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

Tradecraft, AE (After Ellen)

Almost exactly twenty years ago, my buddies and I skulked out of our client-presentable East Cambridge office to watch the OJ Simpson verdict at Lechmere.

(For New Englanders of a certain era, Lechmere – that’s pronounced LEECH-mere – was “Best Buy with Benefits”. The store’s extremely generous no-questions asked return policy engendered a verb: To Lechmere. Everyone knew someone who would lechmere a huge TV on Friday to return on Monday with nary a question about the inevitable nacho cheese stains or beer rings on top of the cabinet. There’s no doubt that “lechmering” led to the eventual demise of everyone’s favorite no-cost electronics rental shop . . . but I digress)

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!"