During an 18 hour flight to Singapore, I wrote about my 4 predictions for 2023. During my jet-lagged induced stupor, I forgot all about it until now. So, we few weeks delayed, here are four thoughts and predictions about the VC and tech market in 2023
#1a Hot take: For early stage companies, 2023 will NOT be a year where profitability trumps growth. That is only true for later stage businesses.
This will be a year where the cream rises to the top. And for early stage startups, that still means very very fast growth.
Early stage funding markets reward outliers. The outliers will be able to show explosive growth AND promising business fundamentals. Don't lure yourself into thinking that "ok" growth with solid economics will win over investors. It's won't.
And it's in soft markets that growth really stands out. With capital harder to come by and enterprises and consumers tightening their budgets, companies that can show stellar growth are that much more rare and attractive.
#2: This is the year recruit transformational talent
The downside of hot markets is that talent becomes incredibly challenging attract and retain. So, the flip side is that 2023 will be an amazing year to bring on a few really key hires that you know are truly committed.
There were a lot more startup mercenaries out there the last few years chasing the promise of riches over mission and growth. That will shift this year.
We've already started seeing this in our portfolio. Some great talent was stuck in large unicorns because the financial incentives were so extraordinary. Many planned to return to earlier stage companies at some point, and this market is accelerating that decision
TLDR - your dream hire may be more attainable now than they have ever been. And their best alternatives are probably less attractive than they have been in a long time.
#3 Times will continue to be tough for non-software, non B2B businesses. But it will also be easier to be contrarian.
As I have said many times over the last few months, the strike zone for most investors has gotten very very narrow. That's unlikely to change.
Underwriting improved margins and unit economics for unprofitable SaaS companies is hard enough, and investors don't want to do any additional work to try to underwrite additional risk around hardware, services, human labor, consumer preferences, paid acquisition channels, etc.
Also, the public market comps for all growth companies is 💩 but for companies that aren't pure software, it's 💩💩💩
But I think in a sneaky way, it will easier to stand out as a contrarian company this year.
The challenge during frothy times is that unnatural things start to happen funded by excess capital. It’s harder for a contrarian product or GTM approach to stand out when more conventional companies suck all the air out of the room with their massive budgets.
When the market is less frenzied, creative experiments actually have some room to shine. Investors will have time to be more thoughtful and discerning and will have a better chance of appreciating a company that is showing unusual promise because of a contrarian approach.
#4: The captain obvious prediction: we are going to have a massive AI Bubble.
I remember 2013-15 as peak AI. Every company attached “AI” to their pitch. In 99% of the cases, that “AI” was just software and algorithms. It was artificial and not intelligent and most companies didn’t have anywhere near the datasets required to do anything interesting.
2023 will be the year of AI again, powered by OpenAI and others. This will be a total bubble! Companies will be funded that create a very light UI layer on top of these models, which will be really cool and gain some traction, but will fail to create truly defensible value
Lots of capital will pour into these companies and some businesses that barely leverage AI will put AI front and center in their offerings. Many hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost around around this hype cycle.
But I'm actually quite bullish overall.
I liken this bubble to the Web2.0 bubble or maybe the initial frenzy around cloud computing. Lots of money will be lost and many failures will occur (some very high profile). But some generational companies will also be built. And this will be fertile ground for years.
I actually think that this might be the first time in my career where I actually love the potential of a market more than I hate the hype. I wish that this area was more of a secret, but it's not, and It's up to us to figure out how best to approach it.
So, those are my thoughts for 2023. Only a few weeks late, but hopefully not too stale! I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was speaking to a founder that I've known for nearly a decade yesterday. We shared some personal struggles with each other, and it got me thinking about the nature of founder and investor relationships and how that changed over the last several years.
I believe that the exuberance of the last few years coupled with the change in work styles due to the pandemic has led to the most fragile and perhaps toxic investor/founder relationships that we've ever seen.
The primary driver is actually the belief that successful VC investing is easy. Unicorns were named because they were supposed to be rare. But in recent years, the belief is that they are everywhere. A $1B exit is chump change... $10B+ exits are cool.
I started in VC in 2007. When I learned the business, there were a lot of rules of thumb that I found arbitrary.
Looking back, I realize that many of these made sense because they were formed during a much tougher market environment. Long 🧵
Below are few of these old "rules of thumb" that I've been thinking about recently. I personally hate overly dogmatic thinking, but there are some lessons to be learned.
In some ways, I think what's old will be new again. But some things are old and should just stay old :)
First, "build a strong syndicate". Even though funds were reasonably big back in 2007, VC's really liked to partner with other funds to syndicate early stage rounds. Part of it was that pricing allowed for this from an ownership perspective. But part of it was defensive.
The last six months has been really rough for venture backed startups. It has been the toughest funding environment since the GEC, outside of the first couple months post Covid.
I hate to say it, but the next 6-9 months will likely be worse. Most companies had a tough time fundraising this year, but didn't see significant business headwinds.
But demand is going to be soft for most companies, and the fundraising market will still be very tough.
For mature companies, slower growth but greater profitability will be rewarded.
But for early stage companies, I don't think the answer is to grow most slowly. Early stage investors are still looking for outlier opportunities.
I've probably talked to 100+ YC founders over the years. A lot of VC's get frustrated when speaking to YC companies, but I generally admire them. There are clearly some best practices that are inculcated into YC companies. Here are a few that I think are worth learning from:
1. YC founders go broad and hard when fundraising. They move with a massive sense of urgency to find true believers. They assume that most investors aren't interested unless proven otherwise, and thus, their funnels are larger than >80% of other founders at the same stage.
2. YC founders are pretty ruthless with their time. They don't feel the need to fill an hour in a first meeting. Usually, both parties figure out if they want to take a next step within 20 minutes. The best YC founders find a way to do this without seeming too transactional.
One fundraising approach that is often suggested is to "test the waters" when a founder is on the fence about a fundraise.
The idea is to speak to a handful of potential investors to get some feedback with the hope that someone bites.
The rationale goes something like this:
"It's unclear how the market will respond to our company at this moment, but we know that we would take capital now at a fair price. So let's run a tight process to get feedback without burning a lot of time".
You always hear about startups being vitamins or painkillers. But I think there is an important third option that is often neglected.
The third option is to be a recreational drug. Quick🧵
For startups, you are a painkiller if you solve an urgent need🤕. You are a vitamin if you provide value, but are something your customers feel they can live without.
In either case, a startup can also be recreational drug. Something that is fun and addictive to use 🤩.
A startup that is a recreational drug taps into some of the more primal emotions of its customers. FOMO. Ego. Greed, Fear. Pride.
The drug element might be core to the product, or it can be a way to get a flywheel going while a vitamin evolves into a painkiller.