Tag: tim ferriss

Posted on

Interviewers I Really Respect and Why

podcast

I’ve always been fascinated by how to get to the bottom of things. Yes, you can do your homework into the data, but at the end of the day, you have to go back to people and their experience.

Jeff Bezos has this line: “The thing I have noticed is that when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There is something wrong with the way that you are measuring it.”

So, when it comes down to finding the right anecdotes, I’m a big believer that asking the right questions gets you most of the way there. It’s why I started the DGQ series on this blog. Naturally, I spend a lot of time studying others who are better at the craft than I am. After all, I have a long road ahead of me. While this is obviously useful in the context of my podcast, studying the best interviewers has also helped me when:

  • Listening to founder and GP pitches
  • Doing diligence
  • Interviewing potential candidates for a role
  • Making friends
  • Small talk
  • Coffee chats / when asking for advice
  • And of course, when doing research.

So while you may not have a podcast — or maybe you do — I hope you find the below useful in regards to other aspects of your life.

The callback

What is the callback? A callback — a term quite often used in the comedy circuit — is an allusion to something previously brought up in conversation. It’s not only a sign that you’re actively listening, but that you’re actively engaging in the flow of the conversation. For instance, say you hear someone bring up a quote they liked recently. For the purpose of this example, it’s Amos Tversky‘s line. “You waste years by not being able to waste hours.” Then later in the conversation, they say the last hour flew by so quickly. Then a callback could come in the form of, “Better than wasting a year with me.”

Conan O’Brien is world-class at this, if not best-in-class. If you watch his show or his podcast, you’ll see multiple examples. But probably best illustrated in just the number of times he did it in one episode, I’d recommend his episode with Larry David.

Surprise and delight

The first question in a conversation is often the hardest, but also has the greatest impact towards the rest of the conversation. Getting someone to put down their guardrails without pre-established rapport is really, really hard. It’s why podcasters and TV show hosts alike have pre-chats, where they spend time with each guest to warm them up.

It’s for that reason I have a lot of respect for Sean Evans who hosts Hot Ones. The number of times his guests have responded to his questions with “How did you know that?” and “You really did your research” or “I’ve never been asked that before” is a refreshing take in a world where talk show interviews are just a formality for a celebrity’s road show. And not only does the style and how Sean ask questions set the show apart from literally every other interview that celebrities go on, you can see how his first few questions help him build instant rapport with a guest whether or not they knew each other well before.

That said, I’d be hard-pressed to find just one as he’s able to execute well for most episodes of Hot Ones already. If you’re short on time, the only ones I find to be little less helpful, at least to see the mutual banter, are probably the ones where he’s interviewing himself, or a fictional character (i.e. Donald Duck or himself), or the guest and him go through less than 10 chicken wings (aka the full gauntlet).

Underneath the surface

Despite having hosted a number of fireside chats, when I first started Superclusters, I was obsessed with hitting every question I had prepared. An internal expectation that because the podcast is a public asset and is likely to be online till the end of time made me feel I had to cram as much information into each interview as possible. The funny thing is I still didn’t end up covering the lion share of questions.

For each episode, I end up preparing anywhere between 10 and 30 questions. Yes, you read that latter number right. And yes, for a roughly hour-long podcast. Naturally, there’s no way in hell I’d get to the vast majority of questions, but in mind, I had an internal drumbeat that I felt compelled to keep on pace with.

The more I talked with other seasoned podcasters, the more I realize that while others may not prepare as much research as I do before each interview, the best ones let the conversation flow. They ask great follow-up questions. They spend time on the nuance of words, phrases, even micro-reactions and flinches when guests speak or hear something. One of the most useful pieces of advice I got from a friend, Erica Wenger, was to do all the research you humanly can before each recording. Then, ask the first question, and throw the rest out the door. Which I’ve since internalized.

Tim Ferriss is my favorite on this front. And he does this for almost every single one of his episodes. That said, if you’re looking for a starting point, his episode with Eric Ripert was the first one I actually sat down with pen and paper purely to take notes on how Tim follows up with each of Eric’s comments.

By a friend’s recent recommendation, I also stumbled across The Diary of a CEO podcast. I will admit that the first few episodes I came across I found less interesting from a content perspective. But when three episodes later, I tuned into his episode with Marc Randolph, and holy cow, the depth of questions was clearly a cut above the rest, specifically around when Marc had to step down as CEO of Netflix. And you can just see Steven Bartlett asking one great question after the next.

Avoiding the yes

The fallacy with many rookie podcasters, admittedly my own rookie mistake as well, is that the host doesn’t push back on the guest’s answers enough. When an answer just isn’t good enough. Either the one answering dodges the question or kept their answer too broad.

Hasan Minhaj is my go-to person on this front as he’s incredible at pushing back thoughtfully, which is a really hard thing to do. One of my favorite interviews he did by far was the one he did with Kevin O’Leary on FTX, which Kevin personally invested in.

Drills, drills, drills

I can’t say I got this from any one podcaster, but actually something I learned from my time as a competitive swimmer. For every race we competed, we had to practice sets of twice the distance regularly. Even more so, we had to practice with a handicap, focusing on refining the technique for only part of our body. Be it legs only, or arms only, hell we even swam with our goggles black-sharpied out before. To us, these were drills that would help prepare us for the real thing.

As a podcaster, in case you couldn’t tell, I’m still a work-in-progress. Likely will always be. That said, one of the most helpful ways I’ve found to practice the art of asking questions (since I’m not in race mode every day) is I often listen to the above shows, hear the host ask the question. Then wait for the guest to respond. Then right before the host asks another question, I practice what I would say and where I’d interrupt. And only after I’ve said my response aloud, do I press play again and see what the host would say.

To me, those are the drills I run through when I can to prepare myself when I am eventually on camera. Other times, it’s just fun to see how my response or line of questions would differ from some of these other hosts.

In closing

I’ve often given the excuse that I’m a better writer than I’m a speaker. Which may be true. I often sit with myself during the editing process and wince at words I’ve used or using some complex language to explain what could have been a 140-character question. And the truth is, I’ve held myself back. By giving that very excuse. So now I am earnestly trying to improve. To close that gap, that delta between the way I write and the way I talk. At least from a proficiency standpoint. It may take me a while. But I appreciate every one of you being on this journey with me. And if there’s any advice you can share along this path, as some of you are further along, I’m all ears.

I hope the next time I write something like this, I’ll be further along. And maybe… just maybe, find myself circa today to be embarrassing to watch and listen to.

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.

Posted on

#unfiltered #89 The Palate Setter

cheese

Around the time I wrote a blogpost on culinary tips I had amassed from various chefs, I ended up getting one more piece of advice from a James Beard award winner. The culinary equivalent of a Pulitzer. In fact, one piece of advice that came in right after I clicked publish on that blogpost. Which I subsequently failed to include.

I had asked, “How do you know the palate you come into the kitchen with today is the same as the one that you came in with yesterday? And similarly, what about the one tomorrow?”

To which he responded, “I don’t know.” For a brief second, there was silence. Both of us knowing that the void will be filled, but left there for dramatic effect. “Swiss cheese.”

“Huh?”

“Swiss cheese. Not the fancy stuff, the one you find in the refrigerated section in the supermarket. Every day, when I go into the kitchen, I take a bite of swiss cheese. To me, it has the perfect balance of umami, salt, nuttiness. And the supermarket brand one is always produced with a consistency in their quality. If my bite that day is not as salty, then my palate is muted, and I should salt my dishes that day a little more. And so on.”

And I found that fascinating. Recently, I was reminded of that advice when I was chatting with my friends on preparation rituals. When we start something, to get us in the right mindset, what is the set of practices in which we use to orient ourselves?

Back when I was still swimming competitively, we used to always say the hardest part about swimming is getting in the water. Effectively, starting. The below were some other rituals that came up in that conversation. Part in hopes that it may inspire you to start your own, partly to make sure that I immortalize these practices for myself.

Music

The tuner in many ways is the swiss cheese in music. Something so consistent that it becomes the benchmark for what sound should be. Is your instrument too sharp or too flat?

But from a ritualistic perspective, I’ve seen many play the scales to loosen their fingers, but one of my favorites from my buddy who plays the flute in the orchestra is beatboxing, while playing the happy birthday song. The song choice itself matters less than using one’s entire mouth to enunciate certain beats. And so, by the end of the song, the windpipes and larynx are fully massaged and ready to go.

Podcasts / Streaming

For me, it’s doing 20 burpees while listening to a collection of my favorite podcast clips that I’ve saved from other podcasters, then sitting down and skimming through this list of catchphrases that I’ve since called “The Rookie Guide for Veteran Podcasters.”

For another friend, who’s far more accomplished than I am on this front, it’s doing a series of vocal exercises and facial massages. The former of which expand in both pitch and volume (from a whisper to singing in a voice suited best for operas).

From a third friend, it was religiously taking a 1-hour nap about an hour before the recording session.

Giving live talks

This isn’t from any of us in the room at the time. But Tim Ferriss has also gone on record sharing what he did in preparation for his first SXSW talk when we just launched the Four-Hour Workweek. That he was staying in a friend’s home who had cats. And he kept practicing his talk in front of the cats trying to get their attention. None of which, I assume, knew anything about what he was talking about, yet if he could convey his intent, energy and emotions through to the cat, he’d have a fighting chance getting the audience’s attention at SXSW.

Photo by Camille Brodard on Unsplash

#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.

Posted on

#unfiltered #86 Learning from Personal Mistakes, Excellence, and from Others

sand, filter

A few years ago, in one of my favorite coffee shops on 7th Street in San Francisco, over a vanilla cold brew, a then 25-year old founder told me that he had recently taken his then-first vacation in five years. Took a full week off. Didn’t touch work at all. And just enjoyed it with his fiancée. But contrary to what one would expect, his body language that seemed to indicate the exact opposite of having a good time. Two hands cupped over his face, as he slowly dragged them both downwards in exasperation. Followed by many sighs.

He shared that in the time he was gone, the website crashed and the team had trouble bringing it back online. And when they finally did bring it back online, they were waiting for his approval to move forward. As such, didn’t bring it back online until he came back. With another large sigh, he went on to say that he’d never take another vacation ever again.

Running your own business is tough. Really tough. I get it. If you’re the founder, it’s your baby. And sometimes, it’s really hard letting go on what may seem like key decisions. Eventually, that becomes a slippery slope where I see too many founders needing to control every decision that goes on in the company. And even if you hired extremely well, you’ve capped your team’s potential by not letting them execute to their fullest capacity.

In the above dilemma, as you might know, it’s not a to-vacation-or-not-to-vacation problem. It’s a you-need-to-give-your-teammates agency problem. And it might seem obvious to you and me, to any third party observer. But it wasn’t to him. He was so frustrated that he was focused on the one new thing he did and believed that one new thing had a causal effect to a problem that was looming over his team’s head for a long time.

It is true that we are products of our scar tissue, but quite often, in an attempt to not be in the same situation again, people overcorrect. They take then run with the seemingly most extreme “solution.”

And in the times scar tissue start to form, start from first principles. Is taking a vacation really the biggest offender? Do great CEOs just not take time off? Is there something else that I’m not willing to admit about how the results played out?

What am I assuming to be true that may not have to be true? What are the raw facts, stripped of opinions and speculation?

Why was my team incapable of making that decision? Was it something that I told them before or did before that has since prevented them from making calls? What do I spend most of my day doing? Can I outsource some of my tasks? Some of my decisions? How would I do that? And only then, can I ask myself and others: what can I do from now on so that history doesn’t repeat?

Seeking and redefining excellence

And once you’re at the root of the problem, find others you admire who run organizations you admire.

Excellence is an interesting concept. One of the few words out there where its definition changes over the course of your life.

It’s one of the few words where it is not only different for every person, but that even within each person, every time you see something excellent, it sets a new bar and stretches that definition. Defined by only the most excellent thing you’ve seen.

The truth is that most great lessons happen to err on the side of examples. So to have people who define that word for you again and again are the “Sensei-s” you want in your life.

So spend time with others. Notice how they approach problems. And stretch your definition of excellence.

For the 25-year old founder who hadn’t worked any other job in his life, and only his own, there’s immense value in learning from others and building expertise at high-growth institutions. Or with people who you deeply respect.

Asking for the lesson

Tim Ferriss, on a recent episode with Noah Kagan, said, “Life punishes the vague wish and rewards the specific ask.” And I frickin’ love that line.

Be specific. No picking brains. You’re not a zombie or a vulture or a crow.

Not 30-minute coffee chats. Those quickly become recipes of asking for too much time with an amorphous ask. To a busy person, that 30-minute ask sounds like a recipe for losing 50 minutes to an hour of your life you can never get back. Including travel to and from. Time, as the only unreplenishable commodity, is precious. As Howard Lindzon said on the Superclusters podcast, when we’re young, we’re time-millionaires, but over time, we get poorer and poorer. We then become time-thousand-aires as we age. And eventually, we run out of temporal capital.

It is in times of need and struggle, that we often have the most prescient and specific ask to make of potential mentors.

“When in X situation, and after having Y results, my gut seems to tell me to do Z, but given that you’ve experienced these situations before or have likely seen these situations unfold, am I directionally accurate?”

In closing

There’s a lot of this hustle porn in the Bay Area. Loud claims of not taking any vacations or sleeping only three hours per night. Moreover media perpetuates and lionizes this way of living.

It’s not true. Science shows we do much better with eight hours of sleep. It shows that every so often, we need to take time to unwind, so that we can come back to be more efficient and inspired than before. You can clock in the hours, but that doesn’t mean you are producing quality in a one-to-one capacity.

And I worry that like the founder that took his vacation for the first time, then overcorrected, we live in a society where we’ve forgotten that we’re human. That we need breaks. That we need sleep. And that we can’t do most things alone, including building ambitious ideas and maturing as professionals.

Photo by NEOM on Unsplash

#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.

Posted on

Paying Attention Vs Paying Proper Attention

magnifying glass, pay attention

Earlier this week, I was listening to a fascinatingly thoughtful conversation between Tim Ferriss and Kindred’s Steve Jang, where Tim said one line that stood out in particular: “I’ve been paying a lot of attention, but I’ll be honest, I don’t know how to pay proper attention.”

And well, it got me thinking. About the difference between knowing what to look at and knowing how to look at it.

One of my favorite TED talks is by Will Guidara (quite honestly I think it deserves more views on YouTube than it has). Will is probably best known for co-founding one of New York’s hottest fine dining restaurants, Eleven Madison Park, and for writing the book, Unreasonable Hospitality. And in it, he talks about how just listening to the conversations that are happening at the tables and delivering these small, unexpected pockets of joy can create experiences that transcend money and time.

In the afore-mentioned talk, he talks about how there are four diners at Eleven Madison Park. That they went to all the top restaurants in NYC. Le Bernardin. Per se. And so on. And Eleven Madison Park was the last on their to-do list. But the only regret they had was that they never got to try a New York hot dog. Of course, upon hearing that, Will storms out the door to buy a $2 dog, brings it back to the kitchen and convinces the chef to serve it over the aged duck that took years to perfect. And when he finally delivered the next course on the menu as the hot dog he just bought, the four guests went bonkers. That despite on the multiple courses and the brilliant food, that their favorite dish was the NYC hot dog.

That it was because Will paid proper attention to his guests that he was able to deliver a truly unforgettable experience.

The truth is how to pay proper attention to anything that deserves our attention is the million-dollar question.

Paying proper attention

There’s the famous selective attention test, where viewers are asked to count the number of times the ball is being passed between the players, only to fail to realize that there is gorilla that walks across the screen. We’re told to pay attention to the ball passes, but only by paying proper attention to the purpose of why the test is being administered, do we catch what is hiding in plain sight.

Similarly, Raymond Joseph Teller (or better known for being half of the dynamic magic duo Penn & Teller) did a fascinating talk a decade and a half ago about the illusion of expectation. That magic in all of its novel facets feeds off of the expectations of its onlookers. When one tries to pay attention to the coins that are “magically” jumping from one hand to the next, you might fail to catch the sleight of hand in between. But only after he reveals his secrets is the simple magic act all the more impressive. In other words, in the second half, he teaches you how to pay proper attention.

If you have eight minutes in your day, would highly recommend watching the below video.

I can’t speak for every topic, industry, relationship, and so on out there, but at least for the cottage industry of venture capital, why I choose to write an angel or an LP check is similar. I don’t really look for what will change. ‘Cause damn, it’s so hard to predict what will change and how things will change. If I knew, and if one day, I know, please invest in my public markets fund, which will be the best performing fund of all time. But I don’t. We, as pundits sitting around the table, might draw predictions. But even the smartest of us (not sure why I say us, ’cause not sure if I can put myself in that category yet) would be lying if we knew what would happen in foresight.

Instead, I look at what doesn’t change.

What doesn’t change?

The great Charlie Munger passed away last week at the age of 99. And without question, a great loss to the world we live in today. Just half a year prior, he and Warren Buffett were hosting their 2023 annual meeting. And just two weeks prior, he was still doing CNBC interviews. And one of my favorite lines from that May annual meeting was:

“Well, it’s so simple to spend less than you earn, and invest shrewdly, and avoid toxic people and toxic activities, and try and keep learning all your life, et cetera, et cetera, and do a lot of deferred gratification because you prefer life that way. And if you do all those things, you are almost certain to succeed. If you don’t, you’re going to need a lot of luck. And you don’t want to need a lot of luck. You want to go into a game where you’re very likely to win without having any unusual luck.”

In reducing the requirement to need luck, one of the most effective ways to find what is constant in life. That despite changing times and technologies, these stay true. Or as Morgan Housel and Naval Ravikant put it, If you lived your life 1000 times, what would be true in 999 of them? In investing jargon, pattern recognition. Across my investments and more, where have I seen outperformance? What characteristics do they all share? What about human nature won’t change?

In fairness, pattern recognition gets a bad rap. And for a lot of investors, that’s because they choose to only invest in their comfort zone, and what they know best. Their former colleagues. Their Stanford GSB classmates. People who look like them, think like them, act like them. But recognizing thematic threads stretch across all facets of our life. We learn that not brushing our teeth well can lead to cavities. We learn that after stubbing our toe on the kitchen counter numerous times, we take a wider turn before turning into the kitchen. And we learn that eating piping hot foods kills your tastebuds for the next few days.

The venture corollary

In venture, we’re always taught to look at the team, product, and market. And that all are important. But if you tell a new grad or an ex-founder or an emerging angel to do just that. To them, that means nothing. They wouldn’t know how to judge. They have no benchmarks, nor do they know what’s right versus wrong. Now I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but I do believe previous blogposts like this and this are quite comprehensive for how I pay proper attention as an investor.

Emerging LPs are not immune to the lack of perspective as well. My hope and my goal is for how to be just as important if not more than the what. And for the why to be just as or more important than the how. It’s because of that, I write essays like this and this. And of course, it’s why I started Superclusters because I, too, am looking for how to pay proper attention to the next generation of venture investors. (Stay tuned for the coming Monday for episode four where we unpack the bull and bear case of early distributions in a fund!)

Photo by Shane Aldendorff 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!

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.

Posted on

DGQ 18: If you lived your life 1000 times, what would be true in 999 of them?

luck, clover, serendipity

I first heard this question from Morgan Housel quoting a Navalism (for the uninitiated, that means has its source tracing back to the one and only Naval Ravikant). And it makes you think, that in the multiverse, where each version of you lives a different life and makes different choices, what would stay constant?

These are things that are not attributed to luck. And as Morgan mentioned, “those are the things you want to focus on in life.” When predicting the future, many try to predict what will change, but the best bets with long time horizons are on those that don’t change. Things that aren’t attributed to luck. Or chance. In this world we live in, you’d be quite surprised the number of small, accidental decisions we make that lead to life-changing events.

Like you being 10 minutes late to a party meant that you somehow just showed up at the same time as your future spouse. And it was because of that, that led you to have a two-hour long conversation with him/her. Otherwise, you’d have spent the entire party hanging with your college friends.

Or because you forgot to bring your umbrella on a day it rained, it made you run into a hotel for shelter, where you stumbled upon the investor who led your Series A round. Because he/she too forgot to bring an umbrella.

Of course, I could play hypotheticals forever. Although I find it’d be a fun exercise to really examine how much of your most life-changing moments were due to serendipity.

As someone who makes their living on attempting to predict the future, that means we have to go back to first principles. For instance, human nature. Reid Hoffman’s framework that all great consumer products tap into one of the seven deadly sins. Something that despite innovation is timeless. Anecdotally, I do find some of the greatest investors — LPs and GPs alike — to be avid students of history, philosophy or psychology.

In the same interview I alluded to above, Tim Ferriss mentions another line once written by Don Knuth when he was quitting the use of email:

“Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things.”

In life, while catchy and interesting and the talk of the town for that brief moment, sometimes it’s better to get to the bottom of things than to stay on top of things. After all, you only have so many letters on your tombstone.

Photo by Yan Ming on Unsplash

The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. I’ll let you decide which it falls under.

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.

Posted on

To Define or To Be Defined By

dictionary, definition, defined

One of my recent favorite soundbites is Rich Paul‘s. For the uninitiated, he’s the agent behind LeBron James and Draymond Green. And in his recent Tim Ferriss episode, he said: “Some people define the business card and some people are defined by their business card, and so I don’t carry a business card.”

Some of the most exciting conversations I’ve been having as of late have been in the world of family offices. There’s this shift in generational wealth transfer, but often times without sufficient knowledge transfer. At the same time, there are many next gens leaning more into risk and philanthropy. Many want to increase their exposure to venture and private equity as an asset class, but are still learning how to underwrite such risk.

My conversations echo a lot of what Citi’s been seeing as well. Two in five family offices wanted to increase their exposure to illiquid asset classes, namely the PE and VC asset classes. And while many bucket VC and PE in the same asset class, the truth is the assets operate very differently. Even within venture, underwriting the risk and performance of a sub-$40M fund versus a $40-100M fund versus a $100-500M fund versus a $500M+ VC fund are completely different. Some LPs may disagree on the exact benchmarks (for instance, sub-$100M funds and everything else), but the reality of assessing an emerging manager and an established manager are different. But I digress.

The rest are either rebalancing or figuring out their re-up strategy. Yet, as I’m sure GPs are seeing today, that shift in strategy, requires time, research, and confidence before family offices can pull the trigger. Many are waiting to Q1 next year, but engaging in conversation today.

I’ve also written before about one of my favorite lines from Engineering Capital’s Ashmeet Sidana, “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.”

And I’m seeing a similar vein with family offices. The next gen don’t want to be defined by their predecessor’s goals and records. They want to define their own legacy.

There’s also the saying: If you know one family office, you only know one family office. So any broad-stroke generalizations are loosely correlated at best. That said, anecdotally, having talked with about a hundred or so family offices, here’s what I’ve come to notice.

My crudely drawn 1D scale of whether venture capital is an asset class or an access class

Smaller and/or emerging LPs see VC as an access class. Larger and more sophisticated and established LPs see VC as an asset class.

The Mendoza line — the line that separates the emerging LPs from the established ones —seems to be around 20-30 managers or over 6-7 years of venture data. For the latter, that means, you’ve seen Fund I’s and II’s graduate to Fund III’s and IV’s.

So the question for many of the next generation leading family offices has flipped from: Are you defined by your surname? To: Do you define your surname?

For those that pursue the latter, they’re a lot more proactive than previous generations. They participate in communities. Go to events. Seek education on the matter. Network with their existing managers to discover new ones. Some have also built covenants to co-invest in their manager’s breakout winners. Quite a few are building emerging manager programs or would like to. They’re hungry. Hungry to learn.

The problem I’m seeing with many managers is that they’re seeking transactional relationships. The urgency to get to their first or final close leads them to optimize for LPs who can close fast. And I get it, that’s been the game historically. But it’s leaving a massive opportunity in the market for those who have the time and are willing to educate their and prospective LPs. Who are willing to spend time building a relationship through giving first.

Photo by Edurne Tx 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!

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.

Posted on

Retaining your Best Talent (Part 2)

spark, keeping the spark alive

This is an addendum to the blogpost I wrote back in April of this year. Catalyzed by something Seth Godin recently shared. Which led me down a rabbit hole, and eventually to this sequel.

Seth Godin shared some fascinating perspective recently. “Turnover is a good thing when we are doing human work, not a bad thing. And what I would do if I was running a real company is I would say the first thing you’ve got to do on your first day is update your LinkedIn page and keep it up to date. And we’re going to have a resume job finding seminar every two weeks here. I don’t want you to stay here because you can’t get a better job. I want you to stay here because the conditions we’ve created, the work we are doing is worth you staying here for. And then I would listen.

“If I’m not creating the conditions where the people who I need to be dancing with want to stay, I have to change the conditions, not curse the people who are leaving.”

Which reminds me of a great Jerry Colonna dictum, “How am I complicit in creating the conditions I say I don’t want?” While the line is meant to be applied to an individual’s own awareness of how their environment is partly a product of their own design, it is equally as powerful in organizational design. Have you created an environment that lends itself to turnover? Is that by intention or lack thereof?

While I’m not urging founders to be less disciplined with their burn rate, Precursor’s Charles Hudson found one interesting piece of data recently. He wrote, “You cannot save your way to success. Our portfolio companies that graduated from pre-seed to seed typically spent more per month than those that failed to graduate. This result was consistent with what I’ve observed; the companies finding product-market fit spend more to keep up with growth and customer demand.”

While the above may be true when you graduate from the pre-seed to the seed, by the time you get to the A, it’s about securing great talent.

But let’s say your star talent has left (meaning that they passed the equivalent of Netflix’s Keeper test or any of these other culture tests). The one thing you DO have to be wary of is the morale of those who stay. Has your team members leaving broken the morale of the company? How fast can you get the team to bounce back?

To set some context, Frank Slootman defines winning as breaking the competitors’ will to fight. “In a world of software, you break the enemy’s will to fight when you are hiring their people because they have given up. They’d rather be with you than they are with the other company, because it’s too hard and too painful and they’re not making any money. So, ‘I’m going to join the winner instead of stick with delusion.'” And in Bezos’ words, “when the last person with good judgment gives up,” your team’s will has been broken.

Each team member leaving has a non-zero chance of creating this snowball effect. As the founder, maintaining culture and momentum is important. As Bob Iger once said, “[The] most important measures of success for a CEO [are] internal satisfaction, investor relations and consumer support.” In my experience, the first of the three is often far less obvious to first-time founders than the latter two.

So how does one maintain internal satisfaction?

The truth is there’s no one right answer. So, instead, I’ll share some tactics I’ve seen work well.

  • The last day for someone should be on Friday. It gives teammates the weekend to unwind and doesn’t affect their work ethic in the weekdays immediately after.
  • Set up 1:1 time with all their direct reports and who they reported to (if the latter person isn’t you) within the week after that person’s last day. While the obvious next steps may be to figure out the new chain of command and reporting structure, the first conversation you have with them should be about how they’re feeling and not about company goals. And have an honest, unfiltered conversation here. Which also means you need to share how you’re feeling as well. Don’t sugarcoat anything. Smart people see through lies very easily.
  • Offer each direct report to that person a mentor. Either internally in the company or externally. For the latter, there is immense value in helping your team member grow and getting an advisor or someone in your network you respect to get more involved in the company through monthly/quarterly mentorship.

As always, hope you find this helpful.

Photo by Ian Schneider 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!

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.

Posted on

How to Retain Talent When You Don’t Have the Cash

lightning in a bottle, spark, hold, light, jar

Earlier this week, I grabbed coffee with a founder. Let’s call him “Elijah.” He recently lost a key exec he’d been working with for two years to their incumbent competitor. The competitor’s offer happened to be too good to turn down. Triple the exec’s salary. As that exec had a family to feed and children’s education that didn’t come cheap, he made the hard decision to leave. Needless to say, Elijah was devastated. And he asked,

“David, what should I have done?”

I initially thought it was rhetorical. It seemed that way. But he paused, looked at me, and waited.

So I responded.

My response

I’ll preface by saying that the advice I shared with him was a collection of insights I learned from mentors over the years — some a lot more recently than others. I don’t hold all the keys to the castle. And every situation is, well, situational. So the last thing I wanted was for the founder to take my advice as the word of god (nor anyone reading this blogpost now). Merely a tool in the toolkit. At times, useful. Other times, just something that acts as décor in the shed.

“Elijah, it’s probably too late for that exec… for now. He’s made his decision and walked. That said, I think there are two things to be aware of here:

  1. The fact you didn’t know about this until it happened, and
  2. The decision itself.”

Pre-empting the ultimatum

For the former, here’s how I think about pre-empting your team’s career inflections.

  1. In their first week, have everyone put together their personal manifesto. What is their 6 month goal? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? Lifetime goal? What motivates them? How do they like to give and receive feedback? Of course, it’s helpful to share your own first, so they have a reference point. Don’t expect anything you’re not willing to share first. So, naturally, this requires a level of transparency, and more importantly, vulnerability.
  2. Then within the first two weeks, you and their direct manager should review their manifesto with them for at least 30 minutes live. Really get to know them. Taking a page out of Steven Rosenblatt’s book, what drives them? What haven’t they achieved that they want to achieve? How do they do their best work? When do they feel the most motivated? Why did they want to work here? Why are they excited to do so? How does working at your company fit in their broader goal?
  3. Then every quarter, allow every team member one day of mindfulness away from their work to revisit their manifesto. I usually recommend a Friday. What’s changed? What’s stayed the same? Does their current role still fit in their broader goal? If not, why not?
  4. The week after, take time to sync again and be incredibly candid.

Of course, the above is easier to do if you have a company of less than 50. At some point, when your company scales past that, it’s at least helpful to do it with your direct reports and their direct reports.

Helping with the decision

For the latter, you can’t stop a river. Even if you build a dam, the flow will always find a way around. You can’t change what motivates someone else. But you can help them channel it. The best thing you can do is equip that person with the tools to make a decision they will not regret, and wish them the best.

I like to sit people down and first help them figure out why they’re considering a new role. People often conflate the three traits of a job — compensation, scope, and title — together when making a career move. But in truth, they’re similar, but all a bit different. And I want people to know that just because they’re getting paid more doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in responsibility. Just because they’re getting a new title doesn’t mean that they’ll get more money. Then I have them stack rank the three traits. From most to least important.

If they still rank compensation first, that’s fine. Maybe they’re saving to buy a new house or to pay for their child’s higher education. And there’s nothing you nor I can do there. But if it’s one of the other two that come out on top, there’s room to create a new position or set of responsibilities where the individual feels empowered. And if it’s not at your company, they’ll be equipped to think through it at their next company. If they don’t have one lined up yet, help them through your network find one that’ll fit the criteria.

The wonderful irony

The funny thing about helping people achieve their dreams — sometimes that’s actively helping them leave your company — is that the karma usually comes back in one way or another. In this case, and I’ve seen it and experienced it before, even if you lose this person at this time and place, they’ll remember the help you gave them. To which, one day, when they have an all-star friend looking for their next opportunity, they will think of you.

There’s a saying I love. ‘The best compliment an investor can get is to get deal flow from someone they passed on.’ And here, the best compliment you can get is to get talent from someone who left your team.

In closing

Shake Shack’s Danny Meyer recently said something that echoes this notion. While he uses the word “volunteering,” he defines “volunteering” as:

“I basically, to this day, treat all of our employees as if they are volunteers, which not in the real sense. You’re going to get paid. But if you’re working for me, it means you’re probably good enough to have gotten another 25 job offers at least. And so, as far as I’m concerned, you’re volunteering to share your gifts with us.”

He goes on to say, “I didn’t have any way to motivate them with money. I couldn’t give them a raise, couldn’t dock them their pay. So I learned such a crucial lesson, which is that, if someone’s volunteering, the only way to motivate them is to have a higher purpose.”

Of course, there’s more than one way to make a team member feel like they are valued and that they value their work here. Another way is to give your prospective team member a “love bomb”, as Pulley’s Yin Wu calls it.

Now I’m not saying that if Elijah did all the above, he’s guaranteed to retain the exec. Who knows? He might have. Might not. For a man with a family and financial needs, it’s a hard ask. But at the minimum, this career move wouldn’t have blind-sided him. And better, he could’ve supported that exec in making that career move.

Just like with your product, your goal with your team is also to catch lightning in a bottle. How do you attract the best talent to work with you? And then, once you are able to, how do you keep them?

With the latter, a big part of it is showing you care.

Photo by Diego PH 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!

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.

Posted on

What It Means to be Antifragile

boxing, antifragile, resilient

The thing is this is the first real recession I’m working in. I entered the workforce something in the midst of one of the longest bull markets in modern history. So, naturally, I had a lot of questions. One of which I asked one of my mentors in VC who’s been through a few cycles late last year. “Are there any leading indicators that foretell when we’re going to get out of a recession? Or when we truly hit rock bottom in a recession?”

And he said something that made complete sense. “When the frequency of mass layoffs, especially from some of America’s largest employers, slows to a halt.”

Since then, every month or so, I check in the number of WARN notices that come in which require companies doing a mass layoff to publicly report a layoff 60 days in advance. For instance, you can find California’s here.

As Chamath Palihapitiya puts it in his 2022 annual letter, “while we believe that most of the multiple contractions in these markets have largely worked their way through the system, we suspect there is still some more room to fall — particularly if the U.S. enters a recession in the coming year.” Since it seems layoff season is yet to pass, it seems wise to buckle in for the longer run.

While friends have asked me when the recession will end, I responded with a simple “I don’t know.” No one does. And while many may make conjectures on the timing, the one thing we can use this free fall for is to build a heat shield.

I really like this one line in Chris Neumann‘s recent blogpost on antifragility. “As great as it sounds for a startup to get stronger when unexpected events occur, I don’t actually think that’s a realistic goal for most companies (it certainly isn’t the case for VC firms). Rather, I think the goal in making antifragile startups should be to minimize the risk and distraction when unexpected events occur, such that the company can continue to make progress while its competitors are panicking and reacting.” One thing’s for sure. The world is host to a plethora of distractions. Something we won’t be in shortage of. With each black swan event, we will only be left with a surplus of attention stealers.

And I’d be presumptuous to say that the best do not get distracted. Rather the best realize when they are and have ways to get back to a focused flow state. Simply put, it’s helpful to play a game of What if? What if this unexpected shock happens? How will I react when my servers get hacked? How do I react when my cash flow is constrained due to an unpredictable event? And in each broad category of What if’s, do you have a way to hedge the risk?

Sometimes, it’s preparing for the unexpected black swan event.

That’s why code is redundant to prevent the fragility of storing it only on one server.

It’s why companies like HackerOne exists.

It’s why you should have your cash in multiple bank accounts, with at least one of them being a big 4. A few top firms, including General Catalyst, Greylock, and Redpoint, have also said, “Keep two core operating accounts, each with 3-6 months of cash. Maintain a third account for ‘excess cash’ to be invested in safe, liquid options to generate slightly more income.” All to protect against the downside risk of losing all your money when you put your eggs in one basket.

But when the black swan does hit, prioritization matters even more. When the pandemic hit and Airbnb was between a rock and a hard place, Brian Chesky described it, “We realized not everything mattered. And it was like if you have to go into a house — your house is burning — and if you could only take half the things in your house, what would you take?”

Chamath went on to write in the same letter. “The most alarming consequence in startup-land has been the divide it has created between the management teams who have ‘found religion’ (i.e. made the tough decisions and managed their businesses smartly) and the rest who are trying their best to avoid reality.” And those tough decisions include, “cutting non-core projects, lowering costs, and vastly reducing G&A while getting to profitability [which] is now mandatory — otherwise you will have to face the consequences.” Those same tough decisions set teams up for success in bad times and bear markets.

In closing

Recently on the Tim Ferriss Show, David Deutsch said, “wealth is not a number. […] It is the set of all transformations that you are capable of bringing about.” Similarly, a company’s revenue is not just another number. It is a product of all the miracles that the company willed into existence. Crossing the chasm. Leaping over hurdles.

To take a line out of Nassim Taleb‘s book, “Crucially, if antifragility is the property of all those natural (and complex) systems that have survived, depriving these systems of volatility, randomness, and stressors will harm them. They will weaken, die, or blow up.” We need black swan events to create miracles. And we need miracles to create stronger, more resilient companies.

Trauma strengthens us. You need to bleed to grow scars. You need to feel pain before you grow calluses. The product of each makes one more resilient to pain and injury in the future.

One might call it antifragility.

Photo by Johann Walter Bantz 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!

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.

Posted on

Chasing Revenue Multiples and Revenue

unicorn, sunset

On Wednesday this week, I hosted an intimate dinner with founders in the windy backdrop of San Francisco. And I’m writing this piece, I can’t help but recall one founder from that evening asking us all to play a little game she built. A mini mobile test to see if we could tell the difference between real headshot portraits and AI-generated ones based on the former. There were 15 picture. Each where we had to pick one of two choices: real or AI.

10/15. 6/15. 9/15. 11/15. 8/15… By the time it was my turn, having seen the looks of confusion of my predecessors, I wasn’t confident in my own ability to spot the difference. Then again, I was neither the best nor the worst when it came to games of Where’s Waldo? 90 quick seconds later, a score popped up. 10/15. Something slightly better than chance.

Naturally, we asked the person who got 11/15 if he knew something we didn’t. To which, he shared his hypothesis. A seemingly sound and quite intellectual conjecture. So, we asked him to try again to see if his odds would improve. 90 seconds later, 6/15.

Despite the variance in scores, none were the wiser.

Michael Mauboussin shared a great line recently. “Intuition is a situation where you’ve trained your system one in a particular domain to be very effective. For that to work, I would argue that you need to have a system, so this is the system level, that it’s fairly linear and stable. So linear in that sense, I mean really the cause and effect are pretty clear. And stable means the basic rules of the game don’t change all that much.”

For our real-or-AI game, we lacked that clear cause and effect. If we received individual question scores of right or wrong, we’d probably have ended up building intuition more quickly.

Venture is unfortunately an industry that is stable, but not very linear. In many ways, you can do everything right and still not have things work out. That same premise led to another interesting thread I saw on Twitter this week by Harry Stebbings.

In a bull market, and I was guilty of this myself, the most predictable trait came in two parts: (a) mark-ups (and graduation rates to the next round), and (b) unicorn status. In 2020 and 2021, growth equity moved upstream to win allocation when they needed it with their core check and stage. But that also meant they were less price-sensitive and disciplined in the stages preceding their core check.

The velocity of rounds coming together due to a combination of FOMO and cheap cash empowered founders to raise quickly and often. Sometimes, in half the funding window during a disciplined market. In other words, from 18 months to 9 months. Subsequently, investors found themselves with 70+% IRR and deploying capital twice or thrice as fast as they had promised their LPs. In attempts to keep up and not get priced out of deals. Many of whom believed that to be the new norm.

While the true determinant of success as an investor is how much money you actually return to your investors, or as Chris Douvos calls it moolah in da coolah, the truth is all startup investors play the long game. Games that last at least a decade. Games that are stable, but not linear. The nonlinearity, in large part, due to the sheer number of confounding variables and the weight distribution changing in different economic environments. A single fund often goes through at least one bull run and one bear run. So, because of the insanely long feedback loops and venture’s J-curve, it’s often hard to tell.

Source: Crunchbase

In fact, in recent news, Business Insider reported half of Sequoia’s funds since 2018 posted “losses” for the University of California endowment. We’re in the beginning of 2023. In other words, we’re at most five years out. While I don’t have any insider information, time will tell how much capital Sequoia will return. For now, it’s too early to pass any judgment.

The truth is most venture funds have yet to return one times their capital to their investors within five years. Funds with early exits and have a need to prove themselves to LPs to raise a subsequent fund are likely to see early DPI, but many established funds hold and/or recycle carry. Sequoia being one of the latter. After all, typical recycling periods are 3-4 years. In other words, a fund can reinvest their early moolah in da coolah in the first 3-4 years back into the fund to make new investments. There is a dark side to recycling, but a story for another time. Or a read of Chris Neumann’s piece will satiate any current surplus of curiosity.

But I digress.

In the insane bull run of 2020 and 2021, the startup world became a competition of who could best sell their company’s future as a function of their — the founders’ — past. It became a world where people chased signal and logos. A charismatic way to weave a strong narrative behind logos on a resume seemed to be the primary predictors of founder “success.” And in a market with a surplus of deployable capital and heightened expectations (i.e. 50x or higher valuation multiples on revenue), unicorn status had never been easier to reach.

As of January of this year — 2023, if you’re a time traveler from the future, there are over 1,200 unicorns in the world. 200 more than the beginning of 2022. Many who have yet to go back to market for cash, and will likely need a haircut. Yet for so many funds, the unicorn rate is one of the risks they underwrite.

I was talking with an LP recently where he pointed out the potential fallacy of a fund strategy predicated on unicorn exits. There have only been 118 companies that have historically acquired unicorns. And only four of the 118 have acquired more than four venture-backed unicorns. Microsoft sitting at 12. Google at 8. And Meta and Amazon at 5 each. Given that a meaningful percentage of the 1200 unicorns will need a haircut in their next fundraise, like Stripe and Instacart, we’re likely going to see a slowdown of unicorns in the foreseeable future. And for those on the cusp to slip below the unicorn threshold. Some investors have preemptively marked down their assets by 25-30%. Others waiting to see the ball drop.

The impending future is one not on multiples but one of business quality, namely revenue and revenue growth. All that to say, unless you’re growing the business, exit opportunities are slim if you’re just betting on having unicorn acquisitions in your portfolio.

So while many investors will claim unicorn rate as their metric for success, it’s two degrees of freedom off of the true North.

In the bear market we are in today, the world is now a competition of the quality of business, rather than the quality of words. At the pre-seed stage, companies who are generating revenue have no trouble raising, but companies who don’t are struggling more.

As Andy Rachleff recently pointed out, “Valuations are not the way you judge a venture capitalist, or multiples of their fund. […] The way that I judge a venture capitalist is by how many companies did they back that grew into $100M revenue businesses.” If you bring in good money, whether an exit to the public market or to a partner, you’re a business worth acquiring. A brand and hardly any revenue, if acquired, is hardly going to fetch a good price. And I’ve heard from many LPs and longtime GPs that we’re in for a mass extinction if businesses don’t pivot back to fundamentals quickly. What are fundamentals? Non-dilutive cash in the bank. In other words, paying customers.

Bull markets welcome an age of chasing revenue multiples (expectation and sentiment). Bear markets welcome an age of chasing revenue.

The latter are a lot more linear and predictable than the former.

Photo by Paul Bill 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!

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress