1/ Founders - should you be adding VC investors to your regular email updates? My recommendation is no.
2/ Say your typical VC receives 50-100 "actionable" emails per day and they take 10 seconds to 5 minutes to process, or 2 minutes on average.
A prioritising mind will hit delete without reading.
3/ In the meantime your regular updates, whilst super interesting to your *actual* investors, might be pretty mundane. Team hires, product improvements, the month to month of building your company.
4/ Worst case you're broadcasting your progress to competition, which distant VCs might well be looking at.
Not all of them will have the discipline not to forward your email, even though they will probably feel a pang of guilt.
5/ In my mind, much better to go silent, then re-engage in a personalised when the time is right.
- You can hopefully pack a lot of meaty progress in your update.
- You can address specific concerns they raised.
- You can trigger a real conversation on your terms.
6/ One important caveat would be an "investor tribe" who's met you and is collectively invested in your success, such as for example when you graduate from @techstars.
Other than that, I feel like it's an often made recommendation with low impact. But that's just me :-)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Ofsted downgraded my kids school, The American School in London, from "outstanding" to "requires improvement" - not meeting independent school standards.
The downgrade has to do with the lack of balance in the curriculum, which is being overwhelmed with Social Justice topics.
2/ The report highlights lack of balance where "teaching places more emphasis on the school’s social justice programme than on the acquisition of specific subject content"
3/ Alarmingly: "significant numbers in all parts of the
school said that they feel uncomfortable giving their viewpoints in class".
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.