I am under no illusion that there is a hell of a lot of interest in the LP landscape today. Not only from GPs who are realizing the difficulties of the fundraising climate, but also from aspiring and emerging LPs who are allocating to venture for the first time. The latter of which also have a growing set of interests in backing emerging GPs. And in the center console in this Venn diagram of interests lies the education of how to think like an LP.
There is no shortage of content. LPs are also starting to make their rounds. You’ll often see the same LP on multiple podcasts. And that’s not a bad thing. In fact, that’s very much of a good thing that we’re starting to see a lot more visibility here and that LPs are willing to share.
But we’re at the beginning of a crossroads.
A few years back, the world was starved of LP content. And content creators and aggregators like Beezer, Ted, Nick, and Chris, were oases in the desert for those searching. Today, we have a buffet of options. Many of which share listenership and viewership. In fact, a burgeoning cohort of LPs are also doing their rounds. And that’s a good thing. It’s more surface area for people to learn.
But at some point, the wealth of information leads to the poverty of attention. The question goes from “Where do I tune into LP content?” to “If I were to listen to the same LP, which platform would I choose to tune into?“
After all, we only have 24 hours in a day. A third for sleep. A third for work. And the last competes against every possible option that gives us joy — friends, hangouts, Netflix, YouTube, hobbies, exercise, passion projects and more.
In the same way, Robert Downey Jr. or Emma Stone or Timothée Chamalet (yes, I just watched Dune 2 and I loved it) is going to do multiple interviews. With 20, 30, even 50 different hosts. But as a fan (excluding die-hard ones), you’re likely not going to watch all of them. But you’ll select a small handful — two or three — to watch. And that choice will largely be influenced by which interviewer and their respective style you like.
While my goal is to always surface new content instead of remixes of old, there will always be the inevitability of cross-pollination of lessons between content creators. And so, if nothing else, my goal is to keep my identity — and as such, my style — as I continue recording LP content. To me, that’s the human behind the money behind the VC money. And each person — their life story, the way they think, why they think the way they think — is absolutely fascinating.
In closing
There’s this great Amos Tversky line I recently stumbled upon. “You waste years by not being able to waste hours.” And in many ways, this blog, Superclusters, writing at large, and my smaller experiments are the proving grounds I need to find my interest-expertise fit. Some prove to be fleeting passions. Others, like building for emerging LPs, prove to be much more.
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.
The most provocative part was when she posed the question: If you need an app to make friends, is that a negative signal?
The solution, in her words, “the long term winner here is likely to be… interest-graph social networks.” Furthermore, “platforms that give people an ‘excuse’ to gather, either IRL or digitally” are immensely powerful. Where friendship is a byproduct of usage but not the main or sole purpose of being on these platforms.
I agree that dual-purposed social networks and platforms are a wonderful solution, but, and I may be biased, I don’t think it’s the only solution.
As a former power user of networking or friend apps like Shapr and Lunchclub (yes, I used an app to make friends), I’ve made some great friends via both of those platforms. But at the same time, I was an early user for both. Both had yet to be widely adopted at the time.
For Lunchclub, I was using it at a time when everything was in-person, and you only had the option to meet people on Fridays at 2PM or 5PM at either Sightglass Coffee on 7th Street or Caffe Centro in South Park in SF. The latter unfortunately closed recently. And that was it. There were no other options. I had often joked with friends that as you were meeting your friend match that week at Sightglass, you would be sitting next to the person you would match with next week AND the person sitting five feet over would be who you matched with last week. It was a tight community, even if it was an unintentionally designed community. A group of hackers, early adopters, investors, and people just doing cool things.
Then, as Lunchclub pursued scale, quality declined. And as Olivia shares in her thread above, bad actors ruined the experience altogether. The same was true for Shapr. For Clubhouse. Just to name a few.
But dating apps nailed it. They’ve reached widespread adoption. Olivia postulates it’s because they offer data points and filters that you can’t find anywhere else. For instance, who’s single. She’s right. But there’s another reason. These apps promote interest in others. Or amplifying inherent motivation to be on said apps.
Let me elaborate.
Be interesting and interested
I’ve written about the above line before. Here. And here. And likely a few other places that’s escaping my memory at the time of writing this piece.
The thing is most platforms promote being interesting. The heavy profile customizations. The ability to share your own thoughts. Platforms that incentivize you to go from a consumer to a creator. A lot of it is about me. Look at me. Look at how cool I am. How cool my life is. The strive for perfection.
How can I ever be like the person I’m following? My life is nowhere near as awesome as her/his is. Most social platforms prop users up as a point of comparison.
All that to say, there are a lot of apps that help you be interesting, but not enough that help you be interested. The latter takes work. There’s a line that Mark Susterrecently shared on a podcast, and I love it! Citing the late Zig Ziglar (which by the way, is an awesome name), Mark shared, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”
I want to underscore that line one more time.
“People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”
It’s why I love my buddy Rishi’s recent piece on how to build and maintain meaningful relationships.
In Rishi’s essay, he shares that there are three levels to doing your homework — each deeper than the last — and show that you care:
Level 1 – The Basics: LinkedIn, Common Connections, Google, and Company Website
Level 2 – Digging in: Social Media
Level 3 – Going Deep: Podcasts, Writing, YouTube et. al
The purpose isn’t to be all-encompassing, but to show that you care for the human sitting across from you. It’s the intention that matters.
The late David Rockefellerbuilt prolific Rolodexes to show that he cared. In fact, it’s cited that his handwritten notes on others stood five feet tall and accounted for 100,000 people. Alan Fleischmannonce wrote in reference to David Rockefeller that, “If you were so fortunate to be a fly on the wall for any of his countless meetings and interactions, you would hear him inquire about the smallest details of his guest’s life, from a child’s ballet recital to a parent’s recent health concern. Rockefeller’s interactions were said to be ‘transformational, never transactional.'”
And it’s also the small things that matter.
In closing
The reason why I think Lunchclub was so popular in the beginning is in two parts:
The platform reduced the friction — the back-and-forths — of scheduling. They gave you two times, and you either made it or you didn’t.
The platform’s early users were innately curious individuals. When I was invited on the platform, my friend pitched it as, “I’ve learned so much from the people I met.” And my friend was and is already one of the foremost subject-matter experts in her field. The same was true when I began using the platform. People spent more time asking questions than talking about themselves. In fact, in many conversations, it’d be a battle of who can delay talking about themselves more than the other.
People were simply interested. There was no agenda. And no agenda was the best agenda. No one was trying to peddle anything to you. No one was trying to ask you for money or intros. People were the ends in and of themselves, and not a means to an end.
All in all, while there are incredible platforms that help you build friendships through interest and hobby alignment, I do believe there is room for a friend app for the curious. Or at least to help you be a really good friend.
So if you’re building something there, ring me up. That said, no matter how great technology is, with AI and all, every great relationship still needs that human touch. AI and platforms and apps might be able to get you 90% of the way there. But if you don’t complete that last 10% trek, 90% is still incomplete. For those of you reading who are American football fans, running the ball 90 yards from one endzone is still an incomplete. It’s still not a touchdown. You need to run the full 100.
If there’s anything to take away from this blogpost, it’s to be both interesting AND interested. Emphasis on the latter.
And in case you’re curious as to how I approach caring, these might be helpful starting points:
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.
“A true friend is one who stabs you in the front.”— Oscar Wilde
Many years ago, in what seemed like another lifetime, I made a girl cry. Nothing to boast about. In fact, even today, I’m quite embarrassed that I did so. In a negotiation where I prioritized one small committee in a club’s priorities above the priorities of other committees, I felt that I was right in every way. I conceived a million reasons why rationally I was right — cost, our future members’ preferences, down to the stable marriage algorithm. I fell prey to pride and ego. And she broke down. Instead of apologizing, I walked away, asserting that the data supported my case.
The next day, I found solace among classmates and friends. They told me I didn’t do anything wrong. That they would’ve done the same thing. That the facts proved I was right. Until that evening, a good friend and someone I’d known since middle school, said, “You’re fucking stupid.”
He told me to drop everything and to go apologize in person right that instant. To hell with data and facts. He said that I forgot the very first principle of any negotiation… that there was a human being on the other side. And I didn’t treat her as one. He was the one person who opened my eyes up to the ego I was blinded by. So I did. In my realization, I felt terrible and even worse for needing someone else to tell me that I had to. But that’s the friend I needed. That’s what I needed to hear.
Something you might have realized if you’re a frequent visitor to this small piece of virtual real estate is that I’m not perfect. Nor do I pretend to be. The above example is evidence of that.
I was reminded of that when I was listening to Jonathan Abramson Venture Unlocked earlier this week. Where they brought up the topic of being founder friendly — a term that indubitably carries a lot of baggage. From the VC side, it’s jargon that’s been thrown around so much over the past decade, it’s lost its luster and meaning. From the founder side, many founders frankly just don’t get what it means. Why? Because no one actually defines it.
Over the years, I’ve seen and heard explicit and implicit definitions, including:
Not firing the CEO (even when they don’t do a good job)
Helping the founder grow as the company and CEO job description grows
Having answers to every question the founders ask
Asking (good) questions
Telling the founders what to do
The thing is, all the above are right and wrong at the same time. It’s situationally dependent. Ok, maybe except the last one. That one’s wrong all the time. Something you realize pretty quickly is that the investor is not in the driver’s seat. At best, we sit shotgun.
So, what does “founder friendly” mean?
Jonathan Abrams and the 8-Bit team says, “Do no harm.”
Fred Wilson says, “Saving your company from yourself may well be founder friendly.”
To YC, it’s being honest, transparent, responsive, and acting in the best interests of the company, shareholders, employees, and founders.
The truth is everyone has a different, but similar definition. Like product-market fit, it’s hard to measure and an amorphous term. It’s obvious in hindsight. But mysterious in foresight. Yet, as a founder, there are still many telltale signs on how helpful an investor actually will be.
Leading indicators to helpfulness
One of the reasons I love working with smaller checkwriters — be it angels or emerging fund managers — is that they often punch above their weight class. They’re insanely responsive. And are often more helpful than their check size. They may not be able to single-handedly fill the round, nor can their check get you to profitability, but they’re there when you need them. In other words, they hit high on the check size-to-helpfulness ratio, which I’ve written about before.
The first meeting
Interestingly enough, the first meeting is quite telling of how helpful investors are — regardless of the decision outcome. It could be in the form of investor intros, strategic advice, hard questions to consider, or key hires to make. In fact, they’ll make you feel like you got back days if not weeks, out of a 30-minute meeting. If you, as the founder, get nothing out of the first meeting, then you likely won’t get much when they are on your cap table. The most helpful investors don’t waste time. Not theirs. But more importantly, not yours either. They know that each time you meet with them is time away from building. And they’ll make that time worthwhile.
As an investor, the golden standard should be to be helpful in every meeting. And I don’t mean ending the conversation with “Let me know how I can be helpful.” That’s reactive.
For one of my good friends, that means that if he takes a meeting with you — whether he chooses to invest or not, he will write a 3-5 page bug report on your product. For some of my other friends, it’s that if they take a meeting, they’ll nine out of ten times set up an intro. Instead of asking “How can I be helpful?”, one should ask “What do you need help on?” or “What are the biggest obstacles that prevent you from reaching your 6-12 month goals?” Then, proactively trying to find some way to help.
That said, the afore-mentioned investors’ bar for taking a meeting is rather high.
Response rate
Another proxy for helpfulness is how fast they reply to your emails. Many of the investors who I know are insanely helpful have a system to respond to founders quickly. Moreover, if the decision is a ‘No’, they don’t shy away from sharing that and why they decided to pass. Of course, the latter is not possible for every inbound pitch. But at the very minimum, are table stakes if you’ve already jumped on an initial live conversation with them.
Here, within 24 hours is epic. 48-72 hours is great. And anything longer becomes a dime a dozen.
Inactive founders sing them high praise
It’s always important to do your homework on your investor. One of such ways is talking to other founders they backed, especially the ones who are no longer founders or no longer pursuing the original idea they were backed on. Active portfolio companies are likely to still give lip service to their investors, especially when they are a large portion of their cap table. So, when you ask, “Was this investor helpful?”, you’re likely to get an overly politically correct answer. Rather, the question I recommend asking is:
“If you were to start a new company, who are the three investors — big or small — on your current cap table that you would kill to have back on?”
Conversely, if you talk to former portfolio founders, they’re likely to be a lot more honest as they don’t have a currently active relationship with the investor. Or if they still do, the investor must have done something right.
Lagging indicators to helpfulness
While not the intended purpose of this blogpost, I can’t help but shed some additional context for investors out there. In my recent conversations with GPs and LPs, I noticed a common thread among the GPs who are capable of raising a fund even in a down market. It’s that the founders they back who went on to raise A, B rounds, or greater, come back to invest in their early believers. The people who made a difference in these founders’ lives.
So, whenever I meet an emerging GP asking for fundraising advice, one of the first questions I ask, outside of these five questions which determine if they’re ready to start a fund, is:
Have any of the founders you backed before committed to your fund?
Goodwill and helpfulness builds flywheels. When your founders go on to win, if you’ve been helpful, they’ll want to pay it back.
Tangentially, it’s why the team at Ludlow Ventures says, “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.” So, getting deal flow from founders you pass on means, either:
They still want something from you; or
You were really helpful that they want to send all their best founder friends to you.
Hopefully, it’s the latter.
In closing
At the end of the day, no one’s perfect. Not the founders. Not the investors. No one. And it’s okay.
In the current world of chaotic down markets, high interest rates, and more, this is the time to build goodwill. This is the time to be truly founder friendly. If you have less liquidity, you can always help in many ways outside of pure capital. After all, capital for founders is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Sometimes it’s just being honest, candid, and transparent with the founder.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Back in mid-2020, I started writing a piece on 99 Pieces of Unsolicited, (Possibly) Ungooglable Startup Advice. There was no ETA on the piece. I had no idea when I would publish it, other than the fact, that I would only do so once I hit the number 99. Yet, just like how I was inspired to write how similar founders and funders are, it finally dawned on me to start writing a similar piece for investors around mid-2021. The funny thing, is though I started this essay half a year later, I finished writing it one and a half months sooner while I was still on advice #95 for the former.
Of course, you can bet your socks I’ve started my next list of unsolicited advice for investors already. Once again, with no ETA. As I learn more, the subsequent insight that leads to an “A-ha!” moment will need to go deeper and more granular. And who knows, the format is likely to change.
I often find myself wasting many a calorie in starting from a simple idea and extrapolating into something more nuanced. And while many ideas deserve more nuance, if not more, some of the most important lessons in life are simple in nature. The 99 soundbites for investors below cover everything, in no particular order other than categorical resonance, including:
Unfortunately, many of the below advice came from private conversations so I’m unable to share their names. Unless they’ve publicly talked about it. Nevertheless, I promise you won’t be disappointed.
As any Rolodex of advice goes, you will not resonate with every single one, nor should you. Every piece of advice is a product of someone’s anecdotal experience. While each may differ in their gravitas, I hope that each of the below will serve as a tool in your toolkit for and if the time comes when you need it most.
To preface again, none of this is legal investment advice. This content is for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. Please consult your own adviser before making any investments.
General advice
1/ To be in venture capital, you fundamentally have to be an optimist. You have to believe in a better tomorrow than today.
2/ “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” – Mike Tyson. Told to me by an LP who invests in emerging and diverse managers.
3/ Have good fluidity of startup information. “No founder wants to meet a partner and have to answer the same questions again and again. Best partnerships sync and with every discussion, process the questioning.” – Harry Stebbings
4/ The lesson is to buy low, sell high. Not to buy lowest, sell highest.
5/ “The New York Times test. Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the NY Times.” – Peter Hebert
6/ “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.” – Warren Buffett
7/ When you’re starting off as an investor, bet on one non-obvious founder – a real underdog. Support them along their entire journey. Even if there’s no huge exit, the next one will be bigger. When their VPs go off and start their own businesses, they’ll think of you first as well.
8/ When planning for the next generation of your firm’s successors, hire and mentor a cohort of brilliant investors, instead of focusing on finding the best individual. Investing is often a lonely journey, and it’s much easier to grow into a role if they have people to grow together and commiserate with.
9/ “When exit prices are great, entry prices are lousy. When entry prices are great, exit prices are lousy.” – David Sacks
10/ Illiquidity is a feature, not a bug. – Samir Kaji
11/ Three left turns make a right turn. There is no one way to break into VC. Oftentimes, it’s the ones with the most colorful backgrounds that provide the most perspective forward.
12/ “Whenever you find yourself in the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” As an early stage investor, I find Mark Twain’s quote to be quite insightful.
13/ “It’s not about figuring out what’s wrong; it’s about figuring out what is so right. The job of an investor is to figure out what is so overwhelmingly great, or so tantalizingly promising that it’s worth dealing with all the stuff that’s broken.” – Pat Grady retelling a story with Roelof Botha
15/ Track your deal flow. Here’s how I track mine. Another incredible syndicate lead with over 5x TVPI (total value to paid in capital) I met keeps it even simpler. A spreadsheet with just 4 columns.
Company
Valuation in
Valuation out
Co-investors – This is where you start sharing deal flow with each other here.
16/ One of your best sources of deal flow might not be from other investors, but those who are adjacent to the venture ecosystem, like startup lawyers and VC attorneys.
17/ A WhatsApp group with your portfolio is a great tool for diligencing investments, not as much for sourcing deals.
18/ “Decide once you have 70% conviction.” – Keith Rabois. Don’t make decisions with 40% conviction since that’s just gambling. Don’t wait till 90% conviction because you’ll miss the deal for being too slow.
19/ Ask questions to founders where they show grit over a repeated period of time. They need to show some form of excellence in their life, but it doesn’t have to be in their current field. From a pre-seed manager with 3 unicorns in a portfolio of 70.
20/ As an emerging manager, one of the best reasons for investing in emerging markets: Do you want to see the deals that the top 0.1% see? Or do you want to see the deals that the 0.1% passed on? From the same pre-seed manager with 3 unicorns in a portfolio of 70.
21/ Every day, open your calendar for just one hour (two 30-minute slots) to founders you wouldn’t have had otherwise. Your network will compound. From a manager who’s invested in multiple unicorns and does the above from 10-11PM every night.
22/ The bigger your check size, the harder you have to fight to get into the round.
23/ The best investors frontload their diligence so they can have smarter first conversations with founders.
24/ Perform immersion-based diligence. Become super consumers and super users of a category, as close as you can get to subject-matter experts. That way you know very quickly after meeting a founder if their product is differentiated or unique. While you’re at it, write 2-3 page bug report stress-testing the product. Founders really do appreciate it.
26/ When a founder can’t take no for an answer and pushes back, “I always have to accept the possibility that I’m making a mistake.” The venture business keeps me humble, but these are the benchmarks that the team and I all believe in. Inspired by JCal and Molly Wood.
27/ Win deals by “sucking the oxygen out of the air.” In investing there are two ways to invest: picking or getting picked. Picking is naturally in a non-competitive space. Getting picked is the exact opposite. You have to eat competition for breakfast. And when you’re competing for a deal everyone wants to get into, you have to be top-of-mind. You need to increase the surface area in which founders remember you, not just to take their time, but to be really, really valuable in as much time as you can spend with them. Inspired by Pat Grady on an anecdote about Sarah Guo.
Pitching to LPs
28/ Surprises suck. On Samir Kaji’s podcast, Guy Perelmuter of GRIDS Capital once said: “There’s only one thing that LPs hate more than losing money. It’s surprises.” More here.
29/ Fund I: You’re selling a promise. Fund II: You’re selling a strategy. And, Fund III: You’re selling the returns on Fund I.
30/ Steven Spielberg didn’t know what E.T. should look like, so he had everyone write down people they respected. And so E.T. looked a bit like everyone on that list, including Carl Sandburg, Albert Einstein and Ernest Hemingway. In a very similar way, come up with a list of your ideal LPs. And create a fund based on what they like to see and what you can bring to the table. Oftentimes, it’s easier to ask them for personal checks than checks out of their fund.
31/ Ask the founders you back for intros to their other investors as potential LPs in your fund.
32/ The return hurdles for LPs are different per fund type: *subject to market motions. Timestamped in Sept 2021 by Samir Kaji
Nano-fund (<$20M): 5-7x+
Seed fund: 3-5x+
Series A: 3x+
Growth: 2-2.5x+
Crossover/late growth (driven by IRR, not multiples): 10-12%+
33/ “If you know one family office, you know one family office.” Said by one of the largest LPs in venture funds. Each family office situation is uniquely different.
34/ Family offices are surprisingly closed off to cold emails, but often share a lot of deal flow with each other. Have co-investors or founders introduce you to them.
35/ It takes on average 2 months for an institutional LP to do diligence and reference checks. Plan accordingly.
36/ LPs look for:
Track record (could be as an individual angel as well)
Value add
Operational excellence
37/ Data shows that first-time/emerging managers are more likely to deliver outperformance than their counterparts, but as one, you still need to show you have experience investing.
38/ People, including LPs, tend to remember stories, more than they do data. Teach your LPs something interesting.
39/ LPs have started looking more into two trends: private investments and impact/ESG initiatives. By nature of you reading this blogpost, you’re most likely the former already. The latter is worth considering as part of your thesis.
40/ Every coffee is worthwhile in some form.
41/ LP diligence into VCs break down into two types: investment and operational DD.
Investment DD includes team, incentive alignment, strategy, performance, current market, and terms/fees.
Team: What does leadership look like? How diverse are you?
Alignment: Do you have performance-based compensation?
Strategy: What sectors are you investing into? What does your underwriting discipline look like?
Performance: What do your exits look like? Are you exits repeatable?
Market: What are the current industry valuations? Economies of scale?
Terms/fees: Are they LP friendly? Are the fees based on alphas or betas? Are they aligned with your value add?
Operational DD includes business model, operational controls, tech platforms, service providers, compliance and risk.
42/ If you’re pitching to other venture funds to be LPs, say for $250K checks, larger funds (i.e. $1B fund) typically have fund allocations because check size is negligible. And a value add as deal flow for them at the A. Whereas, smaller funds don’t because it is a meaningful size of their fund. So, GPs write personal checks.
43/ If you’re planning to raise a fund, think of it like raising 10 Series A rounds. For most Series A rounds, a founder talks to about 50 investors. So for a Fund I, you’re likely to talk to 500 LPs to close one.
44/ Send potential LPs quarterly LP updates, especially institutions. Institutions will most likely not invest in your Fund I or II, but keep them up to date on the latest deals you’re getting into, so you’re primed for Fund III.
45/ Family offices want to get in top funds but most can’t because top funds have huge waitlists. Yet they still want access to the same deals as top funds get access to. They’re in learning mode. Your best sell to family offices is, therefore, to have:
Tier 1 investors as your fund’s LPs
Tier 1 investors as co-investors
Deals that they wanted to get into anyway
46/ Your Fund I LPs are going to be mostly individual angels. They believe in you and your promise, and are less worried about financial returns.
47/ Institutional LPs are looking for returns and consistency. If you say you’ll do 70% core checks and 30% discovery checks, they’re checking to see if you stick to it. Institutions aren’t in learning mode, instead you as a fund manager fit into a very specific category in their portfolio. Subsequently, you’re competing with other funds with similar foci/theses as you do.
48/ Be transparent with your IRRs. If you know you have inflated IRRs due to massive markups that are annualized, let your (potential) LPs know. For early stage, that’s probably 25-30%+. Especially when you’re in today’s frothy market (timestamped Jan 2022). Or as Jason Calacanis says it for his first scout fund that had crazy IRRs, “It’s only down from here.”
49/ Don’t waste a disproportionate amount of time convincing potential LPs about the viability of your thesis. Shoot for folks who can already see your vision. If you manage to convince an LP that didn’t previously agree, they may or may not end up micromanaging you if your thesis doesn’t work out as “expected.” Inspired by Elizabeth Yin.
50/ “The irony for us was LPs asking about portfolio construction was a sign that the meeting was going poorly.” – Jarrid Tingle.
51/ Institutional LPs prefer you to have a concentrated startup portfolio – less than 30 companies. They already have diversification across funds, so they’re maximizing the chance that their portfolio has fund returners. That said, you’re probably not raising institutional capital until Fund III. Inspired by Jarrid Tingle.
52/ If you’re an emerging manager with a fund is less than 4 years old, boasting high IRR (i.e. 50%+) is meaningless to sophisticated and institutional LPs. Focus on real comparative advantages instead. – Samir Kaji.
53/ When raising early checks from LPs, ask for double the minimum check size. Some LPs will negotiate down, and when they only have to commit half of what they thought they had to, they leave feeling like they won.
54/ When potential LPs aren’t responding to your follow ups/LP updates, send one more follow up saying: “I am assuming you are not interested in investing into our fund. If I am wrong, please let me know or else this will be your last update.” Told to me by a Fund III manager who used this as her conversion strategy.
55/ It’s easier to have larger checkwriters ($500K+) commit than smaller checkwriters (<$100K). $500K is a much smaller proportion of larger checkwriters’ net worth than checkwriters who write $100K checks. And as such, smaller checkwriters write less checks, have less “disposable income”, and push back/negotiate a lot more with fund managers before committing. Told to me by a Fund III manager.
Fund strategy/management
56/ As an investor, if you want to maintain your ownership, you have to continue requesting pro-rata rights at each round.
58/ “Opportunity funds are pre-established blind pool vehicles that eliminate the timing issues that come with deal-by-deal SPVs. Opportunity funds sometimes have reduced economics from traditional 2/20 structures, including management fees that are sometimes charged on deployed, not committed capital. Unlike individual SPVs, losses from one portfolio company in an opportunity fund offset gains from another when factoring in carried interest.” – Samir Kaji. See the full breakdown of pros and cons of opportunity funds here.
59/ There are two ways to generate alphas.
Get in early.
Go to where everyone else said it’ll rain, but it didn’t. Do the opposite of what people do. That said, being in the non-consensus means you’ll strike out a lot and it’ll be hard to find support.
60/ Sometimes being right is more important than being in the non-consensus. Inspired by Kanyi Maqubela.
Market risk as a function of ownership – What is the financial upside if exit happens? Is it meaningful enough to the fund size?
Judgment risk – Are you picking the right companies?
Win rate risk – How can you help your portfolio companies win? What is your value add?
62/ By Fund III, you should start having institutional capital in your investor base.
63/ The closer you get to investing in growth or startups post-product-market fit, the closer your capital is to optimization capital. Founders will likely succeed with or without you, but your name on the cap table will hopefully get them there faster and more efficiently.
64/ If you’re a traditional venture fund, you have to invest in venture-qualifying opportunities, like direct startup investments. But you can invest up to 20% of your fund’s capital in non-venture-qualifying opportunities, like tokens/SAFTs (simple agreement for future tokens), real estate, secondaries, and so on.
65/ If increased multiples coming out of various vintage funds, feel free to deviate from the normal 2-20. Many funds have 25 or 30% carry now, or accelerators where 20% scales with multiples (and often with a catch-up back to 1.0x at higher carry). – Samir Kaji
66/ Normally, fund managers take 2% management fees, usually over 10 years, totaling 20% over the lifetime of the fund. These days, I’m seeing a number of emerging managers take larger management fees over less years. For example, 10% as a one-off. Or 5% over 2-3 years.
67/ “The razor I apply to investing and startups is that every decision that increases your probability of wild outlier success should also increase your probability of total failure. If you want to be a shot at being a 10x returning fund? You’ll have to take on the higher likelihood of being a 1x. If you think you’re going to build the next Stripe? You’re going to have to run the risk of going nowhere.” – Finn Murphy
69/ The longer you delay/deprioritize having diverse partners, the harder it’ll be to hire your first one.
Advising founders/executives
70/ A founder’s greatest weakness is his/her/their distraction. Don’t contribute to the noise.
71/ It’s far more powerful to ask good questions to founders than give “good answers”. The founders have a larger dataset about the business than you do. Let them connect the dots, but help them reframe problems through questions.
72/ You are not in the driver’s seat. The founder is.
73/ A great reason for not taking a board seat is that if you disagree with the founders, disagree privately. Heard from a prolific late-stage VC.
74/ Advice is cheap. Differentiate between being a mentor and an ally. Mentors give free advice when founders ask. Allies go out of their way to help you. Be an ally.
75/ The best way to be recognized for your value-add is to be consistent. What is one thing you can help with? And stick to it.
76/ Productize your answers. Every time a founder asks you a question, it’s likely others have the same one. Build an FAQ. Ideally publicly.
77/ If you have the choice, always opt to be kind rather than to be nice. You will help founders so much more by telling them the truth (i.e. why you’re not excited about their business) than defaulting on an excuse outside of their control (i.e. I need to talk with my partners or I’ve already deployed all the capital in this fund). While the latter may be true, if you’re truly excited about a founder and their product, you’ll make it happen.
78/ Help founders with their firsts. It doesn’t have to be their first check, but could also be their first hire, engineer, office space, sale, co-founder, team dispute, and so on.
79/ There are four big ways you can help founders: fundraising, hiring, sales pipeline, and strategy. Figure out what you’re good at and double down on that.
80/ Focus on your check-size to helpfulness ratio (CS:H). What is your unique value add to founders that’ll help them get to their destination faster? Optimize for 5x as a VC. 10x as an angel.
81/ “The job of a board is to hire and fire the CEO. If you think I’m doing a bad job, you should fire me. Otherwise, I’m gonna have to ask you to stay out of my way.” – Frank Slootman to Doug Leone after he was hired as CEO of ServiceNow.
SPVs and syndicates
82/ The top syndicates out there all have 3 traits:
Great team
Great traction
Tier 1 VC
If your deal has all of the above, and if you raise on AngelList, your deal is shared with the Private Capital Network (PCN), which AngelList’s own community of LPs and investors, a lot of which are family offices, who allocate at lest $500K of capital per year.
83/ If you’re raising an AngelList syndicate, you need to raise a minimum of $80K or else the economics don’t really make sense. AL charges an $8K fee.
84/ If you want to include Canadian investors in your syndicate, for regulation purposes, you need to invest 2% of the allocation size or $10K.
85/ Investing a sizeable check as a syndicate lead (e.g. $10K+) is good signal for conviction in the deal, and often gets more attention.
86/ 99% of LPs in syndicates want to be passive capital because they’re investing in 50 other syndicates. You can build relationships individually with them over time, but don’t count on their strategic value.
87/ Historically, smaller checkwriters take up 99% of your time. Conversely, your biggest checkwriters will often take up almost no time. Even more true for syndicates.
88/ LPs don’t care for deals where syndicate leads have time commitment without cash commitment.
89/ Don’t give LPs time to take founders’ time. Most of the time LPs don’t ask good questions, so it’s not worth the effort to set up time for each to meet with founders individually. On the other hand, a good LP update would be to host a webinar or live Q&A session. One to many is better than one to one.
90/ There’s a lot of cannibalism in the syndicate market. The same LPs are in different syndicates.
91/ Choose whether you will or will not send LP updates. Set clear expectations on LP updates. And if you do, stick to that cadence. The people who write you the $1-5K checks are often the loudest and demand monthly updates. If you choose not to, one of my favorite syndicate leads says this to their LPs, “We won’t give any LP updates. I’ve done my diligence, and I won’t give information rights. I have a portfolio of hundreds of deals, and I can’t be expected to give deal-by-deal updates every month or every quarter. So if you are investing, just know you’re along for the ride.” Some LPs won’t like that and won’t invest, but mentioning that upfront will save you from a whole lot of headaches down the road.
92/ If you’re setting up an SPV to solely invest in a fund (or where more than 40% of the SPV is going into the fund), all your SPVs can’t against the 249 LPs cap on a fund <$10M and a 99 cap on a fund >$10. But you can invest in funds if you’re setting up an SPV to invest in more than one fund. Context from Samir Kaji and Mac Conwell.
Evergreen/Rolling funds
93/ Just like vintage years/funds are important for traditional funds, vintage quarters matter to your LPs. If they didn’t give you capital during, say Q2 of 2021, when you invested in the hottest startup on the market, your Q1 and your Q3 LPs don’t have access to those returns.
94/ Whereas GPs typically make capital calls to their LPs every 6 months, AngelList’s Rolling Funds just institutionalized the process by forcing GPs to make capital calls every 3 months.
Angel investing
95/ “The best way to get deal access isn’t to be great with founders—it’s to have other investors think you’re great with founders. Build a high NPS with investors, since they have meaningfully more reach than an operator. But of course, fight hard to be great with founders too or else this will all crash down.” – Aaron Schwartz
96/ Make most of your personal mistakes on your own money as an angel (before you raise a fund).
97/ When you’re starting off, be really good at one thing. Could be GTM, growth, product, sales hires, etc. Make sure the world knows the one thing you’re good at. From there, founders and investors will think of you when they think of that one thing. Unless you’re Sequoia or a16z, it’s far better to be a specialist than a generalist if you want to be top of mind for other investors sharing deal flow.
98/ “As an angel investor, it’s more important to be swimming in a pool of good potential investments than to be an exceptionally good picker. Obviously if you’re able to be both, it’s better 🙂 but if you had to choose between being in a position to see great deals and then picking randomly, or coming across average deals and picking expertly, choose the former.” – Jack Altman
99/ “Just like the only way to get good at wine is to drink a lot of wine. The only way to get good at investing is to see a lot of deals.” – Lo Toney.
Disclaimer: None of this is investment advice. This content is for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. Please consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
From market risk to product risk to execution risk, I’ve written many a time the types of risks a founder takes, including here, here, and here. As well as shared that the first and foremost question founders need to answer is: What is the biggest risk of this business? Subsequently, is the person who can solve the biggest risk of this business in the room (or on the team slide)?
Over the weekend, I heard an incredible breakdown of the other side of the table. Rather than the founder, the three types of risks an investor takes. The same of which need to be addressed for LPs to invest. From Kanyi Maqubela on Venture Unlocked.
Market risk as a function of ownership
Judgment risk
Win rate risk
Market risk as a function of ownership
If you’re investing in an consensus market – be it hot, growing, and is garnering a lot of attention, you don’t need a huge percentage. I mentioned before that every year there are only 20 companies that matter. And the goal of a great VC is to get into one of these 20 companies. Ownership doesn’t matter. Even 1% of a $10B outcome is a solid $100 million.
On the other hand, if you’re in a small or non-consensus market, you need a meaningful ownership to justify your bets. For the same $100 million return, you need to maintain 10% at the time of a unicorn exit.
Going back to economics 101, revenue is price multiplied by quantity. Revenue in this case is your returns, your DPI, or your TVPI. Price is the valuation of the business. Quantity is how much you own in that business. Valuation, as a function of market size, and percent ownership are inversely proportional to reach the same returns. The smaller the market, the more ownership matters. The bigger the market, the less it matters.
Judgment risk
At the top of the funnel, the job of any investor is to pick or to get picked. I’ll take the latter first. Getting picked is often far less risky. But far harder to get allocations for, especially if you’re a fund that has ownership targets, vis a vis the market risk above. At the same time, the larger your check size, the harder it is to squeeze into the round.
To generate alphas from picking, there are two ways:
Get in early.
Go to where everyone else said it’ll rain, but it didn’t. Do the opposite of what people do. That said, being in the non-consensus means you’ll strike out a lot and it’ll be hard to find support.
The question to ask yourself here is: What do you know that other investors are overlooking, underestimating, or altogether not seeing? And how did you reach that conclusion as a function of your experience and analysis?
As Kanyi said on the podcast, “We think we’ve got unusually good judgment and nobody else likes this, but we like it for reasons that are unfair.” The unfair part is key.
Win rate risk
Win rate risk breaks down to what unique advantage you, as an investor, bring to the table that will help the company win. In simpler terms, what is your value add? Of the businesses you say “yes” to, can you increase the number of those who win? As an early-stage investor – angel or VC, there are four main ways an investor can help founders:
Access to downstream capital or capital from strategic investors
Access to talent – How can you increase the output of the business?
Sales pipeline – How can you help grow revenue directly?
Strategy – Do you have unique insight into the industry, business model, product, GTM, or team management that will meaningfully move the business forward?
In closing
If you’re an investor, I hope you found the above as useful of a reframing as I did. If you’re a founder reading this, I often find it useful to stand in the shoes of your investors. And in understanding how your investors think, you can better formulate your pitch that’ll align your collective incentives.
The conversation around risk management, at the end of the day, is a conversation of prevention. A realm of prevention while useful to hedge your bets is a strategy to not lose. It’ll help your LPs find comfort in investing dollars into you. But to truly stand as a signal above the rest and to win, you have to look where other investors aren’t. The non-obvious. Specifically the non-obvious that’ll become obvious one day. And you have to do so consistently.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
In the venture world, there’s this concept of the anti-portfolio. A portfolio for incredible startups you had the chance to invest in, but chose to pass on. Usually the startups that qualify to be in this anti-portfolio have already reached mainstream – either having gone public and/or have reached unicorn status. For anti-portfolio references, I highly recommend checking out Bessemer‘s or tuning into Samir Kaji’s Venture Unlocked podcast, where he asks each guest about their anti-portfolio.
But having chatted with a number of incredible investors, what’s more important than names on an excel sheet is the lesson or lessons we take away from passing on the greats. Those lessons are the very answer to one of the most insightful questions an LP (limited partner) can ask. “How does your anti-portfolio advise your current investment thesis?”
In a similar way, life is a mixed bag of engineered serendipity and endured scar tissue. Our past mistakes inform our future decisions. You learn how to handle kitchen cutlery after cutting yourself a few times. You learn to walk after stumbling. And you learn to communicate after making a fool of yourself. We are a product of the scar tissue we’ve accumulated.
I’m in my first inning in the venture world, and admittedly, way too early to have any true hall-of-famers in my anti-portfolio. So rather than looking into the past from the present, I thought I’d look into the “past” from the future. A “past” that has yet to come, but will be defining of my future. Something Mike Maples Jr calls backcasting. Starting from the future and making my way back to today, along the way, figuring out what I need to do to get to that future. If you’ve been following this blog for a while, you know I’m a big fan of his mental model. “The future doesn’t happen to us; it happens because of us. […] Breakthrough builders are visitors from the future, telling us what’s coming.”
Rather than what startups are in my anti-portfolio, what startups would I love to have in my anti-portfolio?
On a similar note, for non-investors: Ten years from now, what are mistakes you’d want to have made that you tell yourself that it was a decade well-spent?
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.
Subscribe to more of my shenaniganery. Warning: Not all of it will be worth the subscription. But hey, it’s free. But even if you don’t, you can always come back at your own pace.
Though I’ve spent a minute in venture capital, I’ve never raised a fund. So I’m not going to pretend I know everything. Because I don’t. Every single idea here is one I’ve borrowed from someone with more miles on their odometer in this industry.
When does an emerging fund manager turn into an emerged fund manager? I’ve always heard the general rule of thumb is by Fund III. But in all honesty, I took that for granted and never knew why.
“The other [successful trait in fund managers] that we see a lot of is really having a defined strategy, and really sticking to it and executing on it. Straying away from your strategy is one of the best ways to create issues for you down the road. Yes, it might be successful and it might create returns for you today, but it will create difficulties down the road when you’re looking to raise that next fund. Because that’s what you’re selling to me at the end of the day.
“Fund I, basically what you’re selling is a promise. You’re selling a dream. You’re selling the concept around the strategy.
“Fund II, you’re selling the execution on that strategy. Depending at what stage you’re investing at, for the most part, you’re not going to have returns to be pointing to. You’re going to be selling your ability to execute on that strategy.
“Fund III, you’re selling the returns on Fund I.”
Samir then follows up: “Fund III’s are the hardest [to raise] because by then, it’s four, five, six years in and you have to show something. It is return-based.”
Phil Libin, co-founder and CEO of All Turtles, mmhmm, and Evernote, and former Managing Director at General Catalyst, in his recent interview with Tyler Swartz, said: “We don’t need scale to make a good product, in fact, it’s a distraction if you focus on scale prematurely.” In venture, your fund is your product. And like an entrepreneur, an emerging manager shouldn’t worry about scaling the size of their fund in the Fund I and II days. Stay small. Focus on delivering on the strategy and promise you made to your LPs. After all, it’s much easier to return a $10M fund than it is to return a $100M fund. Especially since a 3-5x multiple means you’re just average these days. As Mike Maples Jr. of Floodgate says, “Your fund size is your strategy.”
By the time you get to Fund III, you now have a track record of financial return (or not). And by then, you and the market should have a good idea if you have a longer time horizon in venture or not.
And even if not, many former VCs go back to the operating side of the table, armed with the knowledge, skills, and relationships they gain on the VC side.
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!
I want to preface this piece by first saying, though I have LP (limited partner) friends, I’ve never been an LP. So take everything with a grain of salt. For that matter, even I have been an LP, still take this with a grain of salt. After all it’s just my one perspective on the world. Nevertheless, I hope this perspective helps to provide some context around the venture space. As it did for me.
For years, I’ve recommended my friends who were looking at startup job opportunities to think like a VC. And having chatted a number of firms over the years about scout, associate/analyst, venture partner roles, I’ve come to a new revelation. Or rather one that I’ve practiced for a while, but haven’t connected the dots until recently.
When you’re looking for VC job opportunities, think like an LP. I’ve written about the LP calculus a few times before, like:
The bull and bear case of rolling funds, and how the emerging fund manager can win in this saturated market
How have you thought about your own differentiation that gets you access to some of the uniquely fund-defining opportunities you have?
What are the startups in your anti-portfolio? And what have you learned since from them?
[if their funds are wildly different in fund size (i.e. Fund I – $20M, Fund II – $100M)] How do you think about fund strategy now versus Fund [t_now-1]?
For context, usually each subsequent fund doubles in size. i.e. Fund I $20M, Fund II $40-50M, Fund III $80-100M
[If they have fund advisors, EIRs, and/or scouts] How do you pick advisors? What is your mental model for picking scouts?
Or one of my favorite phrasings: How do you differentiate the good from the great [advisors/scouts]?
Over the weekend, my friend sent me a great podcast for me to unwind. In it, I found an unlikely hero soundbite. “Your library holds a lot of value that you may not know until the story arrives. […] No one’s selling characters ’cause they’re one story away from this character becoming a hit.” While its context is related to why Marvel won’t sell any of its superheroes, Alex Segura‘s, co-president of Archie Comic Publications, anecdote proves just as insightful to the world of venture.
Discovering first-time early-stage founders is hard. The same is true for finding the next killer GP or venture firm. AngelList’s Rolling Funds are democratizing access to capital, lowering the barrier to entry for emerging fund managers. And really the success of a fund is determined by its MOIC – multiple on invested capital. 5x and up would be ideal. And that, like I mentioned in my last blogpost, boils down to the fund’s top one or two winners. Loosely analogized to a fund’s unicorn rate (percent of portfolio that are unicorns). In other words, the “one [investment] away from this [fund] becoming a hit.”
To see if a fund can consistently find those stories boils down to its systems. Often times, you’re joining a fund that has yet to have a runaway success. Or a fund that has a fund returner. So, instead, you’re looking at their thesis and if their thesis allows them to be:
The best dollar on the cap table of a startup in their scope
Forward-thinking enough to see where the market is heading, rather than where it’s been
And by definition of being forward-thinking, taking bets/risks that few other VCs would, yet calculated enough to make logical sense given the trajectory of the market. In other words, is the thesis grounded on first principles, yet able to capture their second-order effects?
That, in turn, requires you as a VC applicant to have decent literacy in the market the firm is betting in.
As James Clear, author of Atomic Habits, wrote, “You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems.” What are their mental models? Fund strategy? How do they think about portfolio construction? About capital allocation? And more importantly, time allocation?
If you’re looking to learn more about GP-LP dynamics, I highly recommend Samir Kaji’s Venture Unlocked podcast and Notation Capital’s Origins podcast.
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!
Founders often ask me, what slides on my pitch deck do I have to make sure I get right? The short answer, all of them. Then again, if you’re focusing on all of them, you’re focusing on none of them. So I’ll break it down by fundraising stages:
Pre-seed/seed (might as well include angels here too)
Series A/B
Since I spend almost no time in the later stages, I’ll refrain from extrapolating from any anecdotes there.
If you’re using DocSend, you already have the numbers for your deck viewership in front of you. As DocSend’s CEO Russ Heddleston said in his interview with Jason Calacanis, VCs often spend ~3.5 minutes on your deck. Though I’ve never timed myself, it seems to be in the same ballpark for myself as well. After all, it’s the deck that gets the meeting, not the deck that determines if you get funding or not.
Nevertheless, I hope the below contextualizes the time spent beyond the numbers, and what goes on in an investor’s head when we’re skimming through.
Pre-seed/seed
Team
What is the biggest risk this business is taking on?
Is the person who can address the biggest risk of this business on this slide?
And does this person have decision-making power?
Let’s say your biggest risk is that you’re creating a market where there isn’t one. Do you have that marketing/positioning specialist – either yourself or on your team – to tackle this problem? As much as I love techies, three CS PhDs are going to give me doubts.
Similarly, the biggest risk for a hypothetical enterprise SaaS business is often a sales risk. Then I need proof either via your network/experience or LOIs (letters of intent) that you have corporations who will buy your product.
Or if it’s a tech risk, I’ll be hesitant if I see two MBAs pursuing this. Even if their first hire is an ML engineer, who owns 2% of the business. Because it doesn’t sound like the one person who can solve the biggest risk for the business has been given the trust to make the decisions that will move the needle.
This might be a bit controversial, but having talked with several VCs, I know I’m not alone here. I don’t care about quantity – number of years in the industry or at X company. Maybe a little more if you were a founding team member who helped scale a startup to $100M ARR. I do care for quality – your earned secret, which bleeds into the next slide.
Solution/product
The million-dollar question here is: What do you know that makes money that everyone else is overlooking, underestimating, or just totally missed? If you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you’ll be no stranger to this question. I’ve talked about it here and here, just to name a few.
Or in other words, having spent time in the idea maze, what is your earned secret? Here are two more ways of looking at it is:
Is there an inflection point you found, as Mike Maples Jr. of Floodgate calls it, in the socio-economic/technological trends that makes the future you speak of more probable?
Is it a process/mental model that you’ve built over X years in the industry that grafts extremely well to an adjacent or a broader industry?
I believe that’s what’ll greatly increase the chances of your startup winning. Or at least hold your incumbents at bay until you reach product-market fit. If you’re able to find the first insight, then you’ll be able to find the second. And by pattern recognition, you’ll be able to find the third, fourth, and fifth in extreme velocity. It’s what we, on the VC side, call insight development. And your product/solution is the culmination of everything you and your team has learned faster and better than your competitors.
Of course, your product still has to address your customers’ greatest pain points. You don’t have to be the best at everything, but you have to be the best (or the only) one who can solve your customers’ greatest frustration. So VCs, in studying how you plot out the user journey, look for: do you actually solve what you claim this massive problem in the market is?
Series A/B
Traction
What are your unit economics? I’m looking for something along the lines of LTV:CAC ~3-5x.
Who’s paying?
For enterprise, which big logo is your customer? And who are your 5-7 referenceable customers?
For consumer:
If it’s freemium, what percent of premium users do you have? I’m looking for at least a 3-5% here.
If your platform is free, how are people paying with their time? DAU/MAU>25-30%? Is your virality coefficient k>1? 30- and 90-day retention cohorts > 20%, ideally 40%.
What does your conversion funnel look like? What part of the funnel are you really winning? Subsequently, what might you need more work on?
The competition
95 out of every 100 decks, I see two kinds of competitor slides:
2×2 matrix/Cartesian graph, where the respective startup is on the upper right hand corner
The checklist, where the respective startup has all the boxes checked and their competitors have some percentage of the boxes checked
Neither are inherently wrong in nature, but they give rise to two different sets of questions.
The former, the graph, often leads to the trap of including vanity competitors. For the sake of populating the graph, founders include the logos of companies who hypothetically could be their competitors, but when it comes down to reality, they never or rarely compete on a deal with their target user/customer. April Dunford, author of Obviously Awesome, calls these “theoretical competitors.”
A simple heuristic is if you jumped on a call with a customer right now and ask: “What would you use currently if our solution did not exist?”, would the names of the competitors you listed actually pop up during the call? Or with a potential customer, what did they use before you arrived? For enterprise software, Dunford says that startups usually lose 25% of their customers when the answer to the above question is “nothing”. When your greatest incumbent is a habitual cycle deeply engrained in your user’s behavior, you need to either reposition your solution, or find ways to educate the market and greatly reduce the friction it takes to go from 0 to 60.
The latter, the checklist, usually sponsors a second kind of trap – vanity features. Founders often list a whole table’s worth of “awesome features” that their competitors don’t have, but many of which may not resolve a customer’s frustration. And on the one that does, their competitors have already taken significant market share. The key question here: Do all features listed resolve a fundamental problem your customers/users have? Which are necessary, which are nice-to-have’s? Are you winning on the features that solve fundamental problems?
The question I ask, as it pertains to competition, in the first or second meeting is: What are your competitors doing right? If you were to put yourself in your competitor’s shoes, what did they ace and what can you learn from the success of their experiment?
Financial projections
What are you basing the numbers off of?
What are your underlying assumptions?
How fast do you claim you can double the business growth? Is it reasonable? If we’re calculating bottom-up, can you actually sell the number of units/subscriptions you claim to? What partnerships/distribution channels are you already in advanced talks with? Anything further than 2 years out, for the most part, VCs dismiss. The future is highly unpredictable. And the further out it is, the less likely you’re able to predict that.
I also say financial projections for Series A/B decks is because only with traction can you reasonably predict what the 12-month forward revenue is going to look like. Maybe 18 months, depending on your pending contracts as well. In the pre-seed/seed, when you’re still testing out the product with small set of beta users, it’s hard to predict. And pre-seed/seed decks that have projections without much traction are often heavily scrutinized than their counterparts that don’t have that slide.
In closing
Of course, that doesn’t mean you should neglect any slide on your deck. Rather, the above is just a lens for you to see which slides an investor might allocate special attention to. If you can answer the above questions well in your pitch deck, then you’re one step closer to a winning strategy not only in fundraising, but in building a company that will change the world.
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!
