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.
When winds and waves a mutual contest wage, These foaming anger, those impelling rage; Thy blissful light can cheer the dismal gloom, And foster hopes beyond a wat’ry doom.
– John William Smith, “The Lighthouse,” 1814
Marc Andreessenanswered a few weeks back to a question that has been ringing in many founders’ minds. What product do founders want to buy from investors? For the past few years, the natural answer rose as operational expertise. A notion that still holds true for the earliest stages of starting a business when you bring on strategic angels as small checks to help you find product-market fit. As you continue down the path and start raising institutional capital, the answer becomes more and more amorphous.
I've always thought the biggest thing a founder buys from a VC is a bridge loan of credibility in advance of tangible evidence.
Why do investors look for signal in the first place? A means to de-risk a very early, and very risky bet. A product of asymmetric information. Investors invest in lines not dots, but the truth is, most investors don’t have the time – luxury or ability – to see all lines. So what they must do instead is look for specific dots – be it traction, co-investors, or founding team “legitimacy” – that would help them trace out of a line of best fit. As Precursor’s Charles Hudson wrote earlier this week,
After 8ish years of pre-seed investing in 300+ companies, the biggest gap I see between VCs and founders is the relative weight placed on current traction by founders and the importance the next VC puts on market opportunity. Only gets bigger with each extra round raised.
1. Founders focus on traction – it's quantitative, many want fundraising to be deterministic (it isn't) 2. VCs have better market intel on what "great" traction looks like 3. For a co w top 10% traction, that can be the story. Applies to very few.
By definition, signal should be a leading indicator of long-term business value. Yet, for most investors in the world, what they look for are lagging indicators of conviction.
The signal paradox
In the investing world, there’s a paradoxical notion of signal. Through many conversations with syndicate leads, data teams of investing platforms, and LPs, I realized a common thread. For the majority of investors in the world, at the early stages, signal comes not from the founder, but from other funders.
In a syndicate, there are three things that make a deal move fast:
Great co-investors
Great traction
And, great team
Arguably in that order. Synonymously, as an emerging fund manager, the best way to raise from family offices* (I’ll explain below why FO’s are my reference point here) who are notoriously closed off to cold emails, you need:
Tier 1 VCs as your co-investors
Tier 1 GPs as your fund’s LPs
Or, deals that family offices wanted to get into anyway (which isn’t mutually exclusive from the above as well)
Quite noticeably, for many investors out there, signal comes in the form of people with a proven track record already. Or to break it down even more. Signal comes in the form of familiarity. Familiarity in the form of warm intros or college classmates or pattern recognition. The easiest pattern to follow for any investor without needing to do too much diligence or requiring too much personal conviction (I know, it’s funny), but to be able to write fast checks, is other top-tier investors. If you’re a founder who’ve fundraised before, you’re probably very familiar with this notion. Consciously or subconsciously. I’m gonna bet money that you’ve been asked, “Which other investors are you talking to? And how far along the process are you with them?” Or simply, “Do you have a lead investor?”
While there are some nuances to the last question, like the inability for smaller investors to pay for legal counsel fees, to have the resources to completely diligence a startup, or just that the check size required to lead/fill the round is just too large for them, generally speaking, my argument still stands. Put nicely, for many investors, they’re looking for external validation of the product. Put harshly, that question is a band-aid approach to their inability to get to conviction.
As a founder, you have to realize that capital has become a commodity. Investors are in the business of selling money. And subsequently, making $1 become $2. Or for a great early-stage investor, $1 becomes $5. There are many ways to underwrite risk. The one that requires the least amount of new thinking, or thought leadership, is following firms who have proven their investing acumen already and consistently.
*Additional context on family offices
I specifically mention family offices above since most LPs in Fund I’s are individuals and angels. Mostly small checks. And can quickly fill up the limit the SEC has set for how many accredited investors you can have investing in your fund. And their reason to invest is based on the founding GPs – very similar to why investors would back startups at the pre-seed stage.
While some GPs do pitch to institutional LPs (i.e. endowments, pension funds, fund of funds, etc.), very, very little institutional capital goes to Fund I’s and II’s – very similar to the fact that Tiger or Coatue very rarely invest before the A. You have yet to have a track record where they can fit into their financial model. They’re underwriting a very different type of risk. And so, if you’re a Fund I GP looking for larger checks, you’re looking to generational wealth in the form of family offices, who are surprisingly closed off to cold emails. But I digress.
The surplus of “signal” in 2021
In the last year, we’ve seen some record-breaking numbers. We’ve been in an exciting boom market. There have never been more venture dollars poured into the ecosystem. In fact, there were 1,148 concurrent unicorns in 2021. Half of which were new. In comparison, 2020 minted just 167 unicorns. Just looking at the two charts from Crunchbase below, we see just how crazy 2021 was.
And quite reflectively, there have never been as many “experts” in the market. To be fair, when everyone’s portfolio and/or startup is raising consecutive rounds of funding and mark ups are a dime a dozen, psychologically, I would also feel good about myself too. Everyone’s an “expert” in a boom market, especially if a16z or Tiger is leading the round. And a16z’s done double the number of deals they did in 2020. And Tiger’s invested 4 out of every 5 business days. In full disclosure, I did feel quite proud of myself as well. Nevertheless, I do my best to stay humble in this business.
Interestingly enough, while there were more seed, pre-seed and angel dollars going into startups, progressively, less startups were getting funded. Effectively, while the overall number of dollars invested look great, less founders come to bat. A smaller top of funnel means a more concentrated funnel in consecutive rounds.
The truth is fundraising will get harder over the next year and valuations won’t be as high. You can expect the current market correction in the public markets to soon be reflected in the private ones. So you may need to spend 12 months longer growing into your next round’s target valuation.
So where should investors look for signal?
In fairness, I am ill-equipped to answer this question for the masses. And most likely will never be fully equipped to make generalist statements. That said, I have and will continue to share what signal looks like for me. And if you’re a founder, here’s my template to conviction.
Two weeks ago, I broke down my sense of intuition around startup investing. I won’t go too deep in this essay, but I do share a more detailed internal calculus there. To put it simply, I look for different signals across the spectrum of idea plausibility and stages.
Signal by idea plausibility
Idea Plausibility
Key Question
Context
Plausible
Why this?
Most people can see why this idea should exist. Because of the consensus, you’re competing in a saturated market of similar, if not the same ideas. Therefore, to stand out, you must show traction.
Possible
Why now?
It makes sense that this idea should exist, but it’s unclear whether there’s a market for this. To stand out, you have to convince investors on the market, and subsequently the market timing.
Preposterous
Why you?
Hands down, this is just crazy. You’re clearly in the non-consensus. Now the only way you can redeem yourself is if you have incredible insight and foresight. What’s the future you see and why does that make sense given the information we have today? If an investor doesn’t walk out of that meeting having been mind-blown on your lesson from the future, you’ve got no chance.
Signals by stage
Stage of investment
Key Question
Context
Pre-seed
Why you?
The earlier you go, the less quantitative data you have to support your bet. And therefore, your bet is largely on the founder. For me, it matters less their XX years of experience, but more so their expertise. In other words, insight. Can I learn something new in my first meeting (and consecutive ones too) with them?
At the pre-seed, there is also one more key signal I look for in founders – their level of focus. Rather than wanting to do everything, can they streamline their resources to tackle one thing? What is their minimum viable assumption they have to prove before they can build their MVP (or MLP – minimum lovable product)? Startups often die of indigestion, not starvation.
Seed
Why now?
By the seed stage these days, you’ve either found your product-market fit or really close to finding it. The larger your round, the more you’re feeling the pull of the market. Whereas pull can come be measured (i.e. daily organic sign ups, demand converting to supply in a marketplace, etc.), sometimes when you’re at the cusp of it, there’s a level of foresight that is required. Some leading indicator for the business often comes as a lagging indicator from industry trends. What is the inflection point(s) (political, socio-economic, technological, cultural) we are at today that is going to have compounding effects on the business?
Series A
Why this?
By the time you get to the A, you’re ready to scale. In other words, what you mainly need is to add fuel to the fire. I place a larger emphasis on traction here. Admittedly for me, compared to the two earlier stages, this is more of a numbers conversation. The best founders here have a very clear picture of what worked and didn’t work for the business. They’re already familiar with their main GTM channel, but are exploring new opportunities for channel-market fit where they need capital to test.
Not incredibly pertinent yet, but founders will have started thinking about their Act II. What’s the next product they’re going to offer to secure their immortality in the market?
In closing
A simple litmus test I often share with founders on signal is:
Your ability to raise capital is directly correlated with your ability to inspire confidence in your investor that you will get straight A’s with little to no help.
This isn’t just true for myself, but also most investors out there. While the best investors out there will always be there for you in your time of need, before they decide to jump aboard the same ship with you, you need to convince them that you’re a top 10% founder. Or a top 1% in-the-making.
While I dislike using the dating analogy, it’s an apt comparison in this case. You’re not going to share your deepest, least desirable secrets on your first date. You’re also not going around saying you’re the perfect – and I underscore perfect – partner without any flaws. ‘Cause that’s as much baloney as an unknown African prince in your inbox telling you to help him secure $5 million in gold bars by helping him set up a Swiss bank account with a deposit of $10K. It’s too good to be true. In reality, you’re most likely going to share that you have a number of great qualities, but you’re still growing in many ways.
Admit what you don’t know or don’t have. As long as it’s not mission critical or the biggest risk in your business (and if it is, figure that out before you raise VC funding), the investors who truly believe in you will understand. Always err on the side of honesty, but not bravado.
‘Cause you yourself are a signal. If you’ve got your bases covered and still have to go out of your way to convince an investor or try to flip their “no”, they’re probably not worth your time.
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.
PMF is often nonobvious and guesswork in foresight, but incredibly obvious in hindsight. But the ability to foresee and measure an inflection point in the business is a common thread among the best founders in the world. For Rahul Vohra, that was when 40% or more of his customers responded with “very disappointed” to the survey question “How would you feel if you could no longer use Superhuman?” After all, the famous Peter Drucker did say, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”
Founders often find themselves pushing their product onto customers pre-PMF. But once they find PMF, they feel the pull of the market. In the words of David Sacks, when you find PMF, “the market is pulling product out of the startup.”
Much like PMF, for founders, there exhibits a similar level of pull. But its measurability is often not by quantitative metrics like PMF, but qualitative. At a virtual lunch last week, Founders Fund’s and Varda’s Delian Asparouhov shared his brutally candid remarks on living a fulfilling life.
One of the questions he answered was when did he know he just had to start Varda. Why didn’t he just stay a full-time VC? Delian called it the “mind virus.” When the problem hits you like a truck and you just can’t get rid of it. Once you get it, it infects your whole brain, and you can’t not think about it.
When you have more questions than answers. And each layer of questions gets more and more specific, and no longer generalist. In fact, the majority of questions that take up your mental real estate do not have membership in the:
First 500 questions about the topic in a generalist’s mind
First 100 questions in a specialist or expert’s mind space. In fact, one of the greatest litmus tests (not the only) you can administer is getting the “Oh f**k, how come I haven’t thought of that?” response.
Naivete matters
Paul Graham wrote an equally great piece on the topic. “Naive optimism can compensate for the bit rot that rapid change causes in established beliefs. You plunge into some problem saying ‘How hard can it be?’, and then after solving it you learn that it was till recently insoluble. Naivete is an obstacle for anyone who wants to seem sophisticated, and this is one reason would-be intellectuals find it so difficult to understand Silicon Valley.”
In the analogous words of Delian, “Just ask the technical experts, is this impossible? There’s a big difference between very, very difficult and impossible. Is it just a very technical religion where people say no or is it impossible?” There’s a superpower in knowing just enough to dream and reach for the “impossible”, but not enough to get trapped in the technical dogma of what is “possible.”
Great founders are armed with the ability to balance childlike wonder with optimistic pragmatism. Great founders dare to dream. It is neither thefirst, nor the last you’ll hear of James Stockdale on this blog. But nevertheless, I find his words to ring equally as true for the best founders who have graced this planet. “You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end – which you can never afford to lose – with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they may be.”
In closing
In sum, what is founder-market fit? It is when passion turns into obsession. When founders are married to the problem, as opposed to the solution. When curiously passionate founders cannot stop themselves from doing everything in their power to engineer the solution to a problem deeply personal to them.
Here’s a simple way to think about it, using an equation most scientists are familiar with.
F = ma
Or otherwise, known as Newton’s second law. Force is the product of mass and acceleration. Think of force as the gravitational pulling force a founder has. Mass as the first impression a founder makes in meeting number one. Some permutation of their insights, their background and experience, and their domain expertise. And acceleration as the multiplicative velocity in which the founder learns. Subsequently, we have an equation that looks more or less like this:
Founder-market fit = (initial impression) x (founder’s compounding rate of learning)
For investors, a good sign of that is when that passion is contagious in the first meeting. And founders learn incredibly quickly (as a function of action) in every consecutive one after. The gravitational pull a founder brings where you just want to put down everything to listen to them. As investors, we love paying for that world-class education.
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!
In the month before I started this blog in 2019, I had written 20 odd blogposts as a safety net in case I ran out of ideas in my weekly cadence. Most of which never had the chance to stand in the limelight, including my first one on intuition. Particularly, my one on intuition. Over the years, I’ve honed my own “intuition” – if I may be bold enough to call it that – on vetting startups. My intuition today is very different beast from my intuition 2.5 years back. This essay is a product of such constantly evolving self-discovery.
The spark of my intuition
When I first started my career in VC at Berkeley’s SkyDeck, I reached out to about 70-80 investors for a coffee chat, in which I posed one of my now favorite questions. What is the difference between a good and a great VC? Unsurprisingly, but frustratingly enough, most of the answers came in the form of “intuition.” Or its cousin, “pattern recognition.”
To me, who was still so new to venture, that was the best and worst non-answer I could get. Yet despite knowing that there was truth in their answer, I was still directionless. It wasn’t until an afternoon walk through San Francisco’s South Park with a very generous, but curt gentleman who carried quite the luggage beneath both of his eyes that I got the answer I wasn’t looking for.
“See a shitload of startups. When you see 10, pick your top 2. Then see 100, pick your top 2. Then see 1000, and again, pick your top 2. You’re going to notice that your podium will look quite different the more founders you meet with and the more startups you see.”
Recently, Plexo‘s Lo Toney told our fellows at DECODE the exact same thing:
And so, in hopes to guide someone in my shoes when I first started, here’s how I think about building intuition. Of course, I am a human and will always be a work in progress. It’s likely that next year I will see things differently than I see them today. Nevertheless this essay is a record of my thoughts today in early 2022.
Where to find a “shitload” of startups
There are multiple avenues these days for deal flow, including, but not limited to:
Accelerators and their respective demo days, like YC, ODX, Techstars, and what’s quite popular these days, Stonks
Hackathons, albeit most of these are ideas pre-incorporation
Classrooms
Pitch competitions
Events, like conferences and trade shows
Newsletters and publications
Podcasts
Twitter
Friends, family members, and former colleagues
When I first jumped into venture, I used to ask my friends who I knew were early adopters (a product of going to a school in the Bay Area, like Berkeley) of products to recommend me 3-5 startups/products every other week. When they did, I would treat them out to boba. And if they introduced me to the founders for those products that I’d be excited to talk to, I’d treat my friends out to a small meal – around $10-15. At the same time, at SkyDeck, I tried to sit in on as many meetings as I could, particularly the ones around deal evaluation at the beginning of every cohort.
While I do recommend all of the above, the best training grounds for developing intuition is when you talk to founders yourself.
The five senses
Google defines intuition as “the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.”
Source: Google
So, by definition, intuition is subconscious – built upon the brain’s natural ability to recognize patterns. An apt synonym, according to the trillion-plus dollar company… “sixth sense.” A sixth sense birthed from the intense neural processing of the five other senses. So, it was only logical for me to understand the sixth sense by first fully comprehending my five others. That said, I use the five-sense nomenclature loosely, but it nevertheless has become my guiding framework for venture decisions over the years.
Smell
“I invested based on my sense of smell.” These are the very words Softbank’s Masayoshi Son shared about his early investment in Alibaba. And he said the same about his investment into Yahoo! In fairness, his words make for good PR. And may just seem like smokes and mirrors. But for Son to have chosen Jack Ma out of the 20 prospective Chinese entrepreneurs he met with to invest in, he must be onto something.
There are two ways to develop an acute sense of smell as an investor, which you can develop in tandem.
Spending a lot of time looking into the market
Talking to many founders
On the former, we’ve been seeing a number of funds incubate their own startup ideas as a result of investors becoming deep subject-matter experts, but are discontent with the current ideas or teams on the market right now. Two examples include General Catalyst and Founders Fund. Draw market maps. Write research reports. Follow the experts on socials or on their blogs. Even better, talk to them as well. As a general warning, it’s hard being a generalist here. I would pick a few industries and/or functions you’re excited about or knowledgeable in already. Go deep before you go wide.
A few questions that have served me well include:
What kind of inflection points are we at in the market? In what areas have headwinds become tailwinds?
What are the technological, political, and/or socio-economic trends to be aware of right now? And where do these trends set up the world tomorrow to be?
I really encourage investors here to dream a little bit. To envision a world given these trends in which you’d be excited to have future generations live in.
On the latter, while Masayoshi talked to only 20, you can assume you he went through at least ten times that number of decks and business ideas. There’s no better practice than being in the field. Assuming you’ve taken step one (i.e. researching the market), one of the best litmus tests I’ve used to gauge a founder is their ability to riff on adjacent subjects to the business with me. Are they capable of going on tangents that really demonstrate domain expertise? Or are they caught up in the myopia of just their business?
Taste
There’s two kinds of tastes in which I look for, almost subconsciously, now.
Have they tasted excellence?
Have they tasted blood?
On excellence, many investors out there look for prior success in the field. For instance, previously founder of a unicorn exit, early employee or key executive at a now-successful company, or former big-time investor. Admittedly, there are only a small handful of these individuals out there. But I knew in my early days of scouting, I was at a massive disadvantage here for two major reasons.
I didn’t have strong connections with most of this subset of the entrepreneurial market.
This was also a founder persona I didn’t have unique insight to. In fact, it was general consensus to always take first meetings with these individuals in the venture industry. And as I learned early in my venture career, you make money either if you’re right on consensus or right on non-consensus. The latter of which is counted in multiples instead of percentages, which I’ve written about here and here.
In knowing so, I look for excellence, period. Have they tasted earned glory in any discipline? Do they know what it’s like to succeed in their field? And do they know what it takes to get there? On the flip side, do they know how hard it was to get there?
On the other hand, for blood, I want to know a founder’s propensity for conflict resolution. When was the last time they fundamentally disagreed with their co-founders? And how did they resolve it? Conflicts are inevitable. They’re bound to arise when you’re putting so much at stake for a common goal. I care less about the fact that they do come up, but more about that when they do, the team doesn’t just fall apart.
Every once in a while, I might disagree with the founder as well. And hear I look for the founder’s knee-jerk reaction and their ability to engage in thoughtful discussion. That does not mean they cannot disagree. Neither am I looking for another yes-person. But are they capable of helping me, and themselves, explore new horizons? Are they open-minded enough to entertain new possibilities, but still hold a remarkable level of focus to their 12-month horizon?
Touch
How high-touch or low-touch is this business? How much legwork does an investor need to do for this business to 10x its KPIs (within the next 12 months)?
For me, during my first meeting with the founder, ideally before, I try to answer two very simple questions:
What is the biggest risk of this business?
And is the person who can solve this risk on the team slide/in the room?
99% of the time, the person who can solve the biggest risk of the business has to be in the room. For instance, if it’s a machine-learning (ML) product, it’s a technical risk. So at least one of the co-founders must be a technical genius, not three MBAs. If it’s a B2B SaaS product, it’s a distribution risk. Meaning someone on the team must have deep connections to key decision makers to their target customers. In the early days, that’s really just at least one to two big-name customers. And ten other referenceable businesses. The second biggest risk is sales, and that I count on the founders’ ability to hustle.
1% of the time, and this is probably an exaggeration, you just have to really believe in the founder AND the product or market.
Hearing
Do founders spend more time talking, or more importantly, listening to their customers than they do in Rapunzel’s tower?
While I don’t ask all of them (since we’re guaranteed to run out of time before we run out of topics), here are the questions I consider when assessing how boots-on-the-ground a founder is:
What are customers saying about their product? The good? And the bad?
How did they acquire their first users/customers outside of their existing first degree network? Where from? What messaging do they use?
What is their customer win rate? In knowing so, what worked and what didn’t? At what point in the onboarding process do customers churn? What are their assumptions for why churn happens?
Do they know the numbers of their business (and ideally the market) like the back of their hand? For numbers of the market, are they able to recall the sources of most important numbers? For product metrics, how well do they know the main ones, like engagement, churn, monthly growth rates (over the past 3 months), net retention, and so on? Every so often, there’s a number or two, the founders are not aware of. And it’s fine. The test is once they realize their blind spot, how quickly do they move to patch it up? Subsequently, report back to me about their updated data measurements.
Of course, my job is not to distract founders. And I really try my best not to, so I don’t ask they measure superfluous metrics, unless I really do believe they’re crucial to the business.
Because I usually talk with founders who are pre-product-market fit, I usually lead with the question, “what does product-market fit look like to you?” Are they able to arrive at an actionable and measurable metric to optimize for? And can they back up why that metric is a good proxy for product-market fit?
(In)Sight
Can this founder teach me something new? Something that I never thought of or heard before, but makes complete sense. Is it a preposterous idea but backed by logic? Or does the founder have an original (and money-making) angle to what is already unoriginal? As an investor, especially as you see more startup ideas, the latter question is likely to surface more than the former.
Once the original insight is uncovered, it is then up to me to figure out the potential energy of the insight. How far can this insight take this team? Is it likely that this insight will uncover more insights down the road?
As an investor, you want to be right on the insight and team, not one or the other. Mike Maples Jr. articulates it best when he said, “We realize, oh no, this team doesn’t have the stuff to bend the arc of the present to that different future. Because I like to say, it’s not enough. […] I’d say that’s the first mistake we’ve made is we were right about the insight, but we were wrong about the team.”
“I’d say the reverse mistake we’ve made is the team just seems awesome, and we just can’t look past the fact that they didn’t articulate good inflections, and they can’t articulate a radically different future. They end up executing to a local maximum, and we have an okay, but not great outcome.”
In closing
Seedscout’s Mat Sherman wrote a great Twitter thread last month to help founders who are outsiders raise venture funding.
The no bullshit guide to raising angel funding/venture capital as an outsider.
The fact of the matter is that despite the venture industry being a rather well-connected circle of individuals and firms, most entrepreneurs – both currently and aspiring – are outsiders. If you can’t hit up a close friend to write you a couple million dollars, you’re an outsider. This essay, while written for new investors, hopefully, is equally useful as a guide for founders looking for some insight as to how investors think. Or at the very minimum, how I think.
Any thoughts here are mine and mine alone. 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.
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!
