Thanks Brian. These are the 6 criteria that top LPs use to select emerging managers.
We went through hundreds of data points (podcasts, videos, articles, etc.) from @Beezer232, @MKRocks, and @Samirkaji and illustrated them with practical examples.
Full report: https://t.co/KxvkXGraPG
Occasional setbacks are a part of trying ambitious stuff. Kudos to @JeffBezos for trying. I’m sure he will succeed next time. Try and fail but don’t fail to try
I called it the Emerging VC Conundrum: top performers are mostly Funds I/II, but selecting them is hard, as there are thousands of them and they have no track record.
I proposed a new approach to help LPs gain conviction: look at how they build their funds as entrepreneurs, and evaluate whether they have what it takes to catch outliers.
That’s what top LPs in this space do.
Research & report:
https://t.co/KxvkXGraPG
AI is coming and no sector will be spared.
Just attended @Stanford Breakthrough demo day. 23 Founders from top universities select out of 750+ applicants.
Even braiding hair will be AI-driven.
@daveclark85 Every GP I meet these days tells me how their 0.5x DPI after 2 years is top decile. They’re quite disappointed when I give them your and @Beezer232 stats.
It takes time to build great companies. LPs who are in a hurry to get liquidity should exit the asset clas.
@MartinGTobias Telling VCs they “have to” respond to emails is a sure way to get ignored.
VCs read signals and entitlement is rarely associated with entrepreneurial success.
Spartans who went to war used to braid their hair, exercise less rigorously, and generally endured less hardship than usual.
War represented a more relaxed period for them compared to their usual lives.
Reminds me of this guy:
https://t.co/PsfA5hemqZ
To become a better CEO, you don't need an MBA.
You need to play poker.
It'll teach you the art of decision-making under uncertainty.
You'll learn to detach from outcomes, think in probabilities, and manage risk.
You'll become a better investor.
Entrepreneurs rarely chase money in isolation. They seek to solve problems, prove themselves, improve their lives, or (sometimes) help others. They want validation, freedom, and a sense of purpose. Money often marks progress toward these deeper aims.
https://t.co/LP9Z5CYLNZ
Sure you can earn a billion dollars. I've been teaching people how to do it for 20 years. The way you do it is to start a company that grows fast. You don't have to do anything bad to make a company grow fast. You just have to make something people want.
https://t.co/zXWErQqlwV
VCs who want “coachable Founders” often overestimate the value of their advice.
Most entrepreneurs succeed despite bad advice they receive from others because they know how & when to filter.
How LPs view GP activity on social media:
- 98% say social media profiles of firm personnel are important when deciding to invest.
- 85% of LPs want to see personal statements about geopolitical or societal issues.
- 85% have decided not to allocate to a GP because of their social media content.
These survey responses raise questions about LP competence and fiduciary duty.
Allocation decisions should not be influenced by politics. Not just because it's a dumb idea, but also because it's known to be a drag on performance.
The case might be made that it's about "values alignment", but that should be understood through the GP's work, where those values are relevant.
It's unfortunately common for allocators (on both sides) to resort to comforting personal biases when making low-confidence qualitative judgements.
For example, research shows that VCs are also more likely to invest in founders with shared political views, and the result is higher failure rates and fewer exits.
It's one thing to use personal social media to DD key facts or check for malpractice, but using that content to guide investments is garbage in, garbage out.
tl;dr - The world would be a better place if allocators would just read a bit of Kahneman.
(In VCs defence, at least they are smart enough to not broadcast that bias.)