Over-Done Diligence

The best laugh I’ve ever had in a meeting came courtesy of my buddy Gordon Ritter. For those who don’t know Gordon, he’s got this awesome and disarming zany earnestness that would probably make him the perfect guy with whom to watch Russian Dash Cam videos: “Did you see those cows tumble out of the truck when it tipped over?!? AND WALK AWAY LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED?!?!?!”

But I digress . . . it was the spring of 2003 and I was meeting with Gordon and his partners as they were raising Emergence’s first fund.   As the meeting was wrapping up, Gordon slid a piece of paper across the conference table: “our reference list,” he said. I had been in the LP biz for a couple of years at that point and was feeling pretty clever. “Well, I like to do off-list references,” I quipped. Looking serious, Gordon started to rummage around in his bag. After a few moments, he said, “I’ve got an off-list list in here somewhere . . . “ I must have looked completely bewildered as I stammered, “but then the ‘off-list’ would be ‘on list’ and I’d have to go off-off-list . . .” At that point, Gordon couldn’t bear it anymore and broke into a wide grin that gave us all permission to crack up in hysterics at the absurdity of what I’d said . . .

I thought of this story the other day while hanging out with my buddy David Katzman. Over dinner, we mused that it’s possible to do too much due diligence. David reminded me that Fred Wilson wrote a great blog post on this subject a couple of years back. Fred is famous for his gut and has an amazing hit rate on his intuition. Kaztman and I observed that, in contrast, it seems that some outsource their thinking to others by doing endless research. Indeed, having sat in front of a thick diligence binder, I’ve often thought that there are a lot of heuristics that are the enemy of good decisions. Confirmation bias is probably the most insidious of these, but overgeneralization is also pretty sinister, too. Sometimes it can be easy to forget that data is not the plural of anecdote.

I’ve learned by watching some of the best investors around that having a well-formed thesis simplifies investing: if you don’t have a good sense for what you’re seeking, how will you ever find it without boiling the ocean? Pasteur famously said, “in fields of observation, chance favors the prepared mind.” And very practice of developing a thesis helps you figure out what questions to ask and where the data sources, especially the orthogonal ones, lie. Classically practiced diligence mainly helps one manage conventional risks as seen through the prism of other people’s biases.

In having a prepared mind, investors should strive to develop opinions, a scarce resource in a hurried, reactive business. Oftentimes, the more diligence you do under the guise of “getting smart,” the more your mosaic of facts will resemble everyone else’s. But I guess that’s ok when for people who think it’s better to fail conventionally than it is to succeed unconventionally.

Of course, some people are ok with being copycats and there are folks that distill diligence to one call: to their favorite bell cow. At Old Ivy, we had a few folks who simply tried to index our portfolio. The problem with that approach is that they often couldn’t access the things we were most excited about, not to mention the fact that we were pursuing a strategy specifically tailored to our needs. Specifically, we were exploiting some unfair advantages that we had, especially low liquidity needs and long, long, long time horizon. Confounding matters further, when people called me to find out what we at Princeton were doing, I only shared my second-best ideas. Should I feel guilty?

Probably not. Too many people are intoxicated by opiate-like embrace of the crowd.  Indeed, taking the time to develop an opinion and resist FOMO takes courage and an investigators eye while the easy path relies on unfocused and reactive probing that captures more noise than signal because of poorly tuned antennae.  Robust non-conformists with the courage of their convictions tread through the thickets of embarrassment and career risk that come from being wrong and alone in search of fortune and glory. We make the road by walking it. Which path will you take?

 

 

The Circle of Life and the Exit Sphincter

An old saying goes: “in Silicon Valley, you’re never on your way up or down, you’re always coming around . . . “

It’s a great phrase because it captures the energetic movement of people around this sunny and magical land.   With enough success to give folks a sense of possibility — and just the right amount of failure to keep people moving — the dynamic system that is Silicon Valley nurtures a “pay it forward” culture that’s part long-standing way of life and part necessity.  It’s a place where people are urged to count the number of additional years they wish to work and divide by four (the number of years in a typical vesting schedule) to determine their remaining “shots on goal.”  And everyone seems to believe that favors today pay dividends tomorrow.

Continue Reading

Syndrome Syndrome

SyndromeYou know you’ve watched too much Pixar when your 10-year old can quote lines from Cars the way we all used to quote Caddyshack in college.  (Don’t get me started: I once decided it would be cheaper to rent Pixar flicks a couple of times each rather than buy them; needless to say I’m on the wrong side of that bet.)

And like many parents, my favorite film of the bunch is The Incredibles (aside from Big Hero 6, which I love because Baymax the soft robot reminds me of the cool stuff that my friends at OtherLab are working on.)

Continue Reading

Annex Shenanigans

GE
The word “annex” is a loaded one for me.  You see, junior year in college my buddies and I had a terrible room draw and the seven of us got sent to our dorm’s annex space on the freshman quad.  While I’d like to say that hilarity ensued – and, indeed, it did – living among an battalion of guileless freshmen and a platoon of fretful Senior Counselors sometimes made us feel like merry pranksters exiled to the Nanny State. 

Late one evening, one of our buddies found a box of circular fluorescent lights in an unlocked maintenance closet.  Inspired by a then-popular David Letterman skit that involved throwing things off of roofs, we found that GE Circlines made spectacular explosions when hitting the flagstone four stories below.  Needless to say, our Wanton Disregard for Souls and Property summoned our entryway’s Counselor, an earnest Midwestern pre-med major in late-night cold cream and pig tails.  Surveying our room with dismay, she turned to John Moussach (names changed to protect the guilty) and barked, “What the heck are you doing?”  His reply caused us grief in the hours and weeks ahead: “We’re drunk.  Care to join us?”  The post-midnight cleanup crew and subsequent work details to which we were conscripted combined with the ensuing stint on Double-Secret Probation to teach a valuable lesson: good times have limits.

And indeed, when I think about the current trend for small funds to raise Annex – or Opportunity – funds, the same thought crosses my mind: good times always have limits. 

For those who haven’t followed this trend, a bunch of smaller funds have raised annexes to provide capital to companies that are showing breakout potential.  An early and classically transparent one of these efforts was Union Square’s Opportunity Fund.  Another thoughtful effort was Foundry’s Select Fund.  Indeed, as both Fred Wilson and Brad Feld had discussed in their respective blog posts, there are many very good reasons for raising such a fund. 

Yet, there are reasons for LPs to be circumspect, as well.  It takes a lot of discipline for any kind of investor (but especially those in echo chambers) to not fall into a common trap: an opportunistic investment here or there can become a gateway drug to a full-blown addiction to capital-intensive late stage deals.  After all, many of the small funds that now are raising more money for larger follow-on, or later-stage investments once sang from the Capital Efficiency songbook and now risk contradicting the tune they sang for others since one of the greatest hits in that canon is, “Give an Entrepreneur a Dollar and They’ll Spend It.”  It’s the lyrical version of the Maples Rule: “a B-round will last a start-up 18 months, no matter how much or how little the investors put in.”

Then there’s the valuation question: throughout history, many investors have convinced themselves that some company was worth an outrageous price simply because a high-flying comp commanded a higher price.  I remember one of the first portfolio companies I met when I became an LP in 2001 – we’ll call them Spacely Sprockets  – had just raised a monster round at a ten-figure valuation.  A few years later, after the assets and intellectual property had been sold off for pennies to Cogswell Cogs, the VC backer justified the once reasonable, but obscene-in-retrospect valuation by saying that a large public comp was trading at a $60 billion valuation at the time and that the start-up’s post-money seemed reasonable in that context.  I’m sometimes prone to feeling like a value investor lost in the Valley, but I’m often reminded of the words of a mentor of mine from my pre-B-school hedge fund days: “it’s ok to fall in love with companies,” he admonished.  “Just don’t fall in love with the pieces of paper that represent ownership stakes in those companies, as the love those pieces of paper offer in return tends to be inversely correlated with price.”  It’s a lesson often forgotten during heady times.  Remember, good times have limits.

Lastly, there’s the Stephen Bochco Effect.  Just as Union Square Ventures and Foundry Group pioneered new areas, Bochco changed television.  He made dramas more gritty and real.  These shows had visceral impact because they showed real life in raw formats; in the service of art, Bochco was unafraid to show a buttock or drop a swear word.  The censors looked askance at such boundary pushing, but eventually acquiesced because the troubling content was consistent with the entirety of the tableau.  But once the floodgates opened, artless imitators picked up the standard and pushed boundaries for shock and effect, not art.  Thus, there’s a straight line from Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue to Jersey Shore and Naked Dating.  Financial markets have seen their fair share of “pioneering art” devolve into base commercialism with some regularity, so in the words of one of Bochco's most loved characters, Hill Street's Seargeant Phil Esterhaus, "Let's be careful out there!"

Scents in the Air

The economist Herbert Stein famously said, “trends that
can’t continue, won’t.”  That admonition
is often ignored, however, in the sunny and magical precincts of Silicon
Valley.  After all, it can be hard to
believe that trees do not grow to infinity when our redwoods fight a daily
skirmish against the clouds for dominance of the skies.

Yet the inexorable pull of gravity never fails to exert
itself and, perhaps, one such falling-to-earth moment seems to be at hand.  For several years now, fundraising by venture
capital firms has lagged the amount of capital that has been invested into
start-up companies.  Summarizing data
from the National Venture Capital Association’s fundraising surveys and Price
Waterhouse Coopers’ Money Tree Report, the chart below shows that for the last
several years, capital deployment has far outpaced funds raised by venture
capital firms.

 

Chart1

To be sure, fundraising and deployment do not represent an
entirely closed system, as angels, corporate funds, strategic investors, governments,
investment banks, and other entities often augment the money invested in start-up
companies by pure venture capitalists. 
Yet, a longer view, visualized in the following chart, supports the
notion that VC fundraising and capital deployment typically exist in a rough
equilibrium.

 

Chart2

In fact, since 1995, in fact, the amount of capital raised
by start-ups has exceeded the amount raised by venture firms by only 13.9%.  By contrast, since the beginning of 2009,
companies have raised fully 50% more dollars than the venture capital funds
that are their primary backers.  Of
course, some of this over-deployment can be accounted for by the whittling away
of a modest surplus built up during the 2005-2007 timeframe, but ultimately the
industry cannot live beyond its means for very long, as the appetite of outside
(non VC-fund) funding sources to fund innovation can be fickle.  And unlike the Federal Government, which can
print money to satisfy a proclivity for spending more than it earns, the VC
industry is limited in its investing by its fundraising.

Indeed, the Lehman-induced financial crash of 2008 was a
watershed event, as fundraising became considerably more difficult for venture
firms; new fund formation has slowed to a trickle and many established funds
are worried about whether they will be able to ever raise a new fund.  This slowness in VC fundraising is putting a
damper on the otherwise buoyant mood here in Silicon Valley.  The double-whammy of a challenging overall
fundraising market coupled with the concentration of capital in fewer hands has
conspired to make many firms particularly thrifty as their fundraising efforts
languish and they worry about their next investment being their last.  Some estimate that the number of “active”
firms is below 100 today, a small fraction of the typical number of firms
making investments.  Additionally, this
year is also an important one in that those funds that were last able to raise
during the relatively flush times of 2007 and 2008 will find themselves at the
end of the five year investment periods during which they might make new
investments.  We expect a dislocation
over the next 12 to 18 months as the investing window for funds closes and
their management fees start to step down. 
As one General Partner recently asserted, “it feels like the Zombie
Apocalypse has started and I’ve only got two bullets left in my gun . . .”

Of course, an optimist might take comfort from the old claim
that, “value-added investing works best when capital is expensive and time is
cheap while bubbles are marked by cheap capital and expensive time.”  And, indeed, faced with a robust opportunity
set and scarce (and thus dear) capital, VCs seem to be working as hard as we’ve
seen them in recent memory.  There’s a
palpable anxiety in the air, though, that contrasts with the casual insouciance
that people typically ascribe to Silicon Valley.  The perennial gales of creative destruction
continue to blow here, but in addition to the typical Eucalyptus and Jasmine aromas
carried on those breezes, one can also smell a hint of fear, a scent not as
frequently perceived here.