funds revert to a 3-4 year timeline.
What does that mean for founders?
You should prepare for the worst. Things may turn out differently, and that’ll be great, but don’t expect it will. Over the next two years, there will only be a third to half as much capital to deploy into private companies. That also means your competition has increased two- to three-fold.
Focus on your gross margins, your customer acquisition costs (CAC), and your burn multiples. For software companies, aim for greater than 50% gross margins. Your CAC payback periods should be at most a year. And get your burn multiple to one. In other words, you bring back a $1 for every $1 you’re spending. If you’re south of that, great! Instead of raising venture money, see if you can use non-dilutive capital, aka revenue, to help you grow. For those, that are still growing north of three times per year on ARR after you hit $1M ARR, then venture capital is a very viable option.
If you’re raising a new round, show that you’ve hit your milestones and that you have a road to your next set of milestones to raise your next round in 12-18 months. If you’re raising a bridge (or preemptive) round, you’re on a tighter schedule. You need to show you can hit milestones deserving of a new round within six months or less.
Sometimes even when you have all the above, investors still won’t bat an eye. So, at the end of the day, I always go back to the sage advice my friend shared with me. Teach your investor something new. Mike Maples Jr calls it the earned secret. a16z calls it spending time in the idea maze. I don’t care what you call it. Investors pay their tuition to work alongside the best. If you want investors fighting over you, you need to show them value from Day 1.
One reason investors are more willing to express unconventional opinions than people running other businesses is that they don't mind alienating fools. A cookie company boycotted by fools would lose a lot of money. Whereas a VC boycotted by fools would be better off.
In the past two years, when people became bullish, I became bearish. I didn’t trust myself to find signal in hot markets. For example, while I believe in the amazing potential of blockchain and the future of web3, I intentionally chose to look at consumer solutions that were not tied to the chain, unable to justify for most ideas, why the chain was necessary to solve the problem. I found many founders stumbling on a solution, then finding a problem to fit in the solution. Rather than the other way around.
Today, I’m more bullish than ever (when others are bearish). An investor will generate much more outsized alpha being in the nonobvious and non-consensus than being in the consensus. And we’re swimming in an ocean of non-consensus today. As Keith Raboistalked about earlier this year, don’t focus on just optimizing for the beta where you’ll only be optimizing for incremental returns. Focus on the alpha.
Innovation is secular to the macro-economic trends. It’s exactly in this time that I’m excited to uncover the next world-defining teams. That said, I’m looking for world-defining insights I’ve never heard of or seen before.
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!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Earlier this week, I came across a curious quote while reading Sammy Abdullah’s notes on the book eBoys by Randall Stross, chronicling the founding and early days of Benchmark. In it, the quote read: “What’s it like recruiting when the stock price is so high? Really hard. The options offered to new employees were certain to be valueless, as they would depend on the stock ascending still higher. I mean, it’s at such a ridiculous level, there’s going to be a big fall here. The question is sort of when and how.”
2022’s VC landscape
After an insane 1.5-year run, I’ve seen valuation multiples that were 100-200x a company’s revenue get funded. At the end of the day, venture capital is belief capital. And it is not my place to criticize someone else’s belief, but I know that same belief will falter in the coming months to year. We’ve already seen public market stocks fall and VC exit values plummet 90% in Q1 this year. Tiger Global fell 7% in 2021 – its first annual loss since 2016. $10,000 invested in the basket of IPOs for 2021 would be worth $5,500 today. We’re in a correction soon. Or as Martin who I’ve had the pleasure to meet via On Deck calls it, the “Great Asset Repricing.” When exactly? I don’t know.
That said, as a function of the great repricing, VCs are coming in with more aggressive terms to hedge their bets. Greater liquidation preferences. More aggressive anti-dilution provisions. For LPs into late-stage capital allocators, they’re expecting greater minimum hurdle rates. In other words, they expect investors to have an internal rate of return (IRR) of at least 20%. Every year, an investor’s assets need to be worth 20% more than the year before. This is up from 10-12% from back in 2021, which I cited in last week’s blogpost.
And as Martin surmises, we’ll see a lot more inside rounds (investors re-upping in their own portfolio) for two reasons:
Insiders have more information.
Insiders tend to be more conservative on valuation.
And “companies without significant traction to face a very tough fundraising environment in the near term.”
What the hell does all this esoteric jargon mean for employees?
The best private companies are still playing ball with the ball on their side of the court. They have leverage. But most companies that were funded in the past one and a half years won’t. As such, there are four things that will and have already started to happen:
You don’t raise. Cut your burn rate. Stay close to the money. Extend your runway, but set clear expectations. That’s what Alinea did at the start of the pandemic. Your team is in it for the long run. Many may choose to leave, but that is the reality.
You raise, but on a flat or down round. This is better for your employees that you plan to hire, since there is a better chance that their shares will appreciate in the next funding window. But you’re not getting any fancy press releases.
You raise on an up round. That’s great. You make the headlines on TC or Forbes. But it increases the pressure for both your current team members and new hires. VCs add in more aggressive terms. No one’s getting paid until investors get 2-3x their money back via a liquidity event or exit. As a founder, you have more pressure to shoot for a bigger exit than you would have needed to shoot for otherwise. Or else, the team that bled for you for years will get little to no upside for their time and effort.
Or, you go out. Monetarily, no one wins.
So what can you do as a startup employee? Or as a prospective startup employee?
Ask questions on revenue drivers. What do growth metrics look like for the last three months? How does churn and net retention look like? When do they plan to raise their next round? And simply, how much revenue is the company generating? Does the price-to-sales multiple make sense? For example, is the latest valuation of the company 200x the company’s revenue or 50x. The former is likely to come with more insane expectations from their investors. In December last year, Retool wrote a great piece why they chose to raise at a lower valuation and why that makes sense for their team members, which I highly recommend checking out.
Of course, as a startup employee, you want your shares to increase in value, but too much too quickly can be detrimental. We’ve seen the recent example with Fast. They were last valued at $580M according to Pitchbook, but were only making $600K in revenue, but was burning $10M a month. Almost a 1000x multiple!
A growth-stage startup grounded on fundamentals (i.e. traction) will likely still be able to raise. A startup funded on promises that has yet to deliver may not be able to. As Samir Kaji tweeted yesterday:
The late-stage market has definitely re-priced for net-new deals. For those that are expecting across the board big write-downs this year, you may have so many companies are still sitting on a lot of $, and won't need to access the capital markets this year. But next year…
Contrary to popular opinion, a company’s valuation is not how much a startup is worth, but rather it is a bet on the chance they will be as big as their incumbent competitor. Take Yuga Labs as an example. They recently raised $450M on a $4B valuation from a16z and a number of other incredible investors. With that capital injection, they are building Otherside, their take on the metaverse integrating their various NFT properties. Epic Games, on the other hand, is valued at $31.5B. $32 billion for ease of calculation. Yuga’s $4B valuation is a bet their investors are taking that Yuga has a 12.5% chance (4/32) to be as big as Epic, and by transitive property, Fortnite.
As an employee, the bet you make is not with capital, but with time – the world’s scarcest resource. We’re coming into a world soon where cash is king. Make your judgments accordingly.
To close, I had to cite Brian Rumao‘s tweet, early investor in Fast. He boiled it down beautifully in 280 characters.
Lesson 8: Investors lose at most 1x their capital. Employees lose much more.
I feel for Fast employees who lost their jobs and equity overnight.
Most startups don't fail this fast after raising $100M+. Remind yourself that the shutdown is more painful for employees than angels.
Disclaimer: None of this is investment advice. This content is for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. Please consult your own adviser before making any investments.
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!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
