Tag: techstars

Posted on

How to Develop Intuition as a Rookie Startup Investor

intuition, how to develop intuition

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:

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.

  1. Spending a lot of time looking into the market
  2. 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:

  1. What kind of inflection points are we at in the market? In what areas have headwinds become tailwinds?
  2. 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.

  1. Have they tasted excellence?
  2. 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.

  1. I didn’t have strong connections with most of this subset of the entrepreneurial market.
  2. 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:

  1. What is the biggest risk of this business?
  2. 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 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.

Photo by Liam Shaw on Unsplash

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!

Posted on

The Hype Rorschach Test: How To Interpret Startup Hype When Everything’s Hyped

abstract, rorschach, hype, color

Not too long ago, I quoted Phil Libin, founder of All Turtles and mmhmm (which has been my favorite virtual camera in and most likely post-pandemic), who said: “I think the most important job of a CEO is to isolate the rest of the company from fluctuations of the hype cycle because the hype cycle will destroy a company. It’ll shake it apart. In tech the hype cycles tend to be pretty intense.”

Hype is the difference in expectation and reality. Or more specifically, the disproportionate surplus of expectation. A month ago, Sarah Tavel at Benchmark wrote: “Hype — the moment, either organic or manufactured, when the perception of a startup’s significance expands ahead of the startup’s lived reality — is an inevitability. And yet, it’s hard not to view hype with a mix of both awe and fear. Hype applied at the right moment can make a startup, while the wrong moment can doom it.”

Right now, we are in a hype market. And hype has taken the venture market by storm.

We’ve all been seeing this massive and increasing velocity and magnitude of capital deployment over the last few months. Startups are getting valued more and more. In the past, the pre-money valuations I was seeing ranged from 2-on-8 to 3-on-9. Or in not so esoteric VC jargon, $2M rounds on $8M pre-money valuations ($10M post-money) to $3M rounds on $9M pre-money valuations ($12M post-money). These days, I’ve been seeing 5-on-20 or 6-on-30. Some of which are still pre-traction, or even pre-product.

Founders love it. They’re getting capital on a discount. They’re getting greater sums of money for the same dilution. Investors who invested early love it. Their paper returns are going through the roof. When looking at IRR or TVPI (total value to paid-in capital – net measurement on realized and unrealized value), higher valuations in their portfolio companies are giving investors jet fuel to raise future funds. And greater exit values on acquisition or IPO mean great paydays for early investors. Elizabeth Yin of Hustle Fund says “this incentivizes investors to throw cash at hyped up companies, instead of less buzzy startups that may be better run.”

Sarah further elaborated, “In the reality distortion field of hype, consumers lean in and invest in a platform with their time and engagement ahead of when they otherwise might have. They pursue status-seeking-work, not because they necessarily get the reward for it relative to other uses of their time, but because they expect to be rewarded for it in the future, either because of the typical rich-get-richer effect of networks, or just in the status of being an early adopter in something that ends up being big.” The same is true for investors investing in hyped startups. It’s status-seeking work.

Frankly, if you’re a founder, this is a good time to be fundraising.

Why?

  1. Capital is increasingly digital.
  2. There is more than one vehicle of early stage capital.
  3. There are only two types of capital: Tactical capital and distribution capital.

1. Capital is increasingly digital.

Of the many things COVID did, the pandemic accelerated the timeline of the venture market. Pre-pandemic, when founders started fundraising, they’d book a week-long trip to the Bay Area to talk to investors sitting on Sand Hill Road. Most meetings that week would be intro meetings and coffee chats with a diverse cast of investors. Founders would then fly back to their home base and wait to hear back. And if they did, they would fly in once again. This process would inevitably repeat over and over, as the funnel grew tighter and tighter. And hopefully, at the end of a six-to-twelve month fundraise, they’d have one, maybe a few term sheets to choose from.

Over the past 18 months, every single investor took founder meetings over Zoom. And it caused many investors to realize that they can get deals done without ever having to meet founders in-person. Of course, the pandemic forced an overcorrection in investor habits. And now that we’re coming out of isolation, the future looks like: every intro meeting will now be over Zoom, but as founders get into the DD (due diligence) phases or in-depth conversations, then they’ll fly out to meet who they will marry.

  1. It saves founders so much time, so they can focus on actually building and delivering their product to their customers. And,
  2. VCs can meet many more founders than they previously thought possible.

This has enabled investors to invest across multiple geographies and build communities that breathe outside of their central hub or THE central hub – formerly the SF Bay Area. Rather, we’re seeing the growth of startup communities around the nation and around the world.

2. There is more than one vehicle for early stage capital.

While meetings have gone virtual, the past year has led to a proliferation of financing options in the market as well. Capital as jet fuel for your company is everywhere. Founders now have unprecedented optionality to fundraise on their terms. And that’s great!

Solo capitalists

Individual GPs who raise larger funds than angels and super angels, so that they can lead and price rounds. The best part is they make faster decisions that funds with multiple partners, which may require partner buy-in for investments.

Rolling funds

With their 506c general solicitation designation, emerging fund managers raise venture funds faster than ever and can start deploying capital sooner than traditional 506b funds.

Micro- and nano-VCs

Smaller venture funds with sub-ten million in fund size deploying strategic checks and often leverage deep GP expertise. No ownership targets, and can fill rounds fast after getting a lead investor.

Equity crowdfunding

Platforms, like Republic and SeedInvest, provide community-fueled capital to startups. Let your biggest fans and customers invest in the platform they want to see more of in the future. With recent regulations, you can also raise up to $5 million via non-accredited and accredited investors on these platforms.

Accelerators/incubators

Short three-month long programs, like Y Combinator, 500 Startups, and Techstars, that write small, fast checks (~$100K) to help you reach milestones. Little diligence and one to two interviews after the application. Often paired with an amazing investor and/or advisor network, workshops, powerful communities, and some, even opportunity funds to invest in your next round.

Syndicates/SPVs

Created for the purpose of making one investment into a company a syndicate lead loves, syndicates are another ad hoc way of raising capital from accredited investor fans, leveraging the brand of syndicate leads and deploying through SPVs. Or special purpose vehicles. I know… people in venture are really creative with their naming conventions. In turn, this increases discoverability and market awareness for your product.

SPACs and privates are going public again

Companies going public mean early employees have turned into overnight millionaires. In other words, accredited investors who are looking to grow their net worth further by investing in different asset classes. Because of the hype, investing in venture-scale businesses tend to be extremely lucrative. These investors also happen to have deep vertical expertise, high-value networks, as well as hiring networks to help startups grow faster. More investors, more early stage capital.

Growth and private equity are going upstream

Big players who usually sat downstream are moving earlier and earlier, raising or investing in venture funds and acceleration programs to capture venture returns. And as a function of such, LPs have increased percent distributions into the venture asset classes, just under different names.

Pipe

Pipe‘s existed before the pandemic, but founders have turned their eye towards different financing options, like Pipe. They turn your recurring revenue into upfront capital. Say a customer has an annual contract locked in with you, but is billed monthly. With Pipe, you can get all that promised revenue now to finance your startup’s growth, instead of having only bits and pieces of cash as your customers pay you monthly. Non-dilutive capital and low risk.

3. There are only two types of capital: Tactical capital and distribution capital.

There’s an increasingly barbell distribution in the market. Scott Kupor once told Mark Suster that: “The industry’s gonna bifurcate. You’re going to end up with the mega VCs. Let’s call them the Goldman Sachs of venture capital. Or the Blackrock of venture capital. And on the other end, you’re going to end up with niche. Little, small people who own some neighborhood whether it’s video, or payments, or physical security, cybersecurity, physical products, whatever. And people in the middle are going to get caught.”

Those “little, small” players have deep product and go-to-market expertise and networks. Their checks may be small. But for an early stage company still trying to figure out product-market fit, the resources, advice, and connections are invaluable to a startup’s growth. They’re often in the weeds with you. They check your blind side. And they genuinely empathize with the problems and frustrations you experience, having gone through them not too long ago themselves. Admittedly, many happen to be former or active operators and/or entrepreneurs.

On the flip side, you have the a16z’s and Sequoias on their 15th or 20th fund. Tried and true. Brilliant track record with funds consistently north of 25% IRR. Internal rate of return, or how fast their cash is appreciating annually. LPs love them because they know these funds are going to make them money. And as any investor knows, double down on your winners. More money for the same multiples means bigger returns.

The same is true for historical players, like Tiger, Coatue, and Insight, who wire you cash to scale. They assume far less risk. Which admittedly means a smaller multiple. And to compensate for a lower multiple, they invest large injections of capital. By the time you hit scale, you already know what strategies work. All you need is just more money in your winning strategies.

You find product-market fit with tactical capital. You find scale with distribution capital.

Product-market fit is the process of finding hype. When you stop pushing and start finding the pull in the market. Scale is the process of manufacturing hype.

The bear case

But there are downsides to hype. Last month, Nikhil, founding partner at Footwork, put it better than I ever could.

Source: Nikhil Basu Trivedi on next big thing

If I could add an 8th point to Nikhil’s analysis, it’d be that investors in today’s market are incentivized to “pump and dump” their investments. Early stage investors spike up the valuations, which leads to downstream investors like Tiger Global, Coatue, Insight, and Softbank doubling down on valuation bets. Once there’s a secondary market for private shares, early stage investors then liquidate their equity to growth investors who are seeking ownership targets, or just to get a slice of the pie. This creates an ecosystem of misaligned incentives, where early stage investors are no longer in it for the long run with founders. Great fund strategy that’ll make LPs happy campers, but it leaves founders with uncommitted, temporary partners.

Sundeep Peechu of Felicis Ventures has an amazing thread on how getting the right founder-investor fit right is a huge value add. And getting founder-investor fit takes time, and sometimes a trial by fire as well. After all, it’s a long-term marriage, rather than a one-night stand. Those who don’t spend enough time “dating” before “marriage” may find a rocky road ahead when things go south.

On a 9th point, underrepresented and underestimated founders are often swept under the rug. In a hype market, VCs are forced to make faster decisions, partly due to FOMO. With faster decisions, investors do less diligence before investing. Which to the earlier point of misaligned incentives, has amplified the already-existing notion of buyer’s remorse.

When VCs go back to habits of pattern recognition, they optimize for founder/startup traits they are already familiar with. And often times, their investment track record don’t include underrepresented populations. To play devil’s advocate, the good news is that there is also a simultaneous, but comparatively slow proliferation of diverse fund managers, who are more likely to take a deeper look at the problems that underestimated founders are tackling.

What kind of curve are we on?

When many others seem to think that this hype market will end soon, last week, I heard a very interesting take on the current venture market in a chat with Frank Wang, investor at Dell Technologies Capital. “VCs have been mispricing companies. We anchor ourselves on historical valuations. But these anchors could be wrong.

“We’re at the beginning of the hype and I don’t see it slowing down. VC has been so stagnant, and there hasn’t been any innovation in venture in a long time. Growth hasn’t slowed. And Tiger [Global] and Insight [Partners] is doing venture right. Hypothetically speaking, if you invest in everything, the IRR should be zero. They are returning 20% IRR because they seem to have found that VC rounds are mispriced. So, there can be an arbitrage.

“There will be a 20% market correction in the future, but we don’t know if that’s going to happen after 100% growth, or correct then grow again. The current hype is just another set of growing pains.”

Part of me is scared for the market correction. When many founders will be forced to raise flat or down rounds. The fact is we haven’t had a serious market correction since 2009. It’s going to happen. It’s not a question of “if” but rather “when” and “how much”, as Frank acutely points out.

Investors who deploy capital fast win on growing markets – on bull markets. Or investors who deploy across several years, or what the afore-mentioned Mark Suster defines as having “time diversity“, who win on correcting markets – bear markets. Think of the former as putting all your eggs in one basket. And if it’s the winning basket, you’re seen as an oracle. If not, well, you disappear into obscurity. Think of the latter as diversifying your risk appetite – a hedging strategy. More specifically, (1) being able to dollar-cost average, and (2) having exposure to multiple emerging trends and platforms. You’re not gonna lose massive amounts of capital even in a bear market, but you also will be losing out on the outsized returns on a bull market.

Only time will tell how seriously the market will correct and when. As well as who the “oracles” are.

In closing

At the end of the day, there are really smart capital allocators arguing for both sides of the hype market. Like with all progress, the windshield is often cloudier and more muddled than the rearview mirror. As Tim Urban once wrote, “You have to remember something about what it’s like to stand on a time graph: you can’t see what’s to your right.“

Edge
Source: Tim Urban’s “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence“

And as founders are going to some great term sheets from amazing investors, I love the way Ashmeet Sidana of Engineering Capital frames it earlier this year. “A company’s success makes a VC’s reputation; a VC’s success does not make a company’s reputation. In other words to take a concrete example, Google is a great company. Google is not a great company because Sequoia invested in them. Sequoia is a great venture firm because they invested in Google.”

Whether you, the founder, can live up to the hype or not depends on your ability to find distribution before your competitors do and before your incumbents find innovation. Unfortunately, great investors might help you get there with capital, but having them on your cap table doesn’t guarantee success.

Nevertheless, the interpretation of hype is always an interesting one. There will continue to be debates if a market, product, or trend is overhyped or underhyped. The former assumes that we are on track for a near-term logarithmic curve. The latter assumes an immediate future looking like an exponential curve. The interpretation is, in many ways, a Rorschach test of our perception of the future.

Over the course of human civilization, rather than an absolutely smooth distribution, we live something closer to what Tim Urban describes as:

S-Curves
Source: Tim Urban’s “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence“

If the regression line is the mean, then we’d see the ebbs and flows of hype looking something like a sinusoidal function. As Mark Twain once said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

It won’t be a smooth ride. The world never is. But that’s what makes the now worth living through.

Photo by Jené Stephaniuk on Unsplash

Thank you Frank for looking over earlier drafts.

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!

Posted on

Mentors and Investors

There is an incredible wealth of people in this world who self-proclaim to have insights or secrets to unlocking insights. From parents to teachers to the wise soul who lives down the street. From coaches to gurus to your friendly YouTube ad. To mentors. To investors. While there are a handful who do have incredibly insightful anecdotes, their stories should serve as reference points rather than edicts of the future. Another tool in the toolkit. No advice is unconditionally right nor unconditionally wrong. All are circumstantial.

After all, a friend once told me: All advice is autobiographical.

The same is true for anything I’ve ever written. Including this blogpost in itself.

Over the past two weeks, as a first-time mentor, I’ve had the incredible fortune of working alongside and talking to some amazing founders at Techstars LA. At the same time, I was able to observe some incredible mentors at work. And in this short span of time so far, I’ve gotten to understand something very acutely. The dichotomy between mentors and investors. For the purpose of this blogpost, I’m going to focus on startup mentors, rather than other kinds of mentors (i.e. personal mentors). Although I imagine the two cohorts of mentors are quite synonymous.

While the two categories aren’t mutually exclusive, there are differences. A great mentor can be a great investor, and vice versa. But they start from two fundamentally different mindsets.

Investors/mentors

An investor tries to fit a startup in the mold they’ve prescribed. A mentor fits themselves into the mold a startup prescribes.

An investor thinks “Will this succeed?” A mentor thinks “Assuming this will succeed, how do we get there?”

An investor starts with “Why you?” A mentor starts with “Why not you?”

An investor evaluates how your past will help you get to your future. A mentor helps you in the present to get to your future.

An investor has a fiduciary responsibility to their investors (i.e. LPs). A mentor doesn’t. Or a mentor, at least, has a temporal responsibility to their significant other. Then again, everyone does to the people close to them.

An investor will be on your tail to hold you accountable because they’ve got skin in the game. A mentor might not.

You can’t fire your investor. You can theoretically “fire” your mentor. More likely, you’re going to switch between multiple mentors over the course of your founding journey.

An investor has a variable check size-to-helpfulness ratio. Who knows if this investor will be multiplicatively more helpful with intros, advice, operational know-how than the size of their check? A mentor has theoretically an infinite CS:H ratio. Check size, zero. Helpfulness, the sky’s the limit.

It’s also much harder to find a mentor than an investor, outside of startup communities, like On Deck and Indie Hackers, and acceleration and incubation programs, like Y Combinator and Techstars. Frankly, being a mentor is effectively doing free consultations over an extended period of time. And if you’re outside of these communities, the best way to bring on mentors is to bring them on as advisors with advisor equity. I would use Founder’s Institute’s FAST as a reference point. And Tim Ferriss‘ litmus test for bringing on advisors: If you could only ask 5-10 very specific questions to this person once every quarter, would they still be worth 0.5% of your company without a vesting schedule?

In closing

As I mentioned above, being a mentor and an investor isn’t mutually exclusive. The best investors are often incredible mentors. And some of the greatest mentors end up being investors into your startup as well. Having been in the venture world for a while, I’ve definitely seen all categories on this Venn diagram. Sometimes you need more of one than the other. Sometimes you need both. It’s a fluid cycle. And for the small minority of venture-scalable startups, it’s worth having both.

Photo by Robert Ruggiero on Unsplash

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

Posted on

The Fastest Scout Workflow Yet

racecar, speed, fastest workflow

Charles Hudson at Precursor told Monique Woodward of Cake Ventures, when she was first raising, “You’re not just raising for Fund I; you’re raising for the first three funds. And act accordingly.” In other words, build long-term relationships. As someone who lives and breathes in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, it’s about giving first. There are many things I have yet to do, but are on my life’s roadmap. And given my humble, but curious beginnings, two of the greatest gifts I can give right now at this point in my career, are:

  1. Time
  2. Valuable connections

… which led me to be a scout years ago. Or as the folks at Techstars say, give first. On a similar wavelength, one of my mentor figures told me when I first jumped into venture, “Think three careers in advance.” You’re laying the groundwork for your future success. Or, as I have sometimes heard it described, the tailwind of your 10-year overnight success.

I try to be helpful to everyone who takes time out of their day to talk to me – be it outbound or inbound. Of course, over time, it’s been much harder for me to meaningfully add value to every person who comes my way. Though my blog is one way to scale and share my knowledge capital, I’m always looking for new ways. So if anyone has any recommendations, I’m all ears. After all, I’m still in my first inning.

Want to get the latest CoZ insights?

Fast, Simple, Awesome

In the theme of scaling myself, I recently shared with the fellows in our VC fellowship about my workflow as a scout. And, I thought it’d be just as valuable to you my readers as well.

I find myself living in my inbox for at least 3-4 hours a day, with hundreds of email chains by the end of the week. What I needed most was operational efficiency. And, at the end of the day, efficiency is results divided by your efforts.

E = Result/Effort

First things first, tune your email settings, which I first picked up from Blake Robbins‘ blog:

  1. If you have more than one inbox, enable multiple inboxes.
  2. Enable compact view versus default view.
  3. Enable keyboard shortcuts.
    • The only ones you really need are: E to archive, V to move an email
  4. Enable auto-advance. So that you move on to the next email automatically after performing an action on the previous.

Then, the best thing is you only need three folders: Action Needed, Read Later, and Pending Response.

For any email that takes longer than a minute or two to reply, it goes in the Action Needed folder, like long-form advice/feedback or being stalled by waiting on a reply for a double-opt in. When my day frees up a bit more, usually later in the day, I revisit this folder to address all the other action items.

Read Later includes the mountain of blogs, newsletters, news outlets I’ve subscribed to, but didn’t have time to start reading until later in the day. Occasionally, it includes a founder’s monthly investor update. For the latter, I usually just scroll straight to the asks and see if I can help or not. If not, I read and move on.

For the emails I send out but expect a response in return, Pending Response is the perfect folder for that. This next part is completely optional. But, under the Nudges category, enable Suggest emails to follow up on. Because of Google’s algorithm, it can occasionally end up adding to the clutter when it surfaces up an email that doesn’t need to be followed up on. But if that’s the case, it goes straight into the archive folder.

And yes, for everything else, that don’t go in the above three folders, goes into Archives.

I used to have a million and one folders for startups, jobs, VCs, events, saved articles/newsletters, and more. Which looks great when you’re organizing material and when the inbox search algorithm wasn’t as great as it is now, but it doesn’t speed up the workflow. In fact, it often slowed me down – as I tried to put items in the appropriate folder before responding to my next email. And sometimes, they fit in multiple folders.

For mobile, the only thing you need to change are the Mail swipe actions. Swipe right to archive. And swipe left to Move to [folder].

You can either do the above, or use Superhuman, which has all the above functions. The faster I can get back to people who need my help, the better. Whether it’s me, or someone smarter than me, I try to point founders in the right direction.

Tracking the data

Separately, on an excel sheet, though I don’t track every startup I talk to, I track deals I refer/intro, with the following columns:

  • Startup
  • Founder(s)
  • Date
  • Stage
  • Industry
  • Deck [link]
  • Referral Source
  • Who’d I refer to
  • Secret Sauce – Differentiator/Reason for referral
  • Result of referral (Pending, Talking, Rejected, Invested, Will revisit)
  • Date of action [result of referral]
  • Check size (if applicable)
  • Round size (if applicable)

I also color-code so that’s it’s easier on the eyes. With the above, I can track:

  • Most intros/investments/rejections, by:
    • Industry
    • Partner
    • Stage
    • Referral source
  • Response Rate
  • Average Time:
    • Between intro and investment, per VC
    • Between intro and conversation
  • Average check size (per fiscal year)
  • Average round rise (per fiscal year)
  • % breakdown by types of compensation
  • % referral sources from founders who successfully fundraised (via me)
    • Founders who didn’t successfully fundraise (via me)

In closing

As one of my favorite VC quotes go: “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.” I’ve had the fortune of working with some amazing founders over the years – a number of them who I was never able to help with the limitations of my own knowledge, but through the people I sent them to. Luckily, I largely attribute to my ability to help founders quickly through the above workflow. Hopefully, it can be as useful to you as it has been for me.

Photo by George Brynzan on Unsplash

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

Posted on

Being Nice vs. Running a Great Business

Photo by Matteo Vistocco on Unsplash

While on my way to see a friend the other day, instead of cancelling, our Uber Pool driver decided to wait for the third rider. After a few exchanges of texts and calls, to the vocally evident dismay of the rider before me, we ended up waiting eight minutes. Therefore, delaying the rest of our arrival times by that same margin. In the ensuing silence that followed, I spent a little time thinking about the fascinating dichotomy between being nice and running a great business.

At the risk of receiving two low-star ratings, our driver opted to be nice and wait for the potential one five-star rating. To his credit, the third rider was incredibly grateful for his patience. In an alternate universe, he would have chosen to cancel the last rider’s request after waiting about two minutes.

The Examples

Social stereotypes might suggest that being nice and running a great business are two polar opposites. The portrayals of Mark Zuckerberg, in The Social Network, and Steve Jobs, in every biographical movie of him, only further perpetuate this motif. But, the truth is they’re not mutually exclusive. Many of the best businesses out there, like TOMS and Salesforce, are purpose-driven and spread positive impact. In the past few years, it should and has been, for many, a priority for building a brand.

Driving positive social impact is beginning to gain traction among a class of notoriously financially-driven individuals: venture investors. Although impact investing is one way, prominent VCs, like Felicis Ventures and Brad Feld, have also committed to founder’s mental health.

The marriage of being nice and running a great business comes in two parts:

  • Transparent and honest communication with your customers,
  • And, follow-through on promises and feedback implementation.

After all, it’s a collaborative effort.

One of my favorite examples is Digital Extremes – the developer for one of the most popular games on Steam, Warframe. Like many other businesses, they donate regularly to charities – from leukemia awareness to children’s health to most recently, the Australian wildfire. But, unlike many others, they engage their users every week through their stellar community management team. In fact, their community director, Rebecca Ford, was recognized in the 30 Under 30 Forbes list this year. Through a weekly permutation of developer streams, forum posts/polls, and social media content, they listen and engage with feedback. And through weekly hotfixes and content updates, which already speaks volumes in the game industry, they incorporate that feedback.

Don’t just take my word for it. Their subreddit serves as an example of one of the most positive and honest communities I’ve ever seen.

In Closing

Of course, no business is perfect. And the business may not always agree with the consumer’s thoughts. But, through transparent communication, radically candor (thank you to the brilliant Kim Scott), and following through, you can be nice and run a great business.

Instead of staying silent, if our Uber driver had asked us if we were in a hurry and agreed on a time limit to how long we’d wait (maybe even offered us a snack during the wait, but that might be stretching it), he might have gotten three five-star reviews.

Proudly powered by WordPress