Given the impending, potentially larger market correction, I’ve been thinking a lot about liquidation preferences recently. And it seems I’m nottheonlyone.
Many reasons, two amongst them, concisely:
1) Liq pref results in lower FMV to option-holders, which ostensibly is net +ve for employee equity comp
2) Liq pref makes it so the startup needs to create value. Can't just raise money, immediately return capital, and profit from it
— Matt Levine .eth lol (@Matt_Levine_1) May 26, 2022
I’ve seen three major trends over the past two months:
Founders are raising on smaller multiples compared to the last round. Investors argue it’s come back to the fundamentals. Founders say it’s the market conditions. Regardless, we won’t see the same 2020 and 2021 multiples in the near future.
If a startup is still growing and is cash efficient, valuations won’t have changed as drastically. David Sacksput it best when he said that founders are still going to get well-funded, if they’re:
Cash is king. We’ve seen it in the news all of last month. Founders are extending their runways, by reducing burn. As Marc Andreessensaid 1.5 months ago, “The good big companies are overstaffed by 2x. The bad big companies are overstaffed by 4x or more.” Companies are buckling in for 18-24 month runways, if not longer.
So what?
That goes to say, if a startup isn’t growing as expected, has a high burn, AND still wants to raise an up-round a year out of their last raise, investors are adding in more downside protection provisions. Anti-dilution provisions, minimum hurdle rate expectations, blocks on IPO or M&A opportunities, and liquidation preferences. What Bill Gurley and some VCs call the “dirty term sheet.”
Now I know there’s nuance and reason behind why liquidation preferences were created. To align incentives between the founder and investor. It stops a founder from immediately “selling the business” as soon as the money is in the bank, as Matt Levine mentioned in the above tweet. It also leads to a lower fair market value in a 409a valuation as both Matt and Keith mentioned as well. A net positive for employees, who are looking for lower strike prices to exercise their options in the future.
But as an aggregate, it seems liquidation preferences are really a strategy not to lose rather than a strategy to win. Not just the 1x liquidation preference, but the 2-3x liquidation preferences I’ve been seeing in the side letters offered by VCs.
To put it into context, that means investors get 2-3x their money back before the founders and everyone else gets theirs. By the same token, investors believe that same startup is worth at least 2-3x the money they gave the founders. Again, downside protection.
How does venture differ from other asset classes?
Unlike real estate or public market stocks or bonds, venture capital is a hit-driven business. Success is not measured by percentages, but rather by multiples. High risk, high return.
In a successful venture portfolio of 50 companies, 49 could theoretically be a tax write-off, if one makes you 200 times your capital, you’ve quadrupled your fund. A respectable return for a seed stage fund. As such, liquidation preferences have little impact on fund returns. If you’ve done venture right, your biggest winners account 90% of the fund’s returns. And they are the best pieces of evidence you can use to raise a subsequent fund. Your fund returners are the greatest determinants of your ability to raise the next fund, not how much money you saved after making a bad bet. No one cares if you got your dollar back for dollars you’ve invested towards the bottom of your portfolio, or even 50 cents back on every dollar.
And when a startup wildly succeeds, liquidation preferences don’t matter since everyone is getting a massive check in the mail, far exceeding any downside protection provisions.
In closing
Of course, as always, I might be missing something here, but preferred shares feel like a vestigial part of venture capital – thanks to our history with other financial services businesses.
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.
Humans are terrible at understanding percentages. I’m one of them. An investor I had the opportunity to work with on multiple occasions once told me. People can’t tell better; people can only tell different. It’s something I wrestle with all the time when I hear founder pitches. Everyone claims they’re better than the incumbent solution. Whatever is on the market now. Then founders tell me they improve team efficiency by 30% or that their platform helps you close 20% more leads per month. And I know, I know… that they have numbers to back it up. Or at least the better founders do. But most investors and customers can’t tell. Everything looks great on paper, but what do they mean?
When the world’s wrapped in percentages, and 73.6% of all statistics are made up, you have to be magnitudes better than the competition, not just 10%, 20%, 30% better. In fact, as Sarah Tavel puts it, you have to be 10x better (and cheaper). And to be that much better, you have to be different.
And keep it simple. As Steve Jobs famously said that if the Mac needed an instruction manual, they would have failed in design. Your value-add should be simple. Concise. “We all have busy lives, we have jobs, we have interests, and some of us have children. Everyone’s lives are just getting busier, not less busy, in this busy society. You just don’t have time to learn this stuff, and everything’s getting more complicated… We both don’t have a lot of time to learn how to use a washing machine or a phone.”
If you need someone to learn and sit down – listen, read, or watch you do something, you’ve lost yourself in complexity.
“Big-check” sales is a game of telephone. For enterprise sales or if you’re working with healthcare providers, the sales cycle is long. Six to nine months, maybe a year. The person you end up convincing has to shop the deal with the management team, the finance team, and other constituents.
For most VCs writing checks north of a million, they need to bring it to the partnership meeting. Persuade the other partners on the product and the vision you sold them.
And so if your product isn’t different and simple, it’ll get lost in translation. Think of it this way. Every new person in the food chain who needs to be convinced will retain 90% of what the person before them told them. A 10% packet loss. The tighter you keep your value prop, the more effective it’ll be. The longer you need to spend explaining it with buzzwords and percentages, the more likely the final decision maker will have no idea why you’re better.
Humans are terrible at tracking nonlinearities. While we think we can, we never fully comprehend the power law. Equally so, sometimes I find it hard to wrap my hear around the fact that 20% of my work lead to 80% of the results. While oddly enough, 80% of my inputs will only account for 20% of my results. The latter often feels inefficient. Like wasted energy. Why bother with most work if it isn’t going to lead to a high return on investment.
Yet at the same time, it’s so far to tell what will go viral and what won’t. Time, energy, capital investments that we expect to perform end up not. While every once in a while, a small project will come out of left field and make all the work leading up to it worth it.
When I came out with my blogpost on the 99 pieces of unsolicited advice for founders last month, I had an assumption this would be a topic that my readers and the wider world would be interested in. At best, performing twice as well than my last “viral” blogpost.
Cup of Zhou readership as of April 2022
Needless to say, it blew my socks off and then some. My initial 99 “secrets”, as my friends would call it, accounted for 90% of the rightmost bar in the above graph. And the week after, I published my 99 “secrets” for investors. While it achieved some modest readership in the venture community and heartwarmingly enough was well-received by investors I respected, readership was within expectations of my previous blogposts.
My second piece wasn’t necessarily better or worse in the quality of its content, but it wasn’t different. While I wanted to leverage the momentum of the first, it just didn’t catch the wave like I expected it to.
Of course, as you might imagine, I’m not alone. Nikita Bier‘s tbh grew from zero to five million downloads in nine weeks. And sold to Facebook for $100 million. tbh literally seemed like an overnight success. Little do most of the public know that, Nikita and his team at Midnight Labs failed 14 times to create apps people wanted over seven years.
When Bessemer first invested in Shopify, they thought the best possible outcome for the company would be an exit value of $400 million. While not necessarily the best performing public stock, its market cap, as of the time I’m writing this blogpost, is still $42 billion. A 100 times bigger than the biggest possible outcome Bessemer could imagine.
Humans are terrible at committing to progress. The average person today is more likely to take one marshmallow now than two marshmallows later.
Between TikTok and a book, many will choose the former. Between a donut and a 30-minute HIT workout, the former is more likely to win again. Repeated offences of immediate gratification lead you down a path of short-term utility optimization. Simply put, between the option of improving 1% a day and regressing 1% a day, while not explicit, most will find more comfort in the latter alternative.
James Clear has this beautiful visualization of what it means to improve 1% every day for a year. If you focus on small improvements every day for a year, you’re going to be 37 times better than you were the day you started.
While the results of improving 1% aren’t apparent in close-up, they’re superhuman in long-shot.
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.
I want to preface; I don’t have all the cards laid out in front of me. In many ways, I am still trying to figure this out for myself. But I count myself lucky to be able to learn from some of the best in building communities. That said, the below are my views alone and are not representative of anyone or any organization.
A good friend recently asked me, “I’m about to start a community. Do you have any tips for how to start one with a bang?”
She’s not alone. Communities have been a hot topic for the past few years. A product of the crypto and NFT craze, and the isolation people felt when the world was forced to go virtual in 2020. At the same time, starting a community and maintaining/managing a community are different. Just like starting a company and growing a company are two different job descriptions. As such, this essay was written with the intention of addressing the former, rather than the latter.
Common traits of great communities
A great community has value and values.
Value is the excuse to bring people together. Value answers the question: why should I join? And within the first week, they should also have the answer to: why should I stay? Two fundamentally different questions. Many communities frontload the value – provide great value at the beginning – facilitating intros, onboarding workshops and socials. Subsequently, answers the first question, but take the second for granted. A community is the gift that keeps on giving. Over time, as you want to be able to scale your time and as the community grows, you need others to help you provide the reason for Why should I stay. Invariably, it comes down to people. You have to pick uncompromisingly great people from the start. And they have to derive so much value from being a part of the community, that demands converts to supply.
They refer others.
They give back to the community – in the form of advice, hosting events, and more.
Value should also be niche – just like the beachhead market for any startup. You want people to self-select themselves out of it, and the only people who stick around are the ones who derive the most benefits from being in it. Take, for example, a community of founders isn’t niche. And there a dime a dozen of the above. A community of pre-seed female founders focused on getting to product-market fit, is.
Values, on the other hand, are the rules of engagement. Codify them early. Take no implicit agreement for granted. Better yet, make them explicit. Back in January 2020, I wrote about rules in the context of building startup culture. I find the same to be true when building communities. “Weak follow-through is another fallacy in creating the culture you want. What you let slide will define the new culture, with or without your approval.”
I don’t mean for you to be a hard-ass on everything. But figure out early on how much slack you’re willing to give, and how much you aren’t. I’ve written about this before. Every person will suck. Every organization will suck. And unsurprisingly, every community will suck. What differentiates a great community from a good community is that the great ones get to choose what they’re willing to suck at.
You should be exclusive
Moreover, my hot take is that you have to be exclusive. Or let me clarify… in the wealth of Slack groups and Discord servers, yet in the world where everyone still has a job (or two), friends, family, and other communities they’re already a part of that all already slice up their 24-hour day pie in so many different ways, you are competing for their attention. If you’re a community, you’re competing against Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Friday happy hours, Saturday nights out with the girls, date night with their partner, eight hours of sleep, their workout routine, and so much more. And so, you have to be inclusive of those who have been excluded. As such, you have to exclude those who have historically been included.
I’m not saying that you should start a community for the underestimated just ’cause. It’s like starting a business because you want the title of CEO. Don’t do it. It’s not worth your time. It’s not worth your energy. But you have to be honest with yourself, are you adding more value in the world? Is there anyone else who would sacrifice their other commitments to belong in your community? And do you have the discipline and the drive to maintain this community in the long term? The worst thing you can do is create a new home for someone then take it away.
Building and rebuilding habits
When starting a community, you are asking individuals to build a new habit. One of your greatest competitors is the incumbent solution of existing habits and routine. Some research cites that it takes 21 days to break a habit. And about two months to build a new one. All in all, 90 days all things considered.
Elliot Berkman, Director of University of Oregon’s Social and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory, surmises that there are three factors to breaking a habit.
The availability of an alternative habit
Strength of motivation to change
Mental and physical ability to break the habit
To break down the above:
The availability of an alternative habit
How available is the replacement behavior? Are there other communities out there that do the exact same thing? How well known are they? What are their barriers to entry?
If there is a readily available alternative community, the first question you need to answer is: why bother making another? Realistically, any one person only has enough time and attention to be in 2-3 communities – total. The second question you need to answer is: how do people normally learn of that community? And subsequently, is there a market or audience who doesn’t have access to this distribution channel? If so, what channels occupy most of their attention? Target those.
Strength of motivation to change
There’s a saying in the world of marketing that goes something along the lines of: People don’t buy products. They buy better versions of themselves. Therefore, as a community, you need to nail the value you provide. Is it aspirational? Does it get people to jump out of their seats and scream yes?
A simple litmus test is if you were to share the reason you created the community, do they respond with “How do I sign up for this now?” or “Let me think about it.”? If the latter, you haven’t nailed your value proposition. In other words, what you’re selling isn’t aspirational. Or if it is, you’re either talking to the wrong demographic or the value proposition is a 10% improvement in people’s lives, not a 10x. Sarah Tavel‘s “10x better and cheaper” framework (albeit for startups) is a great mental model for nailing your value prop. Your community must be:
So much better than the incumbent solution or habit they regress to, and
Easy to jump on (i.e. switching costs must be low enough for it be a no-brainer) – Sometimes this means you need to manually onboard every individual into your community. And sometimes all one needs is an accountability partner. Everyone wants be THE number that matters, not just A number. Make people feel special.
Mental and physical ability to break the habit
This is admittedly the factor that is most outside of your immediate control. Here, I regress to the below nerdy formula I made up in the process of writing this blogpost:
(how much work you need to put into each member) ∝ 1/(# of members)
The amount of work you need to put into inspiring each member to join is indirectly proportional to the number of members you can accommodate in your community. In other words, the less you need to convince people to join your community, the more members you can accommodate. The more time you need to inspire enough activation energy for a person to build a new habit, the smaller the initial cohort of members you can tailor to.
This is why I love the concept of the idea maze so much. Has your target community members put in blood, sweat, and tears trying to find the value that you are providing? Why does this matter?
They’ve designed their life already around finding answers around your value prop. They’re going to be more engaged than the average individual. They’re intrinsically motivated to be curious.
Shared empathy. They know how tough finding an answer is, such that they’re more willing to help others going through similar problems.
The shared struggles that people collectively and synchronously go through together build camaraderie and trust. No matter how small or big. The bonds of a sports team are built upon the sweats and tears of brutal training regimens, losses and wins. The trust of a Navy Seals class is built through Hell Week, pain, exhaustion, adversity, and (the likelihood of) death. And, the friendships between college freshmen are built through the unfamiliar environment of a new and daunting chapter of their life.
In closing
Starting a community is hard. 99% of communities (don’t quote me on this number, but I know I’m close to the mark) disappear into obsolescence after their founders lose their motivation. Oftentimes even prior. Not only are you cultivating a new habit yourself, but you are doing so for everyone else you want in your community. I hope the above was able to illuminate your thinking as much as it did for me. I continue to learn and iterate, and as such, will likely publish more content on this topic in the future. For now, this essay will be my thoughts encased in amber.
A big thank you to everyone who’s influenced and will continue to influence my thoughts on community, including but not limited to Sam, Andrew, Mishti, Jerel, Shuo, and most recently, Enzo.
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.
A friend asked me the other day, “If you meet a founder that you think isn’t going to make it, do you tell that founder?”
So I responded:
“Say you have a 7-year old daughter. And her biggest dream is to be an WNBA all-star. Or to be the president. Would you tell her ‘statistically speaking, you have almost no chance of succeeding?’ Or would you encourage her to keep pursuing her dream in spite of the odds? It’s the pursuit of a greater purpose that makes the person we are today and the person we will be tomorrow.
“Maybe your daughter doesn’t end up becoming a basketball star, but her pursuit of it lands her in Harvard where she meets incredible friends who end up growing together to be the next PayPal mafia. It’s the relentless pursuit of a dream that builds grit. And that grit will aid her well in whatever path she ends up choosing. Because the world is tough – no matter what you do. You will get beaten down again and again. And the difference between the ultra successful and everyone else is that the former continues to get back up.
“So when I meet a founder who’s championing an idea I don’t believe in, I neither have the guts nor the conviction to tell that person that it won’t work out, just that I won’t invest. ‘Cause if I know anything about the venture business, it’s that it keeps us humble. And every day I live in this industry, I have the privilege of being proven wrong. And even if I’m right, their pursuit makes them a more resilient person than before they began to do so.
“After all, there’s a big difference between impossible and really, really hard.”
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
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.
Whether you’re a founder or investor or just friends of the afore-mentioned job titles, you’ve most likely been asked for warm intros. The sage advice in the world has always been, that it is better to ask for warm introductions than send cold outreach, leaving the latter to be severely underestimated. Anecdotally, some of my best friends and mentors today came and continue to come from cold outreach.
Most people in this world love to help others. They derive joy and fulfillment in doing so. It enriches their life just as much, if not more so than, it does yours. There are a number of academic studies, like this 2020 one, that show positive correlation between giving kindness and your own happiness. The Ben Franklin effect extrapolates that you are more likely to like someone by doing them a favor. In sum, people want to help others. Investors (and friends of investors) are no exception.
But… the world does not make it easy to do so.
I’m not here to preach kindness. Nor do I think I need to. There are plenty of more incredible individuals in the world who are more capable of relaying that message than I am. But as the title of this blogpost alludes to, what tactical advice is there to:
Help friends of investors/investors help you
Get investors excited to meet you
Why even bother with a forwardable
Founders often ask me: Do you know any investors you can introduce me to? Which, in fairness, is an understandable question when you don’t know who you don’t know. In a world where I’m only helping 10 or less founders total, it’s a great question.
The problem is I, like many other people in the venture ecosystem, am often trying to help more than 10 founders. For me, I’m helping founders I’m actively advising, On Deck founders, Techstars founders, Alchemist founders, founders who are intro-ed to me, founders who cold email me, and founders who come to my weekly office hours. The number varies, but in any given week, I’m sending between 20-40 founder intros. And given that, I face a few obstacles:
The colder the connection and the longer the time since we last spoke, the more likely I am to forget what you’re building. I’m sorry; I wish I had photographic memory.
As much as I would like, I physically don’t have time to write a curated intro to every person who asks me.
I don’t want to ping the same investor/advisor multiple times in a week without clear reasons why. The investors who have more social clout get more intros than others. And they only have so much time and attention they can give in their inbox/socials to new people.
Rather, I flip the question on founders. Build a preliminary list of people you would like to chat with. See who you know that’s connected with these individuals. Do note I did not say firms. Long term marriages begin with each human not their last name. If I’m a 1st degree connection to them, then reach out to me and ask:
“I’m currently raising for [startup], [context]. I saw you’re connected to [name], [name] and [name]. Would you be comfortable reaching out to them for a double opt-in intro? And if so, happy to send you forwardable to make your life easier.”
To which I respond…
What goes into a forwardable
While everyone has their own preference, I prefer all the forwardables I send to have three things – nothing more, nothing less. Nothing more, since busy individuals don’t have time to read essays. Nothing less, well, it is what I call the minimum viable forwardable. And yes, I just made that term up.
The one metric you think you’re doing better than 95% (99th percentile is ideal) of the industry. On the off chance that the afore-mentioned metric isn’t obvious as to why it’s crucial to the business, spend another sentence explaining why. For example, if you’re a marketplace, the metric you’re slaying at might be the percent of your demand who organically converts to supply. While it may not be obvious to most, it is one of the earliest signs of network effects. Your customers love your product so much they want to pay it forward.
1-2 sentences as to what your startup does
Why this recipient would be the best dollar on your cap table
The first two are things you, as a founder, should have readily on hand. The third is often the one I get the most questions on. What does “the best dollar on my cap table” mean? And how would I find that?
Why the best dollar is important
Fundraising is often seen as a numbers game. Analogously, so is networking. Both of which I agree and disagree with. I agree with the fact that you have to engineer serendipity. You have to increase the surface area for luck to stick. And to do that, you need to talk to a s**t ton of people. I get it. The part I disagree with is that a game optimized for quantity is often conflated with templated conversations. Or worse, purely transactional ones. Relationships don’t scale if you approach it from scale.
… which is why I need the third point in every forwardable. If you are unable to provide why an investor would be the best dollar on your cap table, then:
You don’t need a warm intro. And that’s fine. Some investors’ inboxes are less saturated than others. If it might help, here is also my cold email “template.”
I’m not your person. I, like any other person facilitating an intro, am putting my social capital on the line to get you in front of the person you want. And if you don’t think it’s worth the time to tailor your email to one that I would be comfortable sending, then I just can’t be your champion.
Examples of the best dollar
Predictably and unpredictably so, there are many ways to make someone feel special. While I will list some of my favorite that I’ve seen over the years, the list is, by no means, all-inclusive. In fact, I’m sure some of the best and most timeless ways to showcase an investor’s value add is still out there waiting to be discovered. And for that, I leave it to you, my reader, to surprise me and the world. The below, hopefully, serves as inspiration for you to be tenaciously and idiosyncratically creative.
I’ll break it down into two parts: (1) what do you need help on, and (2) what help can they provide.
What is the 3 biggest risks of your business? The biggest one should be solved by you or someone on the team slide. The biggest risk should be the minimum viable assumption you need to prove that people want your product. At the early stages, sometimes that’s showing you have a waitlist of folks begging for your product. Sometimes, it’s just proving you can build the product (i.e. a deep tech product or AI startup). The next two risks, which aren’t as great in magnitude, but still prescient, requires you to be scrappy and at times, bring in external help.
What are your potential investors’ value adds? Where does their tactical expertise lie in? There’s no one-stop shop for every investor for this… yet (hit me up if you’re building something here). But nevertheless, I find it useful to search “databases” of value adds on:
Lunchclub profiles under “Ask [name] about…” Note: I forget if Polywork and Lunchclub are still invite-only, but if they are, feel free to use my invite codes here for Polywork and Lunchclub. For those curious, this is not a sponsored post.
Doom-scrolling to the bottom of their LinkedIn profile and reading their references
Who, of their existing investors, if they were to build a new business tomorrow in a similar sector, is the one person who would be a “no brainer” to bring back on their cap table? And why?
Who did they pitch to that turned them down for investment, but still was very helpful?
Subsequently, referencing (with the founders’ permission) those founders when reaching out/getting introed to those VCs. Note: Generally, Crunchbase and Pitchbook has more exhaustive lists of portfolio companies oftentimes than their website of “selected investments.”
Any publication/press release (i.e. Techcrunch, Forbes, etc.) where founders share how helpful their investors were. This may require a bit of digging.
As a general rule of thumb, the more specific you are, the better.
On the flip side, some examples of lackluster “best dollars” include:
Just stating which industry they invest in
Stating that they’re ideal because they work at X firm. You’re drafting individual team members for your all-star team, not brands.
Stating that they’re ideal because they USED to work at X firm
Using the recipient as a means to an ends. In other words, you want to get in touch with someone they know rather than they themselves. No one feels special when you like them only because they know someone else you like more. Either find a warmer connection to the “end” person or cold email.
Being generic
In closing
As my friend “James” says, “Do all of the leg work. Help them help you as much as possible. Everyone wants to be the hero that helps someone else, but people have lives – and if you’re the one that is getting the value, bring the value as much as possible.”
If you were the recipient of said email, what would make you say: “Absolutely?”
May 9th, 2022 Update: Added the “Why even both with a forwardable” section
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.
After recently tuning into an incredible founder’s most recent investor update, I stumbled across a shoutout once again to Silicon Valley storytelling legend Siqi Chen. It wasn’t the first and surely won’t be the last time I find such kudos from a mutual friend. I’ve been a huge fan since his 2019 presentation on presentations, and there’ve been multiple times his name has surfaced in a conversation with friends. I’ve also publicly written about just how amazing he is. That day, I felt the cosmos telling me today was the day. Something just felt right. A swig of that Felix Felicis, if you know what I mean. In hindsight, I guess I could have asked for a warm intro. But my enthusiasm just couldn’t wait.
My question was simple:
“What do you think sets a top 0.1% story from a top 5%er? What sets a timeless story apart from a box office hit?”
“Hm, it’s a good question. Maybe two things: ‘proof of work’. In other words, founder-market fit. Authenticity can be faked so ‘proof of work’, in terms of background, experience, expertise for your authenticity, is valuable. The second thing is just sheer effort, finesse, and practice.”
“Magic is just spending more time on a trick that anyone would ever expect to be worth it.” – Penn & Teller
And naturally, I had to follow up. “What are the top 1-2 questions you ask yourself to help you stress test if you’re telling epic stories? Or if it’s more applicable, questions you ask others to see if your story resonated with them?”
To which, he left me with a rather curious statement:
“The stress test for me is when, after the story, there are no questions other than ‘How can I invest?’ This is probably the biggest hack I have for a pitch, which is that contrary to popular belief that questions are an expression of interest, all questions are bad.”
I paused. All. Questions. Are. Bad. To a person who makes a living out of asking questions, you can damn well be sure that whatever I was thinking, whatever I was doing, whatever I was going to say disappeared in a moment’s grace, like a midsummer night’s dream. He already had my attention, but now, he had my curiosity.
He goes on: “The correct way to look at questions is that they are akin to a compiler error in your pitch: It is the tell tale sign of objections politely withheld until you were done talking. It should be your goal to adjust your pitch such that those questions never come up in the first place.”
Needless to say, as all contrarian sayings went, I found Siqi’s words quite provocative. I hadn’t yet come to terms with his permutation of punctuated words strung into sentences. His words, while in plain English, arrived at my ears in a manner that was quite foreign. But the more he elaborated, the more sense it made.
“You know how when a salesperson is trying to sell you something, whether it’s a SaaS product or a set of steak knives, and you don’t want to buy it, but you’re listening politely?” explains Siqi. “You already have an objection and you have already decided to not buy it. And that objection you’re just holding in your head until they’re done talking.
“The first question you ask after they’re done talking is basically that objection. Once you’ve thought about that objection as the listener, you’re no longer paying attention. That objection is all you’re thinking about.
“Here’s a concrete example. Let’s say the first question you think of is ‘it’s a competitive space, how do you think about competition?’
“That means they were thinking about competition for some unknown period of time while you were pitching, probably from the minute you started. And they already decided to not buy.”
His next few words are worth underscoring. If words carried weight, shine, and could be worn on your fourth finger after an elaborate ceremony, this was it. “The way you debug it is by preventing that question in the first place, for example, by inserting a slide at the beginning explaining: ‘This is a really competitive space, but here’s why we’re doing what we’re doing’. Then you defuse the question and it doesn’t come up in the first place.
“A good pitch removes those objects in your head so that you end up buying. One way to improve your pitch is to systematically remove questions until you’re left with just one: ‘How can I invest?’”
In the deck he shared back in 2019, on slide 19, he has another two lines that are equally as powerful and read: “We unconsciously try as hard as we can to fit new facts into existing opinions. Based on existing opinions we make decisions that make us feel good, or the least bad.”
Unfortunately, Siqi’s right.
How often have you brought up a new fact that contradicts with what your mom/dad/grandma/grandpa believes and they respond with “Don’t believe everything you read online?” And then, read a “fact” from an unconfirmed source that affirms their beliefs and they respond with “I told you so?”
Investors, like any other human, are no different. Questions, therefore, are implicit personal opinions reworded explicitly, with the expectation that the facts you bring up fit in their existing mental models. And if the facts don’t match up, “You’re too early for us”. Or as they tell themselves, “The founders have not given us the facts we look for to fit in the frameworks we have.”
Then again, as founders, you may not be looking to fall into a pre-ordained mold. In fact, the most world-shattering businesses never fit into the mold. So neither should you. Steve Jobs famously said:
“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
So, if you only have facts, stick with the facts that reaffirm an investor’s opinion of a great startup. Admittedly, that can only be true for the top 0.1% of businesses out there. The vast majority of startups don’t have numbers that fit such a high benchmark honed from years of pattern recognition. A benchmark investors have high conviction in. Certainty, one might say. The great writer Charlie Kaufman once said, “Because when you’re certain, you stop being curious. And here’s the one thing I know about the thing you’re certain about. You’re wrong.”
The best thing about this business – about being an investor – is that it keeps people humble. A fact, unfortunately, many investors forget. So stay curious. And tell us a story so compelling we can imagine no other.
Or as Siqi puts it, “The goal of a great presentation is to create emotions that persuade people to take action.” The founders don’t just share their passion. Their passion is contagious. It spreads like a virus. And whoever is infected shares it with the people around them, which if your story is compelling enough, those people share it with their friends. In a vast game of telephone, the more relatable and inspiring your story is, the longer the game of telephone. Facts become stories. Stories become tales. Tales become legends.
The best stories don’t just share facts. They inspire. They weave facts together in a way so compelling that there are no more questions. The world is filled with limitless amounts of data – most of which are seemingly disparate and meaningless. The best storytellers give the chaos of data meaning. They give data purpose.
In reality, you’re not going to get the pitch down in v1. Practice it, especially with people who have a critical eye with words. They don’t have to be investors. Probably not just with your co-founders and team members because they’re biased. They’ll make lapses in judgment because they already understand the problem space well enough. So well, they won’t have realized you skipped steps in your logic. Practice it with writers, lawyers, speechwriters, marketers, influencers, that Redditor that deconstructs every single presidential speech, and video editors, especially those who edit meme videos. Then when you pitch it to investors, the goal is that they don’t withhold objections because they simply don’t have any.
I can’t help but recall a great line by Robert McKee, “At story climax, you must deliver a scene beyond which the audience can imagine no other.” Equally so, by the end of your pitch, you must deliver a solution beyond which the audience can imagine no other.
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.
I had a founder ask me yesterday, “How much money does an investor expect you to bootstrap with?”
The short answer I gave him, “It depends.”
The longer answer… well, there is no one number or specific range that investors look at. It’s a case-by-case scenario. Of course that’s not the answer he, nor you my reader, were hoping to hear. If I left you on that alone, I’d imagine this essay would be the single greatest contributor to my unsubscribe rate.
The real answer is that capital is not the unit of measurement. It can be, and may seem to be in today’s ever-increasing pace of development. Rather, it starts from a question. What is your minimum viable assumption? Something I’ve also alluded to before.
What is the minimum viable assumption? The big assumption you must prove in order to catalyze your startup’s growth. Or as Gagan Biyani, founder of Maven, puts it in the frame of minimum viable tests – “a specific test of an assumption that must be true for the business to succeed.”
Oftentimes, that assumption is synonymous to your the biggest risks of your business. Or in other cases, your biggest barriers to entry.
One of the questions we investors try to answer when we meet with a founder is: What is the biggest risk of this business? And is the person who can solve this risk in the room (or on the team slide)? It is one of a handful of risks we must underwrite to move forward with an investment.
Your ability to raise capital is directly correlated with your ability to inspire confidence in your investors that you will need little to no help getting to your next milestone. An unfortunate, but true paradox.
Circling back to the question that catalyzed this essay, how much money does an investor expect you to bootstrap with? The answer, as much as you need to prove your minimum viable assumption. Can you conquer the biggest risk of your business on your own capital? If you can, you’re halfway there. That may take $50K. Or maybe $10K. Or $100. Airbnb had to go through three different launches, and selling Obama O’s and Cap’n McCains for $40 per box, before Paul Graham noticed their traction. On the other hand, you have Mailchimp that’s 100% bootstrapped till the day they exited. Each business is different and unique in its own way.
The only addendum I would add here is that this same calculus will most likely not apply if you’re building something in deep tech – be it biotech or general AI or otherwise.
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.
Earlier this week, Zach Coelius shared his path to running a fund with the On Deck Angels community. And near the end of the session, one of our fellows asked something along the lines of: How do you pick great founders? To which, Zach responded, and I’m paraphrasing: I look for really smart people I want to be around. And every person has something different that makes them smart.
I’ve heard many variations of Zach’s closing comment over the years. “I look for someone I want to work for.” “I look for someone who gets me excited about a space I didn’t I’d get excited about.” “A really sharp individual who teaches me something new almost every time we talk.” The common thread, in all these statements, is that the thing that drives early-stage investors to conviction is not quantitative, but qualitative in nature. Moreover, given that the next Steve Jobs or Elon Musk will look nothing like either of the afore-mentioned, it’s hard to build the search for outliers into a reliable mental model, other than the openness to be amazed.
Fred Wilson wrote a great piece at the beginning of this week about his rationale for investing in Coinbase, Twitter, and Dapper. His title, which sums it all up really well, is: Keeping It Simple. His lesson: “That’s keeping it simple. It doesn’t always work. We get more wrong than we get right. But when we get it right, amazing things can happen.”
Along a similar vein, I jumped on a call with a buddy of mine who’s raising his first fund after having an enviable track record as an angel. On this said call, we talked about how junior investors, the bottom 75% of investors, late-stage investors, and investors that have yet to find their own way to get to conviction, spend more time on the quantitative. A very analytical, repeatable, quantifiable approach. For better or for worse, cerebral. On the flip side, the best early-stage investors out there, by track record of consistent top-notch returns, don’t spend nearly as much time obsessing over the numbers. Or evidence. In fact, before you invest at the A, for most businesses, there really isn’t any hard metric that is going to get you from 50 to 90% conviction.
Even in my own personal journey, when I started off, I found myself sticking to the “tried and true” questions:
What are your unit economics?
How many customers do you have? How are they using your product?
What percent of your customers are coming back to use the product on the second day?
What do your retention curves look like?
Your monthly growth rate for the past three months?
All of which, you may notice, are quantitative in nature. In fact, this best part of this blog is that you can literally track my thinking over the past few years. I went from writing about metrics (morehere, just to name a few) I look for in startups to writing about intuition. In fact, even my attempt to codify intuition is, by definition, using my frontal lobe.
All I need to worry about are moments when a founder teaches me something new that I didn’t know I would love. A simple, but surprisingly rare happenstance. I see a lot of good startup ideas and teams, even some great ones. But it’s rare I meet an “Oh sh*t!” one. Subsequently, that probably also means, at my current stage, I’d make a poor fund manager, since I don’t have enough consistently high-quality deal flow. Consistent, yes. High-quality, in my humble opinion, yes. But consistently high-quality, I’m still too early. At least in the scope of “Oh sh*t!”
One of the greatest sobering facts about venture is that it’s a business that’s designed to keep you humble. Like Fred mentioned, I am wrong way more often than I’m right. And the times I trusted my head over my gut are times I find most regretful. To better illustrate this, let me share an anecdote.
Back in 2018, one of my good friends introduced me to a set of co-founders. Scratch that. Even before they started working on the business idea. And I’m going to abstract the name of the startup. But if you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you’ve probably already seen the trail of cookie crumbs.
I met them for the first time at their beautiful, well-furnished SF apartment with Scandinavian furniture that definitely warranted a pretty price tag. Out of curiosity, I asked how much it cost to live there. And for four bedrooms and three baths, they shared a ridiculously low number. A third of the price I imagined they’d be paying. Then of course, I had to ask how much the furniture cost. “$100, just to ship them over. Otherwise, they’re all free.”
Apparently, they networked their way into a community of office managers. They learned that so many venture-backed startups in the Bay, upon receiving funding, want to look like Airbnb. Founders buy the most expensive furniture – modern layouts, quirky chairs, rustic-looking tables. They also bring the creme de la creme of interior designers to help them set it all up.
But as statistics show, most of these fold every year. When they do, the last thing they want to worry about is their reminder of frivolous spending. As such, office managers end up with so many pieces of high-end furniture they just need to get rid of. Those same pieces of artisanal furniture now sat in these three founders’ living room. And it’s even crazier to know that they weren’t from the Bay. They didn’t have connections coming here, nor jobs lined up initially.
The stories didn’t stop there. In subsequent catchups, I learned of their previous hustles. Each blew my mind more than the last.
When it finally came down to it, and I had the chance to invest, I fell into the comfort of the shackles of borrowed mental models, demand for traction, metrics, the whole nine yards of what made me sound like a really smart, possibly high-browed, VC. And I said no. Today, they’re worth over nine figures, with 8-figure revenue numbers at their last funding round.
I amassed a massive anti-portfolio in my early days trusting my brain over my gut. A brain, like most, was and continues to be incapable of fully understanding the effects of the power law.
To borrow a Pat Grady lesson, any person with a head above two shoulders – in other words, a recurring practitioner of logic and reasoning – is capable of figuring out what’s wrong. But as an early-stage investor, one of the biggest mental hurdles you have to overcome, is spending more time imagining what can go really, really right. And not its counterpart.
As an investor before product-market fit, you invest belief capital, not optimization capital. You’re not putting fuel on the fire. You’re putting faith in a person – in a team – and in an insight.
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.
Recently, I stumbled across a captivating perspective on aphorisms via Tim Ferriss’ 5-Bullet Fridays. The Procrustean Bed. To be fair, before reading it on Tim’s newlsetter, I haven’t even heard of the concept. In one of his newsletters, he cites two incredible sources:
” ‘Something designed to produce conformity by unnatural or violent means. In Greek mythology, Procrustes was a robber who tied his victims to a bed, either stretching or cutting off their legs in order to make them fit it.’ (Source: Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms).
“Nassim Taleb has a related book of aphorisms titled The Bed of Procrustes. He explains the title thusly: ‘Every aphorism here is about a Procrustean bed of sorts—we humans, facing limits of knowledge, and things we do not observe, the unseen and the unknown, resolve tension by squeezing life and the world into crisp commoditized ideas, reductive categories, specific vocabularies, and prepackaged narratives, which, on the occasion, has explosive consequences.’ “
Down the investing rabbithole
There exist a number of aphorisms in the investing world. Chief of which reads “buy low, sell high.” Public market assets are quite liquid. Hypothetically, you can cash out whenever you want. Such liquidity has paved way for psychological inconsistencies to maximize gratification. In language with unnecessary jargon redacted, the option to sell is less motivated by rational thinking but more by fear of losing money – loss aversion. If you invest $100 into the public market, you can choose if you want to cash out at $95, $90, or $120 or $200. While there is a non-zero chance of you losing your entire principal, chances are you’ll liquidate your positions before that happens.
On the other hand, private market investments are illiquid. Upon investment, there is no liquid market in which you can sell immediately. At best, you have to wait 3-5 years before a rapidly marked-up investment creates opportunities for distributions in the secondary market. In other words, cash money while companies are still private. In the private markets, your principal either appreciates in multiples, rather than percentages, or bottoms out. Any in-betweens will neither make or break your investment strategy, and are often out of your immediate control. So in this case, illiquidity is a feature, not a bug.
The notion of exiting positions as a private market investor, therefore, gravitates towards a singularity – when you make a damn good investment. The only time you really have an option to choose whether you can sell or not, when otherwise, it becomes a tax write-off or a small exit outside of your immediate control.
When should you sell?
Should you ever sell?
And if you sell, how much should you sell?
To answer all the above questions…
With the help of Shawn and Ratan, I wrote a blogpost on how to think about exiting positions at the beginning of this year. A topic of which I am still very much a rookie at, which may be quite apparent in this essay as well. Nevertheless I’m going to try to elaborate more on the notion of selling positions as an early-stage investor.
In a memo earlier this year, Howard Marks wrote that there are two main reasons people choose to sell: “because they’re up and because they’re down.”
When “they’re down”
Let’s start with the latter. When “they’re down.” Like I mentioned before, there are often very few options to sell when things are down. While I’m not proud that these investors exist in the early-stage private markets, I’ve seen and heard of some investors who try to make a last ditch effort to regain some of their principal when the startup goes south. Selling off IP. As well as assets. Or forcing the founders to make a modest exit, so that the investors cap their downside. Maybe at best, this returns them 2x on their capital (rarely the case).
But let’s say that’s the “best” case scenario. And let’s say it’s a $25M Fund I, writing $250K checks. A 2x net return means they got back $750K. $750K is far from returning the $25M fund. Not even close to doing so. You need over 30 of those “exits” to just break even for your fund. So, if you’re an investor penny pinching here, you’re in the wrong game AND you’re going to lose out on the relationships with the founding team.
Why the wrong game?
Venture is a hit-driven business. It’s not about your batting average but about the magnitude of the home runs you hit. We bat for 100x returns, which also increases the probability of misses, determined by ability to return the fund or not. If you’re optimizing for local maximums, you’d probably do better as a public market investor.
And why do relationships matter?
One, the startup world is a smaller world than you think. People gossip.
Two, statistically, first swings at bat rarely work out. In research done by Cowboy Ventures, they found 80% of unicorns had at least one co-founder with previous founding experience. Paris Innovation Review also found that “86% started their project with a partner, after having created other companies.” Two of many otherstudies. So, even though this venture didn’t achieve financial success for an investor, the next might. Or the one after that. Assuming you bet on the right people, it’ll just take a couple iterations before timing, market, and product also match up. If you leave on bad terms on this deal, you won’t be able to get in when things do work out.
Three, what makes early-stage investing incredible is the relationships you build along the way. The ability to learn and grow with really smart people.
When “they’re up”
The question of if to sell often leads to controversial debate. I know of some investors who never sell any of their stock. And that if they sell, to them, it is a measure of their lack of faith in a founder. And they would never want to feel that they’re betting against the founders. That’s okay if you’re an angel. But if you’re a VC, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your investors, which means you’ll eventually have to sell.
The question of when to sell is often answered in broad strokes with laws around QSBS, which states that if you hold a qualified small business stock for longer than five years, you’re not subject to capital gains taxes in the US. But should you sell in the 6th year or 10th year? And under what market conditions? Do you sell in a boom market or on the precipice of a bust market? For a company you believe in the long-term potential, regardless of short-term fluctuations, I’m a big fan of what Bill Miller said in his Q3 2021 Market Letter. “We believe time, not timing, is the key to building wealth in the [market].”
But when things are going really, really, really well, it’s okay to take money off the table, even ahead of the end of the fund’s 10-year lifespan. In fact, Union Square Ventures generally sells 15-30% of their position in their top portfolio companies to distribute back to their LPs. Fred Wilson‘s personal framework lies around “[selling] one third of the position immediately, put one third away for a long term hold, and actively manage the other third.”
To most, including myself, the goalposts for selling how much seem arbitrary. USV sold 30% of their position in Twitter to return twice the entire fund. Menlo Ventures sold almost half of their stake in Uber when Softbank offered to buy. Whereas, Benchmark sold 15% of its Uber shares. I also have really smart friends who liquidate 50% of their stake in a token if a single cryptocurrency reaches double digit percentages of their net worth.
It’s all about the opportunity cost
In a game where arbitrage matters, and the “why” matter more than the “what”, it was love at first sight when Howard Marks shared his mental model on selling. He boils it down to the simple economic concept of opportunity cost:
“If your investment thesis seems less valid than it did previously and/or the probability that it will prove accurate has declined, selling some or all of the holding is probably appropriate.
“Likewise, if another investment comes along that appears to have more promise – to offer a superior risk-adjusted prospective return – it’s reasonable to reduce or eliminate existing holdings to make room for it.”
In sum, the option to sell is not an isolated decision, but rather one which considers the other investment opportunities you have available to you. For a number of VCs, this breaks into the calculus of recycling carry and what to use early distributions to invest in next. If you’re a VC with consistent AND high-quality deal flow, you’d probably want to reinvest. If you’re a VC without either of the two (i.e. only consistency or quality) or an emerging angel, your goal is to get both. In having both, you then have access to relative selection.
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.
