Venture Capital is Dead – Long Live Venture Capital! Part II

Overpriced rounds, a late stage VC bubble, and Sarbanes-Oxley are killing VC, markets and founders, as well as worsening inequality by limiting middle-class access to growth investment companies.

Overpriced rounds, a late stage VC bubble, and Sarbanes-Oxley are killing VC, investors and founders, as well as worsening inequality.

Institutional Investment in Late-Stage Venture Capital: Navigating Perverse Market and Regulatory Dynamics

Institutional investors’ sustained interest in late-stage venture capital (VC) funds is shaped by a complex interplay of behavioral, economic, and regulatory factors, despite these funds often underperforming relative to benchmarks such as the S&P 500 (see part I of this series). In this part II, I’ll examine the impacts of psychological biases, economic incentives, regulatory changes, liquidity preferences, and the evolving market dynamics that drive institutional capital toward late-stage ventures regardless of cost.

Institutional investors are often drawn to late-stage funds and the companies they back due to perceived lower risk, attributable to their established business models and proximity to liquidity events like IPOs. There is a lot of bias and false beliefs built into this system, and it has become toxic. So let’s break down what’s going on, and why allocators are funding this way.

Psychological Biases and Market Dynamics

Behavioral finance principles, such as the familiarity principle, herd behavior and the sunk-cost fallacy, are extremely relevant to investment decisions and play an outsized role in decisions to invest in late vs. early stage VC funds. Let’s cover these first.

The familiarity principle ensures that the known quantities—established companies nearing an IPO—seem safer than less predictable early-stage investments, even if they don’t provide investment returns that are positive after risk adjustment relative to the S&P 500. Because you’ve heard the names Stripe, WeWork, OpenSea, Brex, you are inclined to invest in the thing you’re familiar with, and the funds that back them. That can be a bad assumption when WeWork is the one you back.

The perceived safety of herd behavior (AKA, the bandwagon effect), wherein institutions follow the investment leads of their peers, is misleading. The assumption that the crowd knows best can also be viewed as a fear of missing out on potentially profitable opportunities. No one gets fired for following the market, so playing it safe with the pack is a reasonable strategy. Unfortunately, this is how lemmings go off cliffs.

The sunk-cost fallacy is another cognitive bias that leads many allocators to continue investing in a fund because of the time, money, or effort they have already committed, rather than cutting their losses. The rationale is often that not continuing the investment would mean that the initial resources were wasted, even though continuing does not necessarily lead to a recovery of those sunk costs.

The combined effect of these three biases are beginning to be apparent when you examine flows of capital into late-stage VC funds, with LPs going along for a “ride” that seems stuck in neutral. Moreso, it may also be that allocators have lost the ability to underwrite technology, human resource, and execution risk, and are now only willing to underwrite market risk. Consider the following charts:

Distributions are at record low for a non-recessionary period, because overpriced deals over the past four years can’t be off-loaded to public markets. After pricing SaaS deals at 20x revenue just three years ago, you have a stupid amount of growth required to reach the same valuation at 7.2x revenue. Today’s valuation multiples aren’t low either, they are average for fundamental analysis based upon discounted cash flows weighted for a reasonable cost of capital in our current rate environment, unlikely to change and more realistic than the free money of the past decade.

As a result, late stage VC funds are writing larger checks to existing portfolio companies at higher and higher valuations to keep them afloat (if they’re still losing money) or in a ponzi scheme effort to keep over-marking up the winners to offset the losers. Worst of all, by delaying exits, they are not providing exit liquidity to their LPs and thus replenishing the VC funding cycle. According to JPMorgan in the Pitchbook NVCA 2023 Venture Monitor, “for vintage years 2013 to 2019, over 50% of the total value in venture funds relies on existing positions.”

Because late-stage VCs can’t IPO today without taking losses on their portfolio after writing big checks at massively inflated valuations, “unicorn” hold times increase beyond fund timelines.

What sustains this cycle is LPs willingness to keep pumping money into the late-stage funds so they can continue their sunk-cost fallacy investing on valuations not subject to public market scrutiny. Again, no one wants to recommend the “riskier” emerging manager at a small fund when the so-called experts at name brand funds are struggling to perform. Familiarity and herd bias alert!

As a result, early-stage VC is getting crowded out. The share of early-stage VC deals between $5-10mm has shrunk by 2/3. LP funds available for early-stage VCs continue to shrink. According to data from Crunchbase, 84% of capital raised by U.S. venture investors went into funds raising $250 million or more in 2018, and has increased every year since then according to Pitchbook data. As a result, VC funds managing $250m or less now account for less than half of all VC capital raised, down from over 75% in 2013. In the first two quarters of 2024, just two funds, Andresson-Horowitz and General Atlantic, raised 44% of all the venture capital raised by all VCs (Pitchbook).

While I have no data to support a hypothesis that allocators have lost the ability to underwrite technical, human resource, and execution risk, it’s clear that they are not underwriting these from the checks they’re giving VCs. Given that they only appear to be willing to invest in market risk, it seems bonkers that they do so without liquidity. You can better manage market risk in public equities with liquidity, so why do VC at all (and we’re back to part I).

This trend also shows in absolute dealmaking numbers collapsing for early-stage VC. According to AngelList, the second quarter of 2023 saw the lowest rate of early-stage startup dealmaking in the history of their dataset (dating back to 2013).

If you read part one of this series, the irony of the situation is that the VCs who continue to generate the highest returns are having the hardest trouble getting capital as late-stage VCs hoard assets and LP money. Until late-stage funds provide LPs liquidity via exits, the cash that feeds the whole ecosystem is locked up. Those exits are not likely to come soon.

Late stage VC is poisoning the well for the whole industry.

So why don’t early-stage VCs just work with founders to bypass the late-stage fiasco and encourage their portcos to go public after their series A/B rounds like we used to? Well, Congress kind of messed that up for everyone.

Impact of Regulatory Changes on IPO Timing

After the Enron scandal (which someday I’ll write a very cool post about but SoxLaw has an excellent summary here) Congress needed to show voters that they were going to do something about corporate fraud. In typical government action, they acted without fully considering the consequences of their actions. Surprise! Government is as ignorant as it is incompetent.

The resulting Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 had a profound impact on the public offering landscape by dramatically increasing the cost to be a publicly traded company, imposing stricter financial reporting rules, forcing companies to hire more auditors to audit the audit (yes, that is as crazy as it sounds), and dramatically escalating governance standards for public companies.

In summary, Congress decided to stamp out fraud from corrupt auditors by adding even more auditors and creating additional byzantine governance systems for them and corrupt managers to hide in. Yes, that makes no sense.

I’ve looked at a lot of academic research to see if SOX actually reduced fraud. Without going into too much detail, it hasn’t. The best paper I can find on the topic shows that SOX only reduced the “probability” of fraud by about 1%. However, it did dramatically improve the detail of reporting provided to the public. Let’s not minimize that, and yet I’m hoping that Adam Packer will do a brilliant analysis to see if this resultes in improved investment manager performance -likely not, but surprise me!

So while SOX did dramatically improve information reporting and volume, fraud has not really decreased, valuations are down, and companies have to delay their IPOs due to increased costs and expanded public-listing responsibilities.

The average cost for SOX compliance is exploding. According to Protiviti’s annual SOX expense survey, on average, companies allocate $1–2 million for their SOX budget, with internal audit teams dedicating an additional 5,000–10,000 hours annually to SOX programs.

According to Protiviti, the average SOX compliance cost in 2023 was:

Companies with more than 10 locations: $1.6 million
Companies with only one location: $704,000
Companies with $10 billion or more in annual revenue: $1.8 million
Companies with $500 million or less in annual revenue: $651,000

When you have to shell out $1-2mm for one compliance cost, plus heaven-only-knows how many thousands of hours of additional internal audit time, you can’t go public until the economics make this massive cost immaterial.

As a result, since SOX passed, the average time from founding to IPO has notably increased—from about 5 years in the late 1990s to more than 10 years recently (Pitchbook data, thank you once again). This regulatory-induced delay significantly affects the liquidity of investments, particularly those made by early-stage venture funds, extending the time to potential returns.

So, getting liquid on VC investing is more expensive and takes longer than ever. These are the primary reasons late-stage VC is so attractive to LPs. Despite poor performance, institutional funds have a strong liquidity preference, even if the private markets aren’t beating the S&P 500 (again, see part I).

Liquidity Preferences of Institutional Investors

Given the extended timelines to IPOs, late-stage VC funds have become more attractive due to their shorter duration from investment to exit. While I can complain all day about extended unicorn hold times, the hold times are still longer if you invested earlier. Institutional investors, including pension funds and endowments, prefer investments that align with their liquidity timelines. Late-stage investments generally offer a quicker path to liquidity, matching the large pools of capital that institutional investors need to deploy efficiently.

So when average VC hold time is approaching ten years AFTER becoming a unicorn, who wants to invest in the early stage VC who backed them six to seven years before then (CB Insights, State of Venture 2023). Seventeen to twenty years is a very long time for an institutional LP to hold a private security, so who can blame them!

While I can find no solid economic research to explain why institutional investors would favor late stage VC on the basis of liquidity preferences alone, it stands to reason that a 17-year hold period is not acceptable for most funds of any size to get liquidity at any cost.

The Necessity of Large Capital Pools and the Impact on Founders

The growing average market cap of companies at IPO—from around $500 million in the early 1990s to over $2.5 billion today—requires larger rounds of late-stage funding. As companies grow larger and remain private longer, they need substantial capital to scale up to absorb the costs of a public offering post-SOX. This need makes large late-stage funds particularly appealing, as they are capable of mobilizing the capital required for continued growth. However, this trend has profound implications for startup founders, who often endure increased dilution and a loss of control as they raise more capital under increasingly stringent terms. The loss of control has real impact, as TechCrunch recently reported that VCs are using this power to block IPOs and prevent founders from liquidity. This leads to strategic misalignments that might endanger long-term success.

The assumption here by VCs justifying their control provisions is that the late-stage VC funds provide better oversight and governance and will better protect investor interests on behalf of their LPs. Really? Are VCs better and smarter than public markets and their oversight? I doubt it.

Again, I have no research (and I doubt you could put together a credible quantitative analysis), but I think it stands to reason that thousands of public investors and a public board of directors do a better job of oversight than a handful of privileged insiders who fundamentally share the same world-view as VCs. Yes, we have group-think and bias too, so better off if more eyes can see the business.

The closest thing I have to a benchmark on this is to see how company valuations change post-IPO, when public scrutiny provides the best check to the opinions of private company valuations and the ability of VCs to provide good oversight and valuation guidance. And yes, when you look at the sheer number of unicorns falling from grace since 2022, it would appear that the private markets overpriced and misgoverned significantly (see Techcrunch and Hurun).

A final note on this, if you want to nerd out on great IPO data, check out Jay Ritter’s recently updated data here. It rocks.

Diseconomies of Scale and Risks to the Ecosystem

The preference for large funds and substantial capital injections can lead to diseconomies of scale, where the size of the investments begins to detrimentally affect fund performance. As suitable investment opportunities become scarcer, funds may end up deploying capital in less optimal ventures, with more funds bidding up the price for available assets. This, in turn, can dilute returns. Moreover, as founders lose equity and control, the risk of misaligned interests increases, potentially affecting the company’s strategic decisions and long-term viability.

The larger the fund, the greater the challenge in deploying capital efficiently, which often results in decreased returns and increased risk of strategic misalignment within funded companies. Ouch.

Conclusion

Institutional investors’ preference for late-stage venture capital funding is dictated by a blend of psychological biases, regulatory impacts, liquidity preferences, the loss of their ability to underwrite anything except market risk, and the structural requirements of modern IPOs. While these investments may offer the perceived safety of shorter time horizons and reduced risk, they come with their own set of challenges, including potential misalignments and increased founder dilution.

The situation was made worse when the 2021-22 market bubble caused late-stage funds to overprice investments, and now extend exit periods so that they can avoid going public at a loss. Without exits, no new liquidity is flowing back into institutional and large family office LP investors, so early-stage VC funds are getting squeezed with fundraising for new funds that have ever elongating exit strategies. This, in-turn, creates less companies getting funded to their series A/B, and further restricting deal flow for late-stage funds, thus exacerbating their crisis to allocate capital and double down on their already overpriced, current portfolio companies.

So how do we break this doom-cycle? Part III coming soon…

Venture Capital is Dead – Long Live Venture Capital! Part I

Late stage VC funds are earning dismal returns relative to the S&P 500 and take little risk. So why are LPs continuing to fund them? What the heck is happening in VC and can we fix it?

Welcome to the world of unlevered, illiquid, venture investing!

In this bizarro world, bigger is worse, and investors don’t seem to care.

What is going on?

Part One of a Three Part Series

Venture Capital Returns by Fund Size: Comparing Early-Stage vs. Later-Stage

Venture capital (VC) is a critical component of the financial landscape, fueling innovation and growth within the startup ecosystem. However, the returns on venture capital investments can vary significantly based on several factors, including the stage of investment and the size of the fund. Without trying to boil the ocean, I’m going to do a quick look at how venture capital returns diverge by fund size, with a specific focus on comparing early-stage and later-stage VC investments. Additionally, I want to cover how early-stage funds, particularly those smaller than $250 million, often outperform their larger counterparts, especially when compared against broader market benchmarks like the S&P 500.

Venture capital funds are typically classified into different stages based on the maturity and revenue of the companies they invest in: early-stage (Seed and Series A), mid-stage (Series B and C), and later-stage (pre-IPO financing). The size of these funds can also vary, ranging from small funds (less than $250 million) to large funds (more than $1 billion).

Later-Stage VC: Higher Risk with Lower Relative Returns Relative to Early Stage VC

Later-stage venture investments involve funding more established companies that are closer to a public offering or a major liquidity event. These investments are perceived as less risky compared to early-stage investments because the companies have proven business models and steady revenue streams. However, the return on later-stage investments can be less attractive compared to early-stage investments on a risk-adjusted basis. According to data from Cambridge Associates, later-stage VC funds have demonstrated lower returns compared to early-stage funds. The 10-year pooled return for later-stage funds as of 2020 was around 12%, significantly lower than the returns generated from early-stage funds which averaged around 20% (1). I’m looking for more recent data, because I’d bet my bacon that late stage fund returns went down, a lot, on average. At least, that’s what institutional LPs tell me, a lot. So much so, I wonder why they keep investing (that is part II of this essay).

Moreover, when comparing these returns to the S&P 500, which delivered a historical average annual return of approximately 8% to 10% with considerable liquidity, the attractiveness of later-stage VC diminishes further. The lack of liquidity and higher relative risk associated with late-stage venture investments, combined with returns that do not commensurately reward this increased risk profile, makes them less appealing compared to other investment opportunities. And yet, late stage VC keeps on raising money, lots and lots of money.

Early-stage venture capital involves investing in startups at their nascent stages, typically while their revenues are $3mm a year or less. These investments are inherently riskier due to the unproven nature of the businesses and their higher likelihood of failure. However, the potential for high returns is significant, especially for top-performing funds. A pivotal study by Cambridge Associates shows that top decile early-stage venture capital funds, particularly those with under $250 million in assets, have significantly outperformed their larger counterparts and broader market indices. The top decile of early-stage funds reported returns as high as 35%, showcasing exceptional performance that should attract sophisticated investors (2).

This performance variance can be attributed to several factors. Smaller early-stage funds are often more agile, able to make quick decisions, and invest in innovative startups that larger funds might overlook. Additionally, these smaller funds can provide more hands-on support to their portfolio companies, contributing to their chances of success.

That’s where early-stage VCs can generate massive alpha, and late stage simply can not because the companies are already significantly de-risked. Risk equals reward, and those who manage risk better, can earn returns in excess of their risk adjusted expectation. Later stage VCs require less risk-management ability, and their relatively poor returns reflect this.

Comparative Analysis with the S&P 500

When compared to the S&P 500, top-performing early-stage venture capital funds offer much higher returns, albeit with greater volatility and liquidity risk. For investors, this trade-off is often acceptable due to the substantial premiums involved. According to the National Venture Capital Association, early-stage funds not only surpass the S&P 500 in terms of returns but also contribute significantly to job creation and technological advancements, thereby offering both financial and societal benefits (3).

Part II Teaser

In summary, while venture capital as an asset class can offer high returns, the variability of these returns based on the stage of investment and the size of the fund is significant. Later-stage venture capital, despite its lower risk profile relative to early-stage investments, often fails to provide returns that justify the risks and illiquidity involved. Conversely, smaller early-stage funds, particularly those making Seed and Series A investments, consistently outperform not only their later-stage counterparts but also the broader market indices like the S&P 500 when considering top decile performers. These findings underscore the importance of strategic fund selection based on detailed performance data and fund characteristics in the venture capital industry.

So how did we get here? Why are LPs piling into bigger and bigger funds that offer returns lower, and lower each year? This makes even less sense when we consider that the S&P has been recently beating late stage VC returns, WITH LIQUIDITY!!!

【1】Cambridge Associates, US Venture Capital Index and Selected Benchmark Statistics
【2】Cambridge Associates, US Venture Capital Index
【3】National Venture Capital Association, 2020 Yearbook

Ignorance Is Learned – How to Unlearn it

We have to humbly face the truth that as a founder, you are probably making something you love. Make something other people love if you want to succeed.

Make Products People Love – Part One

This is the first part of a three part series on how founders can make products people love. To begin, we have to humbly face the truth that as a founder, you are probably making something you love. Make something other people love if you want to succeed.

Unlearning is a transformative process that involves the deliberate effort to change or discard previously acquired knowledge, beliefs, or behaviors that are found to be incorrect, outdated, or harmful. When you want to make something other people will love, the ability to unlearn things you may love becomes crucial in avoiding customer ignorance and fostering a culture of continuous learning and growth in your startup. This post explores the significance of unlearning when making something people love, outlines strategies to facilitate unlearning for yourself and your company, and examines the challenges and benefits of this process to finding product-market fit.

Understanding Ignorance and the Need for Unlearning

Ignorance, in this context, refers to a lack of knowledge, understanding, or awareness about a customer or the broader complexities of your customer’s needs and values. It can stem from outdated information, misconceptions, biases, or the inability to access or interpret new information accurately. Ignorance most often is not the absence of knowledge but holding onto incorrect or incomplete information as truth.

Unlearning addresses this aspect of ignorance by challenging our current knowledge base and making room for new, more accurate information. It is a deliberate process that requires recognizing that some of what we know may be wrong or incomplete and being open to changing those understandings. Unlearning is essential in a world where technological advances, societal shifts, and new scientific discoveries constantly reshape our understanding of reality, and our customer’s needs and preferences constantly change with it.

Strategies for Unlearning

Reflective Practice: Engage in regular reflection on your beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors in regard to who your customer is, what they value, and how they use the product. Question the origins of your assumptions and the evidence supporting them. Reflective practice encourages a critical examination of one’s understanding and opens the door to recognizing areas in need of unlearning.
Seek Out Diverse Perspectives: Exposing oneself to different customer viewpoints and experiences is vital in challenging customer ignorance and fostering new learning. This exposure can highlight gaps in knowledge or biases, providing opportunities for unlearning and relearning. We STRONGLY encourage our founders to conduct hundreds of customer interviews using methodology outlined in the Mom Test to accomplish this.
Embrace Vulnerability and Curiosity: Admitting that one’s knowledge may be flawed or incomplete requires vulnerability. Approaching learning with curiosity rather than defensiveness allows for a more open and effective unlearning process. Take joy when you realize you’re wrong about something.
Critical Thinking and Media Literacy: Develop skills in critical thinking and media literacy to better evaluate the accuracy and bias of the information being consumed. This skill set is crucial in distinguishing between credible information and misinformation or outdated knowledge.
Continuous Learning: Commit to lifelong learning as a mindset. Recognize that knowledge is ever-evolving and that staying informed requires ongoing effort to learn, unlearn, and relearn. Nelson Mandela once said, “I never lose. I either win or learn.” When you’re always learning, you’re always winning!

Challenges in Unlearning

Unlearning is not without its challenges. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, can hinder our ability to see beyond our current beliefs and accept new information. Emotional attachments to certain beliefs or the discomfort of cognitive dissonance can also make unlearning difficult. Additionally, team, social and cultural pressures can reinforce outdated or incorrect beliefs, making the process of unlearning even more challenging for product development. Pivoting or abandoning beloved features when they don’t offer value can be painful if we’re emotionally and socially committed to them.

You and your team are preprogrammed to like things that reinforce your feelings and ideas, just one of many biases you should be familiar with. The Decision Lab has an amazing list of cognitive biases that is worth your time to study. The more bias you recognize, the better you can figure out your Dunning-Kruger reality, so to speak (click the bias link if you’re curious about Dunning-Kruger, no worries if you already know it all, wink, wink).

The Benefits of Unlearning

Despite these challenges, the benefits of unlearning are profound. First, it fosters a more accurate understanding of your customer, enhancing your ability to make informed product decisions based upon their needs and willingness to pay. Second, it promotes flexibility and adaptability, qualities essential for a start-up to find product-market fit. Third, unlearning can lead to personal growth and improved relationships, as it encourages empathy and understanding by challenging our biases and assumptions about others. This means that the team that unlearns the best, is the team that also works together most efficiently. Win-Win!

Final Thoughts

In a world saturated with information and where knowledge is continuously evolving, the ability to unlearn is as crucial as the ability to learn when doing customer research. Unlearning allows us to shed outdated, incorrect, or harmful beliefs and behaviors about our customers and ourselves, making room for new information and perspectives that foster trust and understanding. You will, in turn, build something people love because you know them. This process is essential in avoiding ignorance and fostering a culture of continuous growth and improvement.

While unlearning presents challenges, particularly in overcoming cognitive biases and emotional attachments, the benefits it offers are substantial. By adopting strategies such as reflective practice, seeking diverse perspectives, embracing vulnerability, and committing to continuous learning, start-ups can navigate the complexities of unlearning, identify the true customer need, and make something people want. Ultimately, unlearning is not just about discarding old knowledge but about making space for new understandings that lead to product success.

To Do ESG Investing Right – VCs Must Flip the Decision Around

Over the past year, many ESG (Environmental and Social Good) focused funds have reported dismal returns and are either shutting down, or dramatically lowering expectations for performance with their LPs and hoping for mercy. And yet, with our fund I, performing remarkably well, we have INSANE ESG impact without looking for it per se.

However, upon closer inspection I realized that our massive consumer surplus definition of a good investment embeds within it an Easter egg that can not be uncoupled from consumer surplus: environmental and social good.

Consumer surplus is a economic foundation that most VCs ignore, but I cover exhaustively. It is the difference between what you’re willing to pay, and actually pay. Great stuff that can be adopted faster will always dramatically improve consumer surplus. Embedded within this economic truth is an ESG reality: services and technology that massively improve consumer surplus not only improve economic outcomes, they improve social and environmental ones by default.

If consumer surplus goes up, ESG impact must by definition increase. Consider these two examples from our portfolio.

1: Fila Manila is now the #1 Filipino food leader in the US. When we invested in the company, the space was pretty empty. If you wanted Filipino food in the US, you had to either go out to eat at one of the hard-to-find restaurants that served it, or spend hours in the kitchen preparing it. When you buy it in the store, you save time, gasoline, effort, etc. There is an environmental and economic benefit. Socially, we benefit from an expanded culinary palette with greater awareness of the rich culture and beauty of the Philippines.

2: Nitex is quickly becoming the largest supply chain management system for the global fashion economy. By implementing this software, fashion companies save millions of dollars by dramatically reducing travel to manufacturing sites, often in hard-to-reach developing economies around the world. They also can respond faster to changes in demand, dramatically reducing overproduction in an industry responsible for most industrial water use and contamination. In short, Nitex is not only a good choice economically, massively driving down supply chain costs, but cuts out an insane amount of carbon from air travel and dramatically reduces the need to over consume precious water resources.

As we look across our portfolio, we see that when selecting companies based upon strict consumer surplus benefit criteria, our process bakes in an automatic ESG component because improved economics ALWAYS improves ESG if you measure value by this metric. By flipping ESG selection around, looking for incredible consumer surplus impact first, we’re hard-coding our fund to only invest in ESG positive companies because they secretly go hand-in-hand.

Perhaps ESG funds should consider doing the same? Focus on game-changing, consumer-surplus generating ideas, and reap the ESG benefits that naturally occur when you invest for impact with strict economic benefits in mind.

To do ESG right, let consumer surplus be your guide. Economics align with environment and social good when we invest wisely.

A final note: new, exploitive technologies do not generate consumer surplus, they profit from monopolies or exogenous factors such as chemical addiction and resource exploitation for short-term financial gains and massive negative externalities born by someone else. Again, consumer surplus leads the way in accounting for and avoiding such schemes.

For Crypto to Live, It First Must Die

Governments hate stuff they can’t control.

The beauty and promise of cryptocurrency is that Bitcoin and Etherium truly became the worlds first fiat monies divorced from any government backing. Yes, use of fiat is blasphemy to crypto die-hards, but for crypto currency to succeed as a global currency, we need to have an honest conversation about what fiat really means, and how crypto must kill off it’s government independence if it wants to truly reach its full potential.

Fiat currency is a medium of exchange that has no intrinsic value, unlike gold and other precious metals, that have industrial and artistic use with value apart from its circulation as money. Fiat currency has value because we believe it has value, and thus becomes a store of value and medium of exchange. Fiat currency to an economist is money that only has value because we have faith in it, and it has no use otherwise.

In this way, crypto currencies are true Fiat monetary systems in a pure way. Divorced from any government backing, and with an alternative use case of zippo, they truly are a medium of exchange that is divorced from everything. And therein lies the rub.

Governments hate stuff they can’t control. And Bitcoin/Etherium are far from their reach. The Satoshi’s and Buterin’s of crypto built their systems in such a way that governments can never, ever control them. And that is beautiful when it comes to creating the perfect fiat currency. No more printing money when you need it (looking at you Zimbabwe), and all the other money mischief devised by central banks that protect governments and hurt everyday people (for a good read on the various ways governments have done this, Milton Friedman has a great read by the same title if you click the link).

Governments have thus far reacted to crypto with what John Gottman recognized as one of the ultimate forms of rejection and contempt: stonewalling. This is when you just go quiet. Say nothing. Sit still. Ignore. The epic lack of regulatory interest in crypto is accomplishing its purpose: killing crypto silently.

Crypto currency’s promise, to have a stable system of exchanging stuff divorced from government mayhem, will never be realized until governments learn to accept that the future of currency is out of their control, but within their regulation. And this is where crypto lovers weep: regulation must happen for crypto to reach its full potential. In this way, crypto dies so that it can live.

In a world where we buy stuff and pay our taxes in Bitcoin and Ethereum, governments need to have rules around how money can be used. These rules include how to get paid back if you’re ripped off, how to track money to protect us from dark forces, and how to make sure people aren’t manipulating crypto markets and hurting consumers by restricting supply and demand. The public benefits of crypto currency are many, but only if the beast is trained to avoid destroying our freedom with its own.

And here lies the root cause of our current dilemma. A US Congress so old it might as well be a nursing home, led the way with the oldest White House leader ever, means that US leaders are too far removed in history to address modern problems they do not understand. Joe Biden remembers world war two as a kid. Ponder that and honestly ask yourself if he’s ready to suggest ways government can adopt the future of money. Yeah, I didn’t think he was doing anything either.

What the world needs right now is visionary leadership from a new generation of forward-thinking monetary leaders. Sadly, I’m not sure we have them right now, at least not outside of the developer community. Ouch.

Why Invest in a Sharia Compliant VC Fund

Shariah compliant VC funds provide proven economic benefits to LPs, GPs and portfolio companies including higher rates of return, diversity, less volatility in portfolio returns, and better alignment with environmental and social good.

Last fall, Oksana and I met with hundreds of prospective Limited Partners for our new fund. Among those who we realized had the best fit, were a significant number of Muslim investors, and they had some great ideas about how we could improve our fund performance by becoming a Shariah compliant fund.

Investing in Shariah compliant funds has gained popularity in recent years, as investors seek to align their investments with their values and beliefs. Shariah compliant funds follow Islamic principles (but are not limited to Islamic investors) and avoid investments in sectors such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and pornography.

Given our unadulterated devotion to ethically improving returns for LPs, we did our research and discovered that Shariah compliance is a fast growing investment market and provides many proven economic benefits to LPs, GPs and portfolio companies, including: higher rates of return, diversity, less volatility in portfolio returns, and better alignment with environmental and social good.

According to a report by the State of the Global Islamic Economy (SGIE) in 2020, the assets under management (AUM) of Shariah compliant funds had grown from $58 billion in 2009 to $121 billion in 2019, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.7%. The report also projected that the global AUM of Shariah compliant funds would reach $174 billion by 2023. This is pretty impressive when you consider that CAGR is almost double traditional fund inflows.

On the economic benefits, the first advantage of investing in Shariah compliant VC funds is that they offer the potential for higher returns than traditional VC funds. A study by the Islamic Development Bank in 2015 found that the average annual return of Shariah compliant VC funds was 16%, compared to 13% for non-Shariah compliant VC funds. The study also found that Shariah compliant VC funds had a higher success rate in exiting their investments, with 78% of their investments successfully exiting, compared to 62% for non-Shariah compliant VC funds.

Secondly, Shariah compliant VC funds offer investors a way to diversify their portfolios. These funds typically invest in startups that are aligned with Islamic principles, which means they are likely to invest in a range of sectors such as healthcare, technology, and renewable energy. A study by the University of Maryland in 2015 found that Shariah compliant funds were more diversified than non-Shariah compliant funds, which reduced the overall risk of the portfolio. This means that investors can benefit from the potential for high returns from investing in startups, while also reducing the risk of their overall portfolio by diversifying.

Diversity leads to less volatility, our third area of economic benefits. In a study by Khediri and Charfeddine (2016) found that Shariah compliant funds exhibit lower volatility due to the diversification of their portfolios. The study analyzed the performance of Shariah compliant and conventional mutual funds in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and found that Shariah compliant funds had lower levels of volatility. The authors attributed this to the diversified nature of Shariah compliant funds.

Shariah fund reduced volatility is not only from their diversity, but is hard-wired into their selection process. According to a study by El-Gamal et al. (2017) found that the screening process used by Shariah compliant funds tends to exclude companies that are highly leveraged, which can reduce the risk of investment losses in volatile market conditions. The authors also noted that Shariah compliant funds tend to focus on long-term investments, which can lead to a more stable investment portfolio. Holy alpha!

Fourth, investing in Shariah compliant VC funds can provide investors with a way to make socially responsible investments. Shariah compliant funds avoid investing in sectors that are deemed harmful to society or the environment, such as alcohol and tobacco. This means that investors can align their investments with their values and beliefs, while also potentially generating higher returns. A study by the Harvard Business Review in 2017 found that companies that focus on social and environmental issues tend to outperform those that do not, which suggests that investing in socially responsible startups can lead to higher returns.

And as a secret bonus, Shariah compliant VC funds offer investors access to investment opportunities that are not available through traditional VC funds. These funds tend to invest in startups that are based in emerging markets, such as Asia and the Middle East, which have high growth potential but may be overlooked by traditional VC funds. A study by the University of Cambridge in 2017 found that Islamic finance institutions were more likely to invest in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) than conventional finance institutions, which suggests that Shariah compliant VC funds may be more likely to invest in startups that are in the early stages of development and have higher growth potential to late-stage VC funds.

So yeah, we went all-in for Sharia compliance with zero regrets! Yeah, we want to generate higher returns with greater diversification, less volatility, invest in a sustainable and socially responsible manner, provide access to unique investment opportunities, and crush benchmarks for top decile funds. While there is no guarantee of returns with any investment, the academic research and published studies suggest that investing in Shariah compliant VC funds can be a viable option to make all our GP dreams come true.

If you’d like to learn more about Shariah compliance and VC investing, here’s links to the articles we mentioned above, and a few more we found interesting. Enjoy!

Report by the State of the Global Islamic Economy (SGIE) in 2020: https://halalfocus.net/report-on-state-of-global-islamic-economy-2020-2021/
Study by El-Gamal et al. (2017) on corporate governance in Islamic finance: https://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/islam-9780195177831/islam-9780195177831-chapter-45
Study by Khediri and Charfeddine (2016) on Shariah compliant funds in GCC countries: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927538X16300237
Study by Chaieb and Khediri (2018) on performance and volatility of Islamic and conventional mutual funds in Tunisia: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFRA-05-2017-0051/full/html
Article by Islamic Finance News on the performance of Shariah compliant funds: https://www.islamicfinancenews.com/shariah-compliant-funds-less-volatile
Report by PwC on the growth of Islamic finance: https://www.pwc.com/m1/en/islamic-finance/assets/if-growth-m1-eng.pdf
Report by EY on the outlook for Islamic finance: https://www.ey.com/en_gl/financial-services/the-outlook-for-islamic-finance-in-2019

Diversity Wins

Every VC fund needs a token, white, male, general partner.

Sputnik ATX does mark-to-market portfolio updates quarterly and the results thus far have been fantastic (89%IRR, not that I’m bragging). Our goal is to help people reach their full potential, and we believe that IRR is a key outcome to measure if we’re doing our jobs well. Diversity is another measure of that success. How are we doing?

Two metrics we’re just as proud to cite: over 40% of our portfolio companies have a female founder, and over 20% have a black founder. How do we do it? We joke among our team that our secret to success is maintaining a token, white, male, general partner.

Yes, I’m the only white dude.

The fact that we have only one white male on our team gives us an unfair advantage. I highly suggest more VCs try this approach. If you’re a general partner (GP) reading this article, please consider ways to get your own token, white, male GP and do so NOW.

What we’ve learned at Sputnik ATX is that when diverse people (education, culture, work experience, ethnicity, gender, etc) all have a say in decisions, we make FAR better decisions. There is copious research to support me on this (check out this HBR article.).

We’re well past the time to continue to allocate capital to homogeneous white dudes and yet, the flow of capital to these funds is shockingly disproportionate and persists. It’s time for lip service to end, and action to begin.

At the risk of alienating allocators looking at our next raise, I just have to say to every fund of fund manager and pension fund manager, please stop giving money to funds where the GPs all look like me. It’s hurting your returns, its skewing investment away from quality founders, its exacerbating US economic apartheid, and preventing everyone from reaching their full potential.

Note: I highly suggest reading the links in this article, and the book on US economic apartheid is especially interesting. Also, after writing this article, Sputnik ATX shockingly found another white guy who joined our team as a temp this summer. Congrats Matt, you beat the odds at our fund. Let’s not get too comfortable. Our investor returns depend on it.

De-Risk Your Startup

Let’s take a side eye to the five general categories of risk that can doom your start-up and how you can best avoid them…

There are literally a million things that can kill your startup. Worrying about all of them will likely drive you nuts, and distract you from the “holes” right in front of you. So with an eye on the hole right in front of you, let’s take a side eye to the five general categories of risk that can doom your start-up and how you can best avoid them: product risk, market risk, financial risk, team risk, and execution risk.

Product risk is what most early stage founders and investors most commonly fail to measure. It is best framed in the economic measure of consumer surplus (the gospel of which I am an avid disciple). Are you producing something people want because the cost of acquiring it is far less than the value it provides to the user? To answer this question, you’ll need to listen (yes, stop talking) to a LOT of customers. Ask them how they do things, observe how they solve their needs. Question the root cause of those needs. Seek first to understand them before you begin showing off your so-called solution. When you can make something they actually want really badly for a cost far below what they are willing to pay, you have product fit.

Market risks that can doom your startup are most often found in distribution problems, market size, and competition/substitutes. Even if you have a product with massive consumer surplus for a party of one, you’ll never have a massive business if the total size of the market is minuscule, you can’t find a channel to get it to market, or if there is a competing solution that is half your cost. Most companies die because they fail to solve market risk by building effective sales channels. Too often VCs cite a company with a lack of product-market fit when in reality, the company has a great product and zero marketing. To solve this, focus on how you can make purchase decisions easy: convenient location of sale, ease of technology, elegant UI, one-click buy, marketing channel exploration, CAC/LTV ratios, etc. This is why we advocate for maker-founders to seek out help from proven marketing and sales guru investors who put in money and time into your company rather than advisors who both those things out of your startup.

Financial risk becomes a problem when the fundamental costs of doing business generate insufficient returns to sustain your business. Some are short term, like making payroll next week if your runway is going away. Some are longer term, like high upfront capital costs from inventory or equipment required to make or distribute your product/service. The key here is to keep a tight lid on costs and try to get profitable as fast as you can. Avoid splurging on that fancy office when a shabby one will do just fine (and use the savings to add the additional sales person who will help resolve this problem). If your company has significant upfront costs, you’ll need to carefully manage inventory levels and development expenses so that you don’t run out of runway before you’re ready to take off. Too often I hear founders complain that their company failed because they couldn’t get funding, when really, they couldn’t find a way to develop the product and market fit with the resources they had, when it was entirely possible to do so. They just failed to have a financial plan to match their access to resources. Yes, it does take longer to build a company without funding from VCs, and yes, we often don’t understand what we’re doing. So if you’re the smart founder who does “get it”, live within your means to do so.

Team risk is why most seed stage companies with $50k-$100k MRR fail to raise their series A. No one is going to drop $3-5mm on a company that, if the founder is hit by a bus tomorrow, blows into dust with them. Nor will a VC put real money into a team that has only product skills. If you want money to scale, you need to show that you can build a team that is better than the founder and has complete skills (product, marketing, sales, customer support, and finance). This means you not only need a team, but a team that says, “we’ve got this”. Hire folks who’ve done it before or have such impeccable academic qualifications that their abilities are not in doubt. Hire away a key person from a HOT growth company who has experience with the growth challenges you face right in front of you (note: Google is not a hot growth company, it is a stale corporate machine).

Execution risk will be the subject of a post later this month, but to summarize it best, it is when you get to $3mm in annual revenue and think you’ve “made it” when really, you haven’t even started the real race yet. The ability of a company to grow quickly under pressure, hire the right people, put in place proper culture, incentives, and relationships so that the company can prosper and run full speed is far, far harder than anyone thinks. Execution risk is the killer of would-be unicorns and turns them into someone’e distressed asset purchase or family business. Your ability to create a culture of performance aligned with your customers needs and economic value model will be the key to getting things done as you scale. If this is your start-up, DM me, and we’ll talk further. A paragraph here just doesn’t do that sentence justice.

So, overall, start thinking about how you can de-risk your startup by looking at these risks and how your daily activities, weekly and monthly goals help eliminate them as best possible. You’ll never get rid of them, but you can sure sleep better at night if you do.

Blitzfailing – How to NOT Grow a Company

If your marginal profit per unit sold is negative, no amount of volume will help you be profitable.

Some time around 2016, a company that was raising at a lofty valuation pitched to me requesting capital from one of Sputnik ATX’s antecedent funds. The company pitching was WeWork.

The heart of their presentation was a claim that WeWork represented a new model for coworking space that was going to revolutionize coworking from stodgy folks like Regus, a profitable competitor. At the time, WeWork charged less than Regus to use office space and WeWork had significantly higher unit operating costs, customer acquisition costs, higher churn, and a significantly riskier customer base.

I pointed out to their pitchman that they had lower unit revenue and far higher unit cost than their competitors. How could they make money?

They responded with more of the same balderdash. WeWork’s plan to overcome negative unit economics was to make it up on volume, as they grew faster and faster with additional investment.

Poppycock.

This reminds me of Paul McElroy in the old SNL skit, First Citywide Bank, who claims the bank makes it up on volume. Thus the old joke, “I lose money on every one I sell, but I make it up on volume.”

If your marginal profit per unit sold is negative, no amount of volume will help you be profitable. Taking investment to accelerate losses makes the situation worse.

Blitzscaling is taking in large amounts of venture capital for massive customer acquisition growth in a short period of time. Growing so fast, you can’t be ignored, and then basking in the glow of a sustainable, massively profitable business.

A Blitzscalable business must have positive unit economics so that scaling increases profits, over and above overhead expenses and marketing costs. In short, the net profit selling each unit accrues faster than your expenses. When this happens, your company becomes profitable and sustainable.

Over the past few years large amounts of venture capital have poured into negative unit economic businesses that tout “volume” as the solution to their woes. Unless those businesses have some monopolistic plan to dominate the industry and then jack up prices to alter the unit economics, they will fail.

Of course, they could be hiding a novel new technology that will disrupt industry cost structure to make the unit economics positive, but if they did, why aren’t they using that technology now?

For example, Uber analysts tout that the company may be profitable when driverless technology becomes broadly available. This begs the question why they’re just figuring that out now, after massive investment on a different thesis, but I digress.

Bottom line: when your unit economics are negative, the business is unsustainable and you are blitzfailing if you raise capital to dig your grave at an accelerated pace.

Instead, resourceful entrepreneurs should create disruptive innovation that dramatically lowers the cost to solve a customer’s problem or provide a new, novel service that generates massive consumer surplus that cannot be ignored.

If you choose the path of the resourceful entrepreneur, unit economics and the market will reward you handsomely.

Author’s Note: yes, I love old words like poppycock. So precise!

Five Things to Make Your Business #Coronable

After talking to entrepreneurs over the past two weeks, it seems most businesses are imploding or exploding, depending on how well their business model can adapt to a post-corona virus world. There are five general things you can do now to make your business coronable: survive and thrive in a viral world.

If you have a physical good, start selling online, leveraging Amazon, Shopify, etc. to make it easier for people to buy what you have. Elite Sweets (https://elitedonut .com/) makes a gluten free, keto-friendly donut that is delicious and good for you. The perfect donut to survive the apocalypse, and available directly online. The small coffee shops that usually stock their product are closed, but no fear, you can still enjoy a guiltless pleasure, delivered to your doorstep. Heck, you can even get a free website from downloading the Leia app (https://heyleia.com/) and their powerful AI will build an ecommerce business for you! Consumers are shifting their buying online, move with them now.
If you are a service, start figuring out how to position your product for social distancing using online tools. ZenYala (http://zenyala .com/) is a software suite to manage meetings and make them more productive. When Corona hit, the founder, Jacob Bernstein, quickly realized that his software made virtual meetings even more productive, and because it is designed for results and accountability, was a better way to organize workflow for virtual teams than other products like Slack and Microsoft Teams. He quickly pivoted and created a new brand, ExecuMeetings (preview at http://execumeetings .tilda.ws/) and is aggressively selling to companies desperate to keep productivity high in a corona world. Kanthaka (https://mykanthaka .com/ and in your app store as Kanthaka) is a marketplace where individuals can find highly vetted and certified personal trainers and book them to come to their home. When corona hit, they had a surge in bookings as gyms closed; however, as the need to isolate became more obvious, Sylvia Kampshoff, founder and CEO, quickly added an option for trainers to do virtual sessions, and providing free group sessions called “Mommy and Me” for kids and parents to enjoy from home for free, further raising awareness of her brand.
If you are a local business owner, begin no-contact delivery (drop and go). If you’re blessed to live in the State of Texas, companies like Favor (https://favordelivery.com/), will find and deliver anything to your home. Local businesses can partner with Favor to deliver office supplies, hand sanitizer, and pretty much anything. Consumers can go to favor and ask for anything too, including toilet paper! For those of you who have to suffer living outside of Texas, you will need to hire and locate your own delivery people, or do it yourself. There are some new startups like GoShare (https://www.goshare.co/) that are last-mile delivery on demand and will do no contact delivery. Check who does delivery in your area, and bridge that last mile to the customer!
Learn to nano-target your customers with mobile ads. People will be spending a lot more time on their phones, so learn how to target your ad spend to effectively reach them. Companies like Datum (https://datumxy.com/) can specifically target individuals who are your customers or fit a very specific customer profile and make sure your ads only appear on their phones. For example, if you were a coffee shop owner, you could have Datum only target persons who visit coffee shops daily and live within a two mile radius of your shop. That highly targeted group would make a great audience to launch your new coffee by bike service, eh? The best part of nano-targeting is it’s FAR less expensive than buying bulk ads on Facebook, etc. The good news is that companies like Datum market across all app platforms, so they save you money and keep you in relevant digital locations for your customer base.
Get cash. We don’t know how long this will last, so make sure that you tap all your lines of credit, raise new equity, sell assets you don’t need, etc. and please do so now. Get your security deposit back from your landlord with Otso (https://otso.io/otso-for-tenants/). Companies that weather storms are those that have adequate reserves to keep employees and suppliers paid so that your business can keep selling through the worst of times.
So, take a deep breath, you’ve got this. Remember, the best businesses in history were started in recessions/depressions. This is the time that heroes are made.

Good luck out there, and please post any suggestions you have on becoming coranable in our comment section.