Evan currently serves as Head of Venture Capital Investments and Research for Integra Global Advisors, a multi-family office. Prior to Integra, Evan served as Senior Manager of Data Science for Anheuser-Busch InBev where he oversaw data science and strategy for the US marketing organization. Prior to Anheuser-Busch, Evan spent two years as a Management Consultant at Marketing Management Analytics and held a technical role at Amazon. Evan earned an MS in Computer Science with a concentration in machine learning from Georgia Tech and studied computational and applied mathematics at the City University of New York and finance and psychology at the University of Miami.
[00:00] Intro [03:27] What are the mechanics of a great cold email? [07:54] Evan’s background in sports marketing [10:54] The kinds of data to ignore as an LP [13:01] Portability and replicability of track record [19:57] How much thesis drift is too much? [22:37] What happens when a partner isn’t pulling their weight? [29:35] Why does Evan have two bachelor degrees? [34:38] Why study quantum mechanics in applied math? [38:25] Evan’s journey to Integra [45:21] Buy vs Build at a fund-of-funds [47:40] Questions to ask when choosing which vendor to work with [51:24] How Evan thinks about operational diligence [58:30] Setting up an information policy in your firm [1:01:39] Valuation policy at a hedge fund vs VC fund [1:11:12] Why doesn’t Integra have strict mandates for geographies to invest in? [1:21:20] The fallacy with LPs overweighing DPI in 2020-2021 [1:27:15] Evan’s greatest life lesson [1:28:14] Evan’s favorite kosher restaurants in NYC [1:32:07] “Post-credit scene” [1:34:24] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:35:25] If you liked this episode, it would mean a lot if you left a like and shared this episode with one friend!
“It’s important to be data-informed, not data-driven.” – Evan Finkel
“Not only does [an investment] have to be the best in that geography, it actually has to be better than the incremental dollar we could put in any other geography.” – Evan Finkel
“The way we think about VC is both on an absolute and a relative basis. On an absolute basis, we have to be able to underwrite a manager to 3X net or better, or ideally 4X net or better. Because otherwise the lockup doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense to lock up your money for 10, 12, or 15 years with pretty limited distributions. In order to be able to consider a VC fund for our portfolio, we have to be able to underwrite it to at least 3X, but ideally 4X or better.
“But then there’s also a relative component. We’re not looking for the best relative managers. Understanding whether this is a really good year or weak year… You might be the best manager of a given vintage, but in absolute terms, you actually might not be quite as impressive. […] It helps us contextualize the performance of a given manager.” – Evan Finkel
“DPI generated in a chaotic environment is sort of similar to TVPI generated in a chaotic environment. It’s great it happened, but let’s contextualize it properly and don’t overweight DPI when you’re evaluating managers.” – Evan Finkel
“In venture, we don’t look at IRR at all because manipulating IRR is far too easy with the timing of capital calls, credit lines, and various other levers that can be pulled by the GP.” – Evan Finkel
Just the other day, I was listening to one of 99% Invisible’s episodes, interestingly titled as “As Slow As Possible,” named after the organization ASLSP, which stands for the same. My knee-jerk reaction was that the abbreviation and the first letters of each word just didn’t match up. Luckily, Roman Mars and Gabe Bullard explained. Although it still left something more to be desired.
“The title is also a reference to a line in James Joyce’s novel Finnegans Wake. The line is: ‘Soft morning, city! Lsp!’ Where lisp is just spelled L S P.”
Nevertheless, the episode itself circles around the concept of taking one song and using the entire lifespan of a pipe organ (639 years) to play that song just once. That even a single note would take two years to play. A fascinating concept! And which led me down a rabbit hole of thought experiments.
What if we took our favorite song and extrapolated that to the human lifespan? Say 90 years. What note would we be on today? Have we gotten to the chorus yet?
So for the sake of this thought experiment, for a brief second, let’s walk down the lane of music theory. Take the average pop song. The average pop song plays for about three minutes. And many at 120 beats per minute. Apparently, 120 bpm is also the golden number you want to get to if you’re working a crowd as a DJ. You never start at that speed, but you work your way up throughout the night. And if you can get people’s heart rate matching the beats per minute, you’ve hit resonance. But I digress.
So, taking round numbers, the average pop song has a total of 360 beats. Most songs are in 4/4 time. In other words, four beats per bar. An average pop song takes about 2-4 bars for the intro. 16 bars for a verse. Possibly, another 4 bars as the pre-chorus. And the first chorus doesn’t really start till bar 25. And usually lasts another 4-8 bars.
Now, if we were to extrapolate a song to the average human lifespan. 90 years. 360 beats across 90 years. Assuming it takes 24 bars to get to the chorus, the chorus doesn’t start until we’re 24 years old. And the full chorus doesn’t end until we’re 32 years old. With each note lasting a full three months. And the second chorus starts around age 48.
Then again, I remember reading somewhere that most pop songs are played in multiples of four or eight. And that most of these songs only have 80 bars. If that’s the case, the first chorus doesn’t kick in till we’re just past 28 years old and ends around 36 years old.
In either case, the first chorus happens around the time when most people would define as their prime. Young enough to take risks; old enough to be dangerous. The second chorus seems to fit as the second wind people have in their careers. Hell, HBR found, the median age of a startup founder when they start is 45. And with that reference point, they’ll be 47 or 48 when they become venture-backed.
Obviously, this is just me playing around with numbers. Correlation does not mean causation, of course. But nevertheless, the parallels… curious and uncanny.
P.S. Jaclyn Hester and my episode together on Superclusters got me thinking about a lot how much music applies to our lives and how we live and think.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Inspired by John Felix in our recent episode together, as LPs, we often get pitches where GPs claim they’re an N of 1. That they’re the only team in the venture world who has something. Usually it’s the fact that they have brand-name co-investors. Or they run a community. Or they have an operating background, like John says below. And it isn’t that unlike the world of founders pitching VCs.
The truth is most “unfair advantages” are more commonplace than one might think. Even after one hears 50 GP pitches, one can get a pretty good grasp of the overlap.
For the purpose of this blogpost, the goal is to help the emerging LP who has yet to get to 50-100 pitches. And for the GP who hasn’t seen that many other pitches to know what the rest of the market is like. Obviously, the world of venture shifts all the time. What’s unique today is commonplace tomorrow.
For the sake of this post, and to make sure I’m not using some words too liberally, let’s define a few terms I will use quite often in this blogpost:
Product: A fully differentiated edge that an emerging manager/firm has. In other words, a must-have, if the firm is to succeed.
Feature: A partially differentiated edge, if at all, an edge. In many cases, this may just be table stakes to be an emerging manager today. In other words, a nice-to-have or expected-to-have.
Networks
Product
Feature
Differentiated community (high/consistent frequency of engagement)
Alumni network (school or company)
Downstream investors that prioritize your signals
In-person events
Keeper test
Virtual events
Co-investors
Networks, in many ways, are synonymous with your ability to source. It’s the difference in a lot of ways from co-investing versus investing before anyone else (versus investing after everyone else). The latter of which is least desirable for an LP looking for pure-play venture and risk capital.
The quickest check is simply an examination of numbers. LinkedIn or Twitter followers. Newsletter subscribers. Podcast subscribers. Community members. While it’s helpful context, it’s also simply not enough.
Here’s a simple case study. Someone who has 5,000 followers on LinkedIn with hundreds of people engaging with their content in a meaningful way is usually more interesting than beat someone who has 20,000 followers on LinkedIn, who only has 10s of engagements. Even better if one generates a substantial amount of deal flow with their content alone.
One thing that is hard to evaluate without doing an incredible amount of diligence is your founder network referring other founders to you. From one angle, it’s table stakes. From another, true referral flywheels are powerful. In the former, purely having it on your pitch deck without additional depth makes that section of the deck easily skippable.
One of my favorite culture tests is Netflix’s Keeper test. That if a team member were to get laid off or fired, would you fight to keep them or be relieved? The best folks, you would fight to keep. And as such, one of my favorite questions during diligence to ask the breakout / top founders in each GPs’ portfolios is: If, gun to head, you had to fire all your investors from your cap table and only keep three, which three would you keep and why?
Do note I differentiate breakout and top founders. They’re not mutually exclusive, but sometimes you can be brilliant and do everything right and things still might not work out. But smart people will keep at it and start a new company. And maybe it was a smaller exit the first time, but the second or third time, their business may really take off. Of course, sometimes I don’t have the same amount of time to diligence each GP as an LP with a team, so I generally ask the question: If all of your portfolio founders were to drop what they’re currently doing regardless of outcome, and start a new business, who are the top 2-3 people you would back again without hesitation?
At the end of the day, for networks, it’s all about attention. It’s not about who you know, but about how well you know them AND who you know that TRUSTS what you know. In an era, where there is more and more noise and information everywhere, a wealth of information leads to a poverty of attention. But if you have a strong foothold on founders’ and/or investors’ attention in one way or another, you have something special.
Experience/expertise
Product
Feature
Early hire at a unicorn company + Grew a key metric by many multiples
Hired top operators who’ve gone on to change the world
Experience at a larger firm where you didn’t lead rounds / fight for deals
Independent board member
Experience only matters here where there are clear differentiations that you’ve seen and can recognize excellence. In a broader sense, having an operating background is unfortunately table stakes. As John mentioned, any generalities are.
While strong experiences help you source, its main draw is that it impacts the way you pick and win deals. Only those who have experience recognizing excellence (working with or hiring) know the quality in which A-players operate. Others can only imagine what that may look like. That’s why if you’re going to brag that you’re a Xoogler (or insert any other alumni), LPs are going to care which vintage you were at Google. A 2003 Xoogler is more likely to have that discerning eye than a 2023 Xoogler. The same is true for schools. Being a college dropout from a Harvard and Stanford is different from dropping out of college at a two-year program. Not that there’s anything wrong with the latter, but you must find other ways to stand out if so.
Given a large pool of noise when it comes to titles, it’s for that reason I love questions like: “What did you do in your last role that no one else with that title has done?”
Additionally, when it comes to references, positive AND negative references are always better than neutral references. Even better is that you stay top of mind for your founders regularly. A loose proxy, while not perfect, is roughly 2-3 shoutouts per year in your founders’ monthly updates. It takes a willingness to be helpful and for the founders to recognize that you’ve been helpful.
Process
Product
Feature
Response time/speed
Some generic outline of an investment process
Evidence of a prepared mind
Doing diligence
Asking questions during diligence most others don’t know how to
Yes, response time (or speed in getting back to a founder, or anyone for that matter) is a superpower. It’s remarkably simple, but incredibly hard to execute at scale. By the time, you get to hundreds of emails per week, near impossible, without a robust process. One of my favs to this day happens to be Blake Robbins’ email workflow who’s now at Benchmark.
Now I’m not saying one should rush into a deal, or skip diligence, but making sure people aren’t ghosted in the process matter immensely. As my buddy Ian Park puts it, it’s better for a founder or an LP to know that a GP is working on it than to not feel heard.
You’ve probably heard of the “prepared mind.” The idea that one proactively looks for solutions for a given problem as a function of their lived experiences, research, and analyses over the years.
Its origin probably goes as far back as Louis Pasteur, but I first heard it popularized in venture by the folks at Accel. Anyone can say they have a prepared mind. From an LP’s perspective, we can’t prove that you do or don’t have it outside of you just saying it in a pitch meeting. That’s why a trail of breadcrumbs matter so much. Most people describe it as a function of their track record or past operating experiences. Unfortunately, there may be a large attribution to hindsight bias or revisionist’s history. Being brutally honest with yourself of what was intentional and what was lucky or accidental is a level of intellectual honesty I’ve seen many LPs really appreciate. As an example, I’d really recommend you hearing what Martin Tobias has to say on that topic.
But the best way to illustrate a prepared mind is easier than one thinks. But it also requires starting today. Content. Yes, you can tweet and post on social media or podcast. But I’d probably rank long-form content at the top.
Public long-form writing (or production in general) is arduous. The first draft is rarely perfect. Usually far from it. With the attentive eye and the cautious mind, you go back to the draft again and again until it makes sense. Sometimes, you may even get third parties to comment and revise. Long-form is like beating and refining iron until it’s ready to be made into a blade. And once it’s out, it is encased in amber. A clear record of preparation.
In closing
Pat Grady had a great line on the Invest Like the Best podcast recently. “If your value prop is unique, you should be a price setter not a price taker, meaning your gross margins should be really good. A compelling value prop is a comment on high operating margins. You shouldn’t need to spend a lot on sales and marketing. So the metrics to highlight would be good new ARR/S&M, LTV:CAC ratios, payback periods, or percent of organic to paid growth.”
In a similar way, as a venture firm, if your value prop is truly unique, you’re a price setter. You can win greater ownership and set valuation/cap prices. If your value prop is compelling, the quality of your sourcing engine should be second to none, not just from being present online, but from the super-connectors in the industry, be it other investors, top-tier founders, or subject-matter experts.
Of course, all of the above examples are only ones that recently came to mind. The purpose of this blog is for creative construction and destruction. So if you have any other examples yourself, do let me know, and I can retroactively add to this post.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
John Felix is the Head of Emerging Managers at Allocate where he leads manager diligence and product innovation within the emerging manager ecosystem. Prior to joining Allocate, John worked at Bowdoin College’s Office of Investments, helping to invest the $2.8 billion endowment across all asset classes, focusing on venture capital. Prior to Bowdoin, John worked at Edgehill Endowment Partners, a $2 billion boutique OCIO. At Edgehill, John was responsible for building out the firm’s venture capital portfolio, sourcing and leading all venture fund commitments. John started his career at Washington University’s Investment Management Company as a member of the small investment team responsible for managing the university’s now $15 billion endowment. John graduated from Washington University in St. Louis with a BSBA in Finance and Entrepreneurship.
[00:00] Intro [02:35] The band that started it all [08:43] How did a band of 3 become a band of 5? [10:39] What bands served as inspiration for John? [13:37] Lessons on building teams and trust [19:48] The mischance that led John into the endowment world [22:34] What John learned under 3 different CIOs [26:20] What does concentration mean for Washington University’s endowment? [33:53] Portfolio construction perspectives at an endowment [36:26] The flaws of GP commits [41:25] How has John’s approach to emerging managers changed over the years? [44:17] What is key person risk? [47:06] One of the biggest challenges emerging managers face [50:45] Balancing over- and under-diligencing an emerging manager [56:28] What are traits that GPs think are unique but actually aren’t? [1:03:36] What makes a great cold email? [1:08:40] As a sports fan, do the highs or lows hit harder? [1:11:53] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:12:54] Let me know if you enjoyed this episode with a like, comment or share!
“Being too dogmatic about things or having too black or white views will prohibit a lot of LPs from making really, really good investments.” – John Felix
“The biggest leverage on time you can get is identifying which questions are the need-to-haves versus nice-to-haves and knowing when enough work is enough.” – John Felix
Recently I’ve been hearing a lot of power law this, power law that. And you guessed right, that’s VC and LP talk. Definitely not founder vocabulary. Simply, that 20% of inputs lead to 80% of outputs. For instance, 20% of investments yield 80% of the returns.
Along a similar vein… what about questions? What 20% of questions lead to 80% of answers you need to make a decision? Or help you get 80% of the way to conviction in a deal?
‘Cause really, every question after those delivers only marginal and diminishing returns. And too much so, then you end up just wasting the founder’s or GP’s time. As the late Don Valentineonce said, “[VC] is all about figuring out which questions are the right questions to ask, and since we don’t have a clue what the right answer is, we’re very interested in the process by which the entrepreneur get to the conclusion that he offers.”
While I can’t speak for everyone, here are the questions that help me get to 80% conviction. For emerging GPs.
I’m going to exclude “What is your fund strategy?” Because you should have either asked this at the beginning or found out before the meeting. This question informs if you should even take the meeting in the first place. Is it a fit for what you’re looking for or not? There, as one would expect, you’d be looking into fund size, vertical, portfolio size, and stage largely. Simple, but necessary. At least to not waste anyone’s time from the get go.
Where are you at as a GP by Fund III? What does Fund I and II look like by Fund III?
Discipline. In the first 4 years of a fund, you’re evaluated on nothing else except for the discipline and the prepared mind that you have going in. All the small and early DPI and TVPI mean close to nothing. And it’s far too early for a GP to fall into their respective quartile. In other words, Fund I is selling that promise. The prepared mind. Fund II is selling Fund I’s strategy and discipline. Fund III, you’re selling the returns on Fund I.
Vision. Is this GP thinking about institutionalizing a firm versus just a fund? How are they thinking about creating processes and repeatability into their model? How do they think about succession and talent? And sometimes I go a few steps further. What does Fund V look like? And what does the steady state of your fund strategy look like?
What value do you bring to your portfolio companies?
This is going to help with reference calls and for you to fact check if an investor actually brings that kind of value to their portfolio companies. So, in effect, the question to portfolio companies would be: How has X investor helped you in your journey?
On the flip side, even during those reference calls, I like asking: Would you take their check if they doubled their ownership? And for me to figure out how high can they take their ownership in a company before the check is no longer worth it. There are some investors who are phenomenal $250K pre-seed/seed checks for 2.5-5% ownership (other times less), but not worth their value for $2-3M checks for the same stages. To me, that’s indicative of where the market thinks GP-market fit is at.
I also love the line of questioning that Eric Bahn once taught me. “How would you rate this GP on a scale of 1 to 10?” Oftentimes, founders will give them a rating of 6, 7, 8, or if you’re lucky 9. And the follow up question then becomes, “What would get this investor to a 10?” And that’s where meaty parts are.
Of course, it’s important to do this exercise a few times, especially with the top performers in their portfolio to truly have a decent benchmark. And the ones that didn’t do so well. After all, our brand is made by our winners. And our reputation is made by those that didn’t.
In the trifecta of sourcing, picking, and winning, this is how GPs win deals.
How do you resolve conflict or disagreement in the partnership?
This is really prescient in a partnership. Same as a co-foundership. If someone says, we never disagree, I’m running fast in the other direction. Everyone disagrees and has conflicts. Even twins and best friends do. If you don’t, you either have been sweeping things under the rug or one (or both or all) of you doesn’t care enough to give a shit. Because if you give a damn, you’re gonna have opinions. And not all humans have the same opinions. If everyone does, realistically, we only need one of you.
Hell, Jaclyn Freeman Hester even goes a step further and asks, How would you fire your partner?
Jaclyn on firing partners and team risk
Personally I think that last question yields interesting results and thought exercises, but lower on my totem pole (or higher if you want to be culturally accurate) of questions I need answers to in the initial meetings.
How are you finding companies? How are you building your pipeline?
This is always a question I get to, but especially valuable, when I ask it to spinouts. Building a repeatable and scalable sourcing pipeline is one of the cruxes of being a great fund manager. But in the age when a lot of LPs are shifting their focus to spinouts from top-tier funds, it’s an important reminder that (a) not all spinouts are created equal, and (b) most often, I find spinouts who rely largely on their existing “brand” and “network” without being able to quantify the pillars of it and how it’s repeatable.
For (a), a GP spinning out is evaluated differently than a partner or a junior investment member. A GP is one who manages the LP relationships, and knows intimately the value of what goes in an LPA, on top of her/his investing prowess. And the further you go down the food chain, the less visibility one gets of the end to end process. In many ways, the associates and analysts spinning out need the most help, but are also most willing to hustle.
Which brings me to (b). Most spinouts rely on the infrastructure and brand of their previous firm, and once they’ve left, they lose that brand within a year’s time. Meaning if they don’t find a way or have an existing way to continue to build deal flow, oftentimes, they’ll be left with the leftovers on the venture table. This question, for me, gives me a sense of whether an investor is a lean-in investor or a lean-back investor. The devil’s in the details.
What are the top 3 reasons I shouldn’t invest?
This is a test to see how much self-awareness a founder/GP has. The most dangerous answer is saying “There are no reasons not to invest.” There are always reasons not to. The question is, are you aware of them? And can you prioritize which risks to de-risk first?
In many ways, I think pitching a Fund I as illustrating the minimum viable assumption you need to get to the minimum viable product. And Fund II is getting to the minimum lovable strategy (by founders and other investors in the ecosystem). And with anything that is minimally viable, there are a bunch of holes in it.
Another way to say the above is also, “If halfway through the fund we realize the fund isn’t working, what is the most likely reason why?”
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Beezer Clarkson leads Sapphire Partners‘ investments in venture funds domestically and internationally. Beezer began her career in financial services over 20 years ago at Morgan Stanley in its global infrastructure group. Since, she has held various direct and indirect venture investment roles, as well as operational roles in software business development at Hewlett Packard. Prior to joining Sapphire in 2012, Beezer managed the day-to-day operations of the Draper Fisher Jurvetson Global Network, which then had $7 billion under management across 16 venture funds worldwide.
In 2016, Beezer led the launch of OpenLP, an effort to help foster greater understanding in the entrepreneur-to-LP tech ecosystem. Beezer earned a bachelor’s in government from Wesleyan University, where she served on the board of trustees and currently serves as an advisor to the Wesleyan Endowment Investment Committee. She is currently serving on the board of the NVCA and holds an MBA from Harvard Business School.
Chris Douvos founded Ahoy Capital in 2018 to build an intentionally right-sized firm that could pursue investment excellence while prizing a spirit of partnership with all of its constituencies. A pioneering investor in the micro-VC movement, Chris has been a fixture in venture capital for nearly two decades. Prior to Ahoy Capital, Chris spearheaded investment efforts at Venture Investment Associates, and The Investment Fund for Foundations. He learned the craft of illiquid investing at Princeton University’s endowment. Chris earned his B.A. with Distinction from Yale College in 1994 and an M.B.A. from Yale School of Management in 2001.
You can find Chris and Beezer on their socials here.
[00:00] Intro [03:07] Beezer’s childhood dream [04:29] How Chris was let go from his $4.15 job at Yale [08:09] Concentrated vs diversified portfolios [09:30] First fund that Beezer and Chris invested [11:42] Funds that CD and Beezer passed on and regret [16:07] Favorite term in the LPA? Or not? [19:18] What piece of advice did a GP in their portfolio share with them? [23:15] What’s something that Beezer/CD said to a GP that they regret saying? [28:06] What’s the most interesting fund model they’ve seen to date? [33:20] What fund invested in 2020-2021 inflated valuations that they’ve reupped on? [40:18] Events that they went to once but never again [44:24] Life lessons from CD & Beezer [54:02] The founding story of Open LP [55:02] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [57:58] If you learned something new in this episode, it would mean a lot if you could drop a like, comment or share it with your friends!
Tom Landry (who’s actually the correct attribution for the quote: “A coach is someone who tells you what you don’t want to hear, who has you see what you don’t want to see, so you can be who you have always known you could be.”)
“If you’re overly concentrated, you better be damn good at your job ‘cause you just raised the bar too high.” – Beezer Clarkson
“Conviction drives concentration, and that you should be so concentrated as to be uncomfortable because otherwise you’re de-worsified, not diversified.” – Chris Douvos
“[David Marquardt] said, ‘You know what? You’re a well-trained institutional investor. And your decision was precisely right and exactly wrong.’ And sometimes that happens. In this business, sometimes good decisions have bad outcomes and bad decisions have good outcomes.” – Chris Douvos
“Sometimes I treat GPs like I treat my teenage children which is: Every word out of a teenager’s mouth is probably a lie designed to make them look better or to hide some malfeasance.” – Chris Douvos
“May we be blessed by a weak benchmark.” – David Swensen
“Miller Motorcars doesn’t accept relative performance for least payments on your Lamborghini.” – Chris Douvos (citing hedge fund managers)
“At the end of the day, the return on an asset is a function of the price you paid for it and the capital it consumes.” – Chris Douvos
Jaclyn Freeman Hester is a Partner at Foundry. She joined in 2016 with a passion for supporting the next generation of entrepreneurs and investors. Jaclyn leads direct investments in early-stage companies, often collaborating with Foundry’s partner funds. She loves working closely with founders to solve hard problems and think about the human elements of business. She invests across B2B and consumer companies that exhibit strong end-user empathy and use technology to empower individuals, unlock potential, and improve experiences.
Jaclyn helped launch Foundry’s partner fund strategy, building the portfolio to nearly 50 managers. Bringing her unique GP + LP perspective, Jaclyn has become a go-to sounding board for emerging VCs.
Jaclyn first fell in love with entrepreneurship while earning her JD/MBA at CU Boulder (Go Buffs!). There, she served as Executive Director of Startup Colorado, where she got to know Foundry and the incredible Boulder/Denver startup community the firm helped catalyze. In her brief stint as a practicing attorney, Jaclyn advised clients in M&A transactions and early-stage financings. She also witnessed the founder journey first-hand, working closely with her husband and his family as they built a B2B SaaS company, FareHarbor (acquired by BKNG).
Jaclyn loves the Boulder lifestyle, but her heart will always be on the East Coast, having grown up a New England “beach kid.” She is the proud mother of three humans and three dogs and is a blue-groomer-on-a-sunny-day skier and 9-hole golfer. In her glimpses of free time, you can find Jaclyn enjoying live music, especially at Red Rocks and in Telluride, two of the most magical places in the world.
[00:00] Intro [03:24] The significance of Kara Nortman in Jaclyn’s life [13:59] Lesson on recognizing effort from Dan Scheinman, Board Member at Zoom [18:27] The question to disarm GPs learned from Jonathon Triest at Ludlow Ventures [23:37] The differences between being a board member and an LPAC member [32:04] Turnover within institutional LPs [33:58] The telltale signs of team risk in a partnership [41:25] How to answer “How do you fire your partner?” [44:05] Foundry’s portfolio construction [53:22] What makes Lan Xuezhao at Basis Set so special? [59:59] What does Shark Tank get right about venture? [1:03:37] Jaclyn’s Gorilla Glue story [1:05:51] What keeps Jaclyn humble today? [1:12:11] What will Jaclyn do after Foundry’s last fund? [1:16:28] Jaclyn’s closing thought for LPs [1:18:10] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:20:46] If you enjoyed this episode, a like, a comment, a share will go a long way!
Ertan Can is the Founder of Multiple Capital, a fund of funds focused on investing in micro VC funds in Europe and has been a limited partner in top funds you’ve heard of including Entrepreneur First and Angular Ventures, just to name a few. He’s done his tour of duty in the asset management world at JP Morgan to covering investor relations topics at Thomson Reuters to investing in startups at a family office. Ertan is also a founding member of 2hearts, a community dedicated to building tomorrow’s tech society with cultural diversity.
He is also a proud MBA graduate from the ESCP Business School and a long time student of finance and law catalyzed by his time at Frankfurt and London.
[00:00] Intro [02:21] Ertan’s childhood [05:36] Why Luxembourg? [15:03] Which countries do European GPs set up their funds? [19:46] How did Ertan switch the family office strategy from direct to fund investing? [24:42] How has Ertan’s underwriting process evolved over time? [28:04] Do similar pitch deck formats make it easier or harder to make investment decisions? [30:34] Referrals and warm intros ranked by source [36:10] Geographies that Multiple Capital invests in [37:44] Red flags for Multiple Capital [43:48] How do solo GPs build sounding boards to check their blindside? [49:04] The (un)predictability of outlier investments [1:00:41] How does Ertan think about bringing on Venture Partners in a fund of funds? [1:08:25] The decision-making framework behind an “angel” LP investment and a FoF check [1:12:01] Where Ertan shares his unfiltered thoughts [1:20:14] Ertan’s experience around giving GPs feedback [1:27:05] Cockroaches and superheroes [1:34:08] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:36:44] If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to us if you gave us a like, comment, or share!
“Our work is to increase the probability of having some of the outliers as early as possible in as small as possible funds because like a fund, that will lead to a power law in our portfolio.” – Ertan Can
Aram Verdiyan is a Partner at Accolade. Previously, he worked on the investment team at Andreessen Horowitz. Before that, Aram worked in BD, sales and marketing at Aviatrix, a cloud native enterprise software company. Aram worked at Accolade from 2012 to 2015 as a Senior Investment Associate and at Deloitte Consulting LLP. He holds an M.B.A from the Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) and a B.S. from the George Washington University.
[00:00] Intro [02:36] How did Pejman Nozad influence the way Aram thinks about people [04:06] Aram’s ‘distance traveled’ [05:45] What did imposter syndrome look like in Aram’s life? [06:36] How Aram cold emailed his way into Accolade Partners [09:03] The first case study Aram did at Accolade [10:10] When track record is NOT just TVPI, DPI, or IRR [15:05] The case for concentrated fund of funds’ portfolio construction [22:42] Telltale signs of “great” deal flow [26:32] When does due diligence start for prospective funds for Accolade? [27:50] Primary sources of data for Accolade [29:00] The variables that impact fund of funds’ team size [30:24] How many fund investments should each individual FoF partner have? [35:13] The case for consistent check sizes [36:20] The common mistake GPs make when it comes to LP concentration limits [41:27] How Accolade started investing in blockchain funds [44:52] Blockchain engineering talent as a function of bear markets [47:15] Time horizons for blockchain funds [50:38] Luck vs skill [53:41] Aram’s early fundraising days at Accolade [57:38] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:00:14] If you enjoyed the episode, drop us a like, comment or share!
“[When] you’re generally looking at four to five hundred distinct companies, 10% of those companies generally drive most of the returns. You want to make sure that the company that drives the returns you are invested in with the manager where you size it appropriately relative to your overall fund of funds. So when we double click on our funds, the top 10 portfolio companies – not the funds, but portfolio companies, return sometimes multiples of our fund of funds.” – Aram Verdiyan
“We don’t have varying levels of conviction.” – Aram Verdiyan
Jaap Vriesendorp is one of the managing partners of Marktlink Capital, an investment manager from the Netherlands investing over $1b into private equity and venture capital funds. Marktlink Capital’s LPs are almost exclusively Dutch (tech) entrepreneurs from companies such as Booking.com, Adyen and Hellofresh. At Marktlink Capital Jaap focusses on selecting venture and growth funds across Europe and the US. Before Marktlink Capital, he spent the majority of his time at McKinsey where he was one of the leaders of McKinsey’s practice for Venture Capital, Unicorns & Startups in Europe. Besides work, Jaap enjoys sports, mountains, technology, comic books, music and art.
He holds an MBA from INSEAD and is a guest lecturer at the Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus University). He occasionally shares his views on private market investing on Medium.
[00:00] Intro [03:04] The significance of Mount Pinatubo in Jaap’s life [06:23] One Shell Jackets [08:45] The entrepreneurial gene in the Vriesendorp family that dates back to Jaap’s grandfather [14:32] The 1-year time constraint of starting Welt Ventures [17:43] What did the transition to becoming an investor look like for Jaap [20:28] The 3 traits that define a community [24:03] How often does Jaap host events? [25:30] How does Marktlink Capital have 1000 LPs? [27:15] What was Marktlink’s pitch to their LPs? [28:32] What is the typical individual LP’s allocation model to VC/PE? [29:41] Why is VC/PE uncorrelated to the public markets? [35:10] The 3 facts that define Welt Ventures’ portfolio construction model [38:28] Exit windows matter more than entry windows [42:15] Diversification in PE = Concentration in VC [47:42] 3 types of emerging GPs that deliver alpha [49:35] Which European fund has a really unique thesis? [51:44] Which school did Jaap apply to but not get in? [53:55] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [56:31] If anything resonated with you in today’s episode, we’d be honored to earn a like, comment, or share!
“We set out to achieve three things with the community:
We wanted people to have fun with each other. And when entrepreneurs meet entrepreneurs, good stuff happens even if you don’t bring any content.
We wanted to bring the absolute best type of propositions. So in terms of sales, it means sales almost without being sales where you offer something that people really want.
Organized knowledge in a way that nobody does.” – Jaap Vriesendorp
“85% of returns flow to 5% of the funds, and that those 5% of the funds are very sticky. So we call that the ‘Champions League Effect.’” – Jaap Vriesendorp
“The truth of the matter, when we look at the data, is that entry points matter much less than the exit points. Because venture is about outliers and outliers are created through IPOs, the exit window matters a lot. And to create a big enough exit window to let every vintage that we create in the fund of funds world to be a good vintage, we invest [in] pre-seed and seed funds – that invest in companies that need to go to the stock market maybe in 7-8 years. Then Series A and Series B equal ‘early stage.’ And everything later than that, we call ‘growth.’” – Jaap Vriesendorp
