The most interesting / useful survey of LPs allocating to emerging VC managers that i have come across - courtesy of @Samirkaji and @Beezer232 (with some observations in thread) - pevcbanker.com/lp-survey-resu…
2/ “established” VCs seek super stable sources of capital and hence seek out endomwments and pension funds who invest across multiple cycles and take time to build very long term relationships
3/ and these investors because of their size are often ill suited to smaller managers, effectively shutting them out of this market segment, except for the view who have active “small tickets” emerging manager programmes
4/ Fund of funds suffered from a trope whereby many investors considered “fees on fees” players were destined to disappear - this hasn’t panned out in any meaningful way
5/ Fund-of-funds have continued to justify their existence through selective investor management and by being good partners to the VC they back - nowhere is this truer than in the emerging manager segment
6/ Fund-of-funds tend to know the VC market inside out and provide good validation to emerging managers (in the absence of the world’s most sophisticated endowments, of course)
7/ in particular they provide much needed comfort to family offices - who have desire to be exposed to tech investments but have much less visibility on and experience of venture managers
8/ the task of selecting venture managers is hard - it’s an incredibly undifferentiated product from the outside and most VCs are decent at selling themselves - especially in Europe where so few have track record
9/ vertical focus by VCs is often a legit strategy but it’s as often used to “tick the LP box” - anyone who says they invest in SaaS + marketplaces + emerging tech + companies with network effects / accreting data plays ... basically covers the whole market
10/ as noted in this survey - the direct co-investment strategy is now a major trend - I’m curious to see how this plays out as brand-name VCs fight with internal syndicates on later stage rounds 🤔
11/ As with most things I revert to first principles - who are the best entrepreneurs going to choose as their funding partners ? This game is about being picked as much as it is about picking.
12/ and a big question for LPs especially family offices is : how do I keep getting access to the best emerging managers as they mature and started getting approached by the best FOF and endowments ? /EOT
unroll please
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Quick high level advice for founders on fundraising material. The five elements of data you need for fundraising, and the "Notion alternative":
Core: The Everything Deck. Master deck you use for intros, pitching, "leave behind" and everything else. The one and only.
2/ One level down: The Narratives.
A set of subdocs that explain key elements of your business and address core areas of diligence. E.g. cohort analysis, GTM, product roadmap. Docs format easiest, think Amazon memos.
Make it easy for investors to copy / past from these.
3/ Two levels down: Underlying Data.
The Narratives are there so investors don't misunderstand your data or skim over it. It's dangerous IMHO to just drop investors into spreadsheets and hope they make sense it.
Step one : differentiate between "broker SPACs" (people trying to grab fees, shift risk and leave the building) and "sustainable SPACs" ( significant sponsor commits, are looking to build real businesses, stay in)
2/ Step two: check whether the net proceeds to the company are sufficient. Achilles heel of SPACs is uncertainty on redemptions.
You can possibly mitigate this like CAZOO did: $1BN SPAC on the side 🔥. That'd protected proceeds right there.
3/ Step three: manage your liquidity. Post IPO your float may be super thin as PIPE's investors are locked in and only the non-redeemed portion of the SPAC is trading.
This can stay with you for a long time and lead to volatility, market manipulation issues, depressed pricing.
@HarryStebbings and I started 50/50. I'm a big believer in taking economics off the table (who knows who will find the next Spotify?) and partnerships can destroy each other in endless economics discussions.
2/ It's not uncommon or absurd that the GP group keeps roughly 80% of the economics - that would be say 3 or 4 General Partners taking the majority of economics and "floating down" as they accept more general partners into the group
3/ How is carry quoted ? Carried interest is typically 20% of profits generated by the fund; this 20% is 100% of the carry pool. You can quote carry as an absolute percentage (5% carry), a percentage of the carry pool (5% carry is 25% of the carry pool) or in dollar terms.
2/ I’ve always believed that the skillset required to work with seed companies is on some dimensions fundamentally different from working at the later stages.
3/ Everything about seed companies is ambiguous: the people, the data, the level of product market fit, the GTM, the brand and messaging.