← How I Invest with David Weisburd
Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:00]
A
Ben Horowitz famously coined this term earned secrets, which is the secrets that you earn through doing something for many years. Specifically, it's usually in a space of solving some kind of problem. How important is it for the companies that you invest in to have an earned secret that others would not know?
- [00:16]
B
It's everything. And that earned secret almost by definition couldn't come from exclusively prior experience, pedigree or signal. If it's truly novel, the prior pedigree and experience juxtaposed advantage will come from the melding of an unknown opportunity with incredible talent and expertise. That collision generates all the return from our perspective.
- [00:37]
A
I always look for this paradoxical mismatch between market size and awareness of market. You're one of the top Fortune 10 chief security officers and you're one of 10 people on the planet that understand the pain point of these large organizations. And yet that market could be $100 billion or a trillion dollars. But it's only known to these 10 people. Mike, I've been excited to chat. Welcome to the How I Invest podcast.
- [01:02]
B
Thank you for having me. I'm huge fan and it's a real honor to be here.
- [01:08]
A
So you work alongside potential portfolio investments for 30 days. You, you quote unquote grind with them. What exactly are you trying to ascertain in those 30 days?
- [01:19]
B
What we're trying to get at is we're trying to get at the heart of the founder at Pre Seed. In my view, the only durable asset is the founder. The product will change, the go to market will change, the cap table will change. And trying to understand the founder, the carbon based life form that you are putting money into for the next decade plus is something I want to understand and that is what we're trying to figure out and figure out in a respectful collaborative way that even if we don't invest and by the way historically so far one in two, we only invest one in two of those investments that we do that 30 day process with even if we don't invest. Hopefully you got a piece of advice that's useful to make the company grow. What I would say is the number one thing we have found is success is I've called it action based self awareness. It's and to know and see that in real time gives us asymmetric edge on understanding that founder who has that and those who don't because those are the things that are most important. Of course in the first two meetings we diligence everything that I think a lot of my peers do. You know, we'll look at the go to market the product, the tam, et cetera. We want to know more. We want to know about the human and not just what they say because they think a lot of founders are fantastic pitchers and they say, and I'm human, I can get moved by a good story. We're trying to build an unbiased framework to watch the chef cook in this kitchen and taste the food in this restaurant, not relying on their past pedigree of the future of the past restaurants they were in or what culinary graduate school they came from. We're really interested and obsessed with what that founder is doing in this one and helping and being helpful along the way and proving it with our own, with our own hands and feet.
- [03:18]
A
Said another way, you've identified two factors that are predictive of startup success, which is the founder being able to execute quickly and the founder being able to respond to feedback from the market internally or advisors very quickly. And one is not sufficient. If you take the execution to extreme, somebody that executes lightning fast but never internalizes the feedback, that doesn't work. If you take somebody that internalizes the feedback but sits around, doesn't do anything, that doesn't work. Both of these are necessary and predictive.
- [03:48]
B
Of a successful founder to build on those two things. It's also having self awareness about what you are going to be good at and the limits of your own abilities, time and interest. Because at the end and this gets to a very important part of allocating, which is they're going to have to build a team, right? The majority of that capital is going to be focused on getting other people, right? One of the jokes we say in my firm is that venture is actually pretty easy. We give money to people, so those people hire more people to make us more money. If you don't understand where you end and others begin and how to orchestrate that, you're probably not going to make a great hire or be a good person to work with and at and therefore probably a bad capital risk. So being able to see that in situ understanding the founder's self awareness as a human I think has a huge impact on team hiring culture. These are a lot of the assets that are off spreadsheet that I think are really going to be predictive of survivorship and returns, et cetera, so on and so forth that drive DPI, IRR and all the things that LPs want out of an emerging fund.
- [04:58]
A
At the pre seed, obviously you want a unicorn founder that's 100 out of 100 in every single imaginable trait. But if you had to stack rank those two or three traits that are predictive of a startup founder, what are those?
- [05:12]
B
I go back to what I said. It is action oriented self awareness and some people that is the thrust of it. Some people have action based on driving more top of funnel. Some people have action based on you know, just driving more PLG and product. I, I actually am relatively agnostic in in in what they pick because at the end of the day you've mentioned this rubric of of of taking the feedback. If I've done my job right, the feedback doesn't come from me or any of my operating advisors who help me. The feedback will come from the questions we've asked together and what the market is telling them and then will you do it and learn more by doing versus talking? What's really cool about setting up a structure like that is founders solve it so many different ways and it is one of the best parts about my job. The title of my last newsletter was Founders I love you the purplest and it's not about being good or bad or you have to be, you know the bar is 7.0 and you're 6.9, you're out. And I know you're trying to get to this idea is like what is the predictive success? The best answer I can give is action oriented self awareness and what's really cool And I've discovered so far both in the first eight investments out of the fund and then I tested this myself with my own money and fund 0 of 25 angel investments is that rubric has so many cool different ways that founders have solved for and also too I've missed as well like where I've mistaken talk for action, I've mistaken confidence for signal when I'm really looking for self awareness and I got bluster. So what I would say is this is a work in progress and I am both equally confident and just like my founders who are confident in their mvp, I'm constantly iterating on that thought to make it better and better and more refined.
- [07:06]
A
One of the things I'm really trying to do is define terms so that people know exactly what they mean and they could replicate our guest success. So you mentioned coachability. There's extreme versions of this. You could be completely unmovable, uncoachable which you could also reframe as highly principal or first principles based. Or you could be the other extreme which is too coachable where every day you get another conversation, you change your you pivot your strategy, tell me exactly what level and type of coachability you're looking for in the founders that you believe will lead to these billion $10.
- [07:41]
B
Billion outcomes in terms of billion dollar outcomes like those things happen in the first two meetings. Right? That is the, that is the work that is done by precede venture to date. You know, we'll look at the tam, we'll look at the go to market, the unit economics. I believe those are necessary and sufficient but not sufficient conditions to generate those outcomes. And a lot of people can look at that in terms of what's the right tam, what's the right LTV to CAC ratio. The X factor is understanding the human, understanding the human in the box that is going to be making these decisions and understanding how their psychology, how their frameworks work so that they as their unit economics get disproven as their TAM may shrink or grow. Are they going to have action oriented self awareness to capitalize on that more rapidly than anyone else that's competing with them in the space? That's the part that we're really interested in, which ability.
- [08:36]
A
I think it's a fascinating concept. It's one of the most misunderstood concepts in startup investing and venture investing especially at the early stage. The way that I look at it, I have a couple different frameworks. I don't have the perfect one framework. One is on average if I'm looking for somebody that could build the next unicorn or deca unicorn at the pre seed stage I want somebody that's mostly uncoachable, call it or 8 or 9 on uncoachable and has some room for coachability. Another thing that I look for is are they coachable on the things where I have higher believability or they have lower believability. That's when I expect that founder to be coachable and something that they don't know. But if I'm coming in and I'm teaching a crypto founder about anything about the crypto space that's kind of obvious and they haven't integrated that into their strategy. That tells me that they haven't done the due diligence, they haven't done the hard work, they haven't done the 10,000 hours to find these insights. And I find that as a big red flag, find that as a very weak part of their strategy. I'm trying to really understand for myself and for the audience what does it mean to be, you know, 10 out of 10 in terms of somebody like has the price perfect level of coachability, what does that mean?
- [09:42]
B
Look, you know If I'm going to lecture, you know, one of my founders on the future of AI or if we're going to lecture, if I'm going to lecture Ben on distributed energy, we are not deep science or deep tech investors. We would have those discussions. Well, we are sluggers. So the coachability we're talking about is in the go to market and at the pre seed level you can be incredibly seasoned salesperson, marketing person and having a repertoire of skill sets. However, when you apply it in a new pre seed startup, those battle lines are unknown. So our coachability is really focused on the go to market motion. And to put some bounds on this, I don't want to debate somebody about, look, have you really considered all the gas charges on your crypto or have you really considered regulatory compliance frameworks on your wealth management? We are not doing that. That is not the coachability we're talking about is how they think about go to market, how they work with the distribution aspect. That is the crux of 90 to 95% of what we do. And inherently at the pre seed level, regardless of how much experience you have, if you're entering a new space that has a billion dollar or decacorn outcome, that interaction has to be unknowable. Because if it were knowable and someone already put a framework together, Salesforce would already be our oracle would already be in like meta would already be in. Someone would already scaled it. So we're looking for how you encounter novel go to market motions and that coachability and watching those atoms collide at that pre seed level and what you do with the energy that hits those sparks in the hands of someone who's incredibly skilled and crafted and has tenure and coachability. That's the founder we're looking for.
- [11:35]
A
Ben Horowitz famously coined this term earned secrets, which is the secrets that you earn through doing something for many years. Specifically, it's usually in a space, it's solving some kind of problem. How important is it for the companies that you invest in to have an earned secret that others would not know?
- [11:54]
B
It's everything. It's everything. And that earned secret almost by definition couldn't come from exclusively prior experience, pedigree or signal. If it's truly novel, the the prior pedigree and experience juxtaposed against a new unknowing frontier create these interesting collisions. And that intersection I think is where you know, how we interpret the earned secret. You know, what's the one and or other other parlance you hear? What's the one thing you know that no one else knows. What's your unfair advantage? That unfair advantage will come from the melding of an unknown opportunity with incredible talent and expertise. And that collision, that collision generates all the. Well, generates all the risk and all the return from our perspective and watching and having a system and a process to ascertain that that's the magic. That's the magic. You can't at least yet I don't know how to put that on spreadsheet. I don't know how to do a regression analysis on that or an AI enabled sourcing to find. Oh yep, that's the one. That's the one that will figure it out. And I think that's where you can find undiscovered founders and therefore outside return, outside returns.
- [13:14]
A
I always look for this paradoxical mismatch between market size and awareness of market. The best way to explain this is you're one of the top Fortune 10 chief security officers and you're one of 10 people on the planet that understand the pain point of these large organizations. And yet that market could be $100 billion or a trillion dollars, but it's only known to these 10 people. I find that to be extremely powerful because you have this huge market and almost by definition it's not competitive because there's few people on the planet that have that earned secret. And I like love this paradoxical mismatch between market size and awareness of the market.
- [13:52]
B
Build on that. I mean this is like since we were revoking books, this is the 0 to 1, like Peter Thiel, like world's smallest monopoly, unfair advantage aspect of it. And I think a lot of it comes from people who have novel insights about weird juxtapositions of different problems that may have been old and intractable. To tell the story of one of our portfolio companies, MoneyStack, they do financial counseling for people with mental health problems. And you know, there's one of these. Oh yeah, it just makes sense. Like every mental health problem and they're starting with problem gambling is actually turns into a financial problem. Right. And as someone who spent a lot of money from my time at bank of America, we worked so hard and tried to acquire customers in what we call moments of truth. Loss of a loved one, death in the family. If I could be the financial person of record in that moment, my LTV CAC is out the roof because I. The problem with those traditional strategies are you're ambulance chasing, it's ingenuine, it's inauthentic, it's weird. Don't Talk to me when I'm but if you can hold the hand and actually add value at people's lowest moments after they've said okay, I've stopped doing daily Fantasy and DraftKings etc. I now need to rebuild credit. I now need to tell my wife of how to budget restitution payments or like if you can actually hold them through the most moments like you can be the advisor for life and everything that we know about the unit economics and wealth are going to be there. So to me that's an example of what I think of this this earned secret which by the way it's hiding in plain s that everyone has a mental health problem at some point in time and everyone has money problems but no one's really put these together. I love that idea of earn secret but that's how I conceptualize that in terms of where I look at the world and interpret what you're thinking about.
- [15:43]
A
One of the most valuable ideas in the startup ecosystem that I think applies to everywhere is how to create non zero sum platforms. And if you were just to focus on value creation, if you were just to do a razor I want to invest in any company that creates a trillion dollars in customer values. Let's forget about the business model. Let's just assume that we didn't even know the business model. You would be spitting out 100x funds over and over. And I think where people get stuck is they focus a lot on value extraction and people should focus very much on how do we build, how do we help those people in need, how do we scale this on a platform level and really how do you build something extremely big then how do we take every last dollar from the customer from day one? I think that's one of the biggest differences between the DECA unicorn founders I find and the average or median or however you define the average. Even venture backed founder 100% agree.
- [16:45]
B
It's it's one of the reasons we have we have an impact thesis at our firm. So we invest in the sectors of education, climate, healthcare and economic mobility. These I mean that that is coachable. Superheroes is the name. Coachability is the is how we deploy capital. The superhero parts talk about sector and in addition to all the psychological benefits the founder has about being impacted our view is exactly that that if you find the answer to energy that by nature is a big human problem that we don't have to worry about value extraction. That's a big deal. From a value creation standpoint. If we solve mental health and the intersection of mental health and financial problems. That is a big deal that doesn't need extraction. One of my LPs is famous, like this guy, Trevor Sumner. He said like, hey, if you're going to pick a problem, might as well pick a big one to start a company. And what you said resonates so hard. It definitely shapes a lot of what we do from an impact perspective. And we think if you can, hey man, if you can solve energy brownouts across the globe and have a limitless way to figure that out, I think you're going to be, I think there's going to be enough money for everyone around. We have a big blue collar thesis in terms of future of work is economic mobility. If you can solve for what happens from AI and the loss and degradation of entry level test taking white collar knowledge workers which are going to be disintermediated as they look to trade craft and other parts of it, you can solve that problem. I don't have to worry about extracting every last dollar or pound out. We're going to solve a big problem, make the world a better place along the way and we're going to make a lot of money.
- [18:31]
A
One of the things that I really have changed my mind on over the years has been this reluctance about startups changing the world. I thought it was this superficial meme that people say to make lots of money, but then when you look at it from first principles, it's a necessary component if you want to have a $100 billion outcome which the multi stage funds today have to invest in. The world will not allow you to extract $100 billion in value unless you are significantly creating likely trillions of dollars in economic value. So that changing the world, the scale of what you're doing has to be on that level of changing the world. Not because it's a nonprofit, but because it's a necessary condition for those kind of exits.
- [19:15]
B
I 100% agree. And that is one of the cool things that we get to see in 30 days. Like people put it on the slide deck and people can see that being pitched. But it's different to see in action. It's different to see when you sit in, when you sit in the seat and watch how the company operates to see if that ethos isn't just at the founder level, but it extends to everything that they do, that they are solving the world's biggest problems. Since you asked about Vanguard, we started at this. If you ever go, I mean, it's been a while I've been working vanguard 10 years. But when I was there, they live these principles about shareholder value. Like, when I would take a recruit out, the recruit in our cafeteria would get an unlimited lunch voucher. Get what? Me as the hiring manager, I get a $5 lunch voucher. It is a temple. They live their values about making shareholder creation, value creation at the center of everything they do at the smallest iota. And that's something that you, you know, to get back to what you're saying. Like founders say that they want to solve the biggest problems in the world. Don't tell me, show me. I want to see it from the inside. I want to see it after most VCs turn the lights out and start their formal due diligence of looking at your corporation documents, your bank statements. I want to see how you treat your employees about it. I want to see how you talk to your customers about it. I want to see how when your customer says no, how you use that grandiose mission to compel them otherwise. I think those are the really coolest things that I think are both incredibly valuable from understanding the underwriting basis, but then also understanding how far this company can go and how far the willing. You know, everyone says in investing, I want missionaries, you know, not mercenaries, I think is what you're getting to. I want the same thing, too. And I want to see it. I want to see actual evidence of it. So I'm just not wooed by a very nice presentation.
- [21:12]
A
Said another way. No offense to nonprofits, but I've come to the realization that startups are the most leverageable way to change the world from 0 to 1 and sometimes even 0 to 100. I have not found that to be the case in nonprofits. I see nonprofits as a way for a startup who has exited to now change the world from 100 to maybe 500, but that's 0 to 100. I just have not seen that with my own eyes. And I've had plenty, plenty examples to give.
- [21:40]
B
I still participate in a lot of nonprofits I donate to, and I've served on some really great nonprofit boards. I definitely appreciate their role in the ecosystem. But I guess I would say I vote with my feet. And we're an impact fund. And I think startups can change the world. And I became a solo GP because I share the same ethos. It is the absolute best way to make a dent in the universe. And I got everything in. I'm all in on that, both personally, professionally, financially, philosophically. All the leaves on that same idea. This is the best way to Change the world and make a dent in the universe.
- [22:16]
A
So introducing the new Dell PC. Powered by the Intel Core Ultra processor. It's not just an AI computer, it's a computer built for AI. That means it's built to help you do your busy work for you. So you could fast forward through editing images, designing presentations, generating code, debugging code, running lots of app without lag, creating live translations and captions, summarizing meeting notes, extending battery life, enhancing security, finding that file you were looking for, managing your schedule, meeting your deadlines and responding to Jim's long emails. Leaving all the time in the world for more you time and for the things you actually want to do. No offense Jim. Get a new Dell PC@dell.com AI PC how those ahead? Stay ahead. You mentioned solo GPS. You have entire community of solo GPS. You yourself are a solo GP. Why should startups take money from a solo GP?
- [23:16]
B
Because we have conviction and can move fast. And I think that those are the ones with the most interesting things to say, that we're the freest ones in the industry to do things. We're the most unencumbered and and able to move. I would also say that that's where you know what I would say. I also would say solo GPS have to do the things that most founders are doing. We have the most operational empathy. Everyone is talking about founders hyperscaling, right? With AI. You know who else has to do that solo gps? Because we have no. We have to use AI. So when you talk about cultural fit at the pre seed level, hustlers and grinders, and you're going to find I think solo GPS are both industrious and diverse out of necessity, not out of some sort of like false luxury. I think there's a misconception that solar GPS will not help to lead other capital. And they want to and they're mitigated by their networks. And in my short time I have found the exact opposite. I think the emerging manager and solar GP community in specific, we always joke there's like a informal union solo GP local 144. And that ethos goes back to my podcast, Alone Together. And that was the name of my podcast where we just talk about other solar gps. We know each other in the industry. So this idea of signal and network and solar GPS are lone wolves. I don't know, I hear a lot of this lore, both from founders as well as sometimes LPs. I am here to tell you that underground and undercurrent exist and that culture is rich, vibrant and I have at least one data point where I've led in my short career where we can make good by founders and deploy very quickly. So I think this idea of being distributed, it's an asset, not a liability.
- [25:06]
A
There's a lot of innovation happening at the pre seed in the startups themselves. There's concept called seed strapping where you raise a little money and then you become profitable. There's the advent of AI which you mentioned, which is lowering costs and also allowing companies to scale their revenue quicker because one salesperson could do just so much more. How does solo GPS fit into this world of the AI startup?
- [25:33]
B
Seed, strapping, hyperscaling, all the buzzwords. I think solog particularly precede early stage solo GPS to some degree. We don't care, like we don't care whether you skip around, you skip an A, et cetera. Our money is in and we can get conviction and see things before others because we just don't have as much bureaucracy or process. I mean I definitely have a team, but I am the, you know, the IC is around but like do you want to do the deal? Let's do the deal. Like let's, you know, so the idea that you can be in first at frankly low valuations where there's a lot of our investment process philosophy and those who do precede, there's a lot of. There are a couple late stage solo GPS as well, which are great and awesome. So just speaking from my little neck of the woods on this, all these things that you mentioned, I'm good with any of them. I'm good with any of them. You do a proper pre seed, seed A, B, go through the Alphabet, great. You scale and hyperscale or seed strap also great. I invest sub 10 million cap. Mostly speaking all this optionality is fine for me. Again, this optionality is an asset and liability and I am here for all these potentials because I get to be the upstream part of the capital. And I wish LPs knew this or maybe they know it, they should act on it and start supporting a lot of these. Not out of some sort of gratitude around changing the dynamic aspect of a venture because it makes sense. Outsized returns are going to have downside protection because we get in early, our entry price is lower. A lot of the big firms who are moving down into pre seed, they pay higher entry fees and premium. Who's to say whether they're on the ground as much as the solo GPS and existing emerging managers are to the ground, to the floor with the founders. We eat bad pizza and ramen too out of necessity for how the fund economics work on this and it's a really good cultural fit.
- [27:40]
A
Let me double click on that term they used. Alignment. It's also a buzzword that I've never heard a VC say they're not aligned. And you mentioned the multi stage firms are coming into the precede also writing checks sometimes at higher valuations, more money. Why is that alignment so important? Break that down to second order effects of the venture fund having alignment with a startup at the early stage.
- [28:02]
B
Alignment is about getting a fair mark on your on your company so you have all the optionality in case things go wrong. We're not going to force you to grow into your valuation and make you make operational risky decisions to a founder that leave you high and dry because we pushed you to scale. Alignment is understanding what it feels like when you've lost your last customer. You're having a co founder fight, someone said something bad about you in TechCrunch and you don't know what to do and you have your head on your desk and you're like I don't know what to do, who do I call? That's alignment. That's really alignment at the precede level. I think that changes as you may move up the Alphabet or down the Alphabet but that's how I think about alignment at this stage. And I don't have interest in the B.C. growth areas but in my experience of being an operator myself, a founder and doing this through a couple different firms, that's how I interpret alignment. Calling a spade a shovel and then being there to shovel with you.
- [29:04]
A
One of the tragedies of the 2021 valuations that you mentioned which the height of the valuations and venture is that otherwise good and excellent Companies we're talking about 3, 4, 500 million dollars intrinsically valuable companies are they still might sell at 3, 4, 500 million dollars but the founders are going to walk away with almost nothing. There's an old VC joke. You give me the valuation, I give you the terms. And that's what happened in this situation where VCs would get 2x liquor would put in $100 million. And what that practically means is that unless you sell the company for over 200 million, assuming there's no other preference on the cap table, the founder walks away with 0 or maybe some token 500k or something. So that is where misalignment or raising too much or raising at too high a valuation, that's a very practical thing that goes wrong. And these stories are highly undertold. They're not as sexy. Everybody wants to suppress them because it doesn't make the venture investors look good. Although I would argue the founders were almost as complicit in those decisions as well. They knew their business better than the vc. So these are some of the tragic outcomes that come from these misaligned funding, funding rounds and funding partnerships. You've now built this finely tuned 30 day LLM where you do a project and then 30 days you find out the true character and executability of the CEO. What's been the most surprising? Where have you had to fine tune your LLM where your perception was different than how it played out? What are some patterns?
- [30:45]
B
So many times in that process you will sometimes as an investor, and we all do this, you will superimpose your story on the founder and that's called bias. And it's very hard. We'd like to think by watching them operate our theater of discourse and underwriting is less subject to bias than seeing someone pitch. But we're still human. I think the number one thing, the biggest lesson I learned is like do not superimpose your story on the founder in front of you and really observe the actions and behaviors observed in those 30 days versus those large patterned recognition. You may look at a good parable. We try and think about, we talk a lot about. We want this to be like our NFL combine. We want to see all the data and performance as best we can. Not as the only, not as the only like selection criteria, but a really, really important one to see what it's like. You may have done great in college ball, but it is a whole different thing playing in the NFL and we want to be able to use and look at our underwriting there. I guess the other thing I would add is it is not perfect. It is perfectly imperfect. And we are constantly refining and I would never say we understand the heart of the entire, the entire founder. What I would say is that we know more. I'd like to believe we know more than everyone else on the cap table of that particular. And that's, that's investing. Investing is about asymmetry. You never have perfect information. The goal is to have enough asymmetric information to hold an edge. We definitely have a process and a structure that is constantly being refined. But that is the number one thing that we've learned. Evaluate the founder in front of you, see the data and see the behaviors that they do, not what you think they do, not what you want them to do. And it is a Diet of the mind and the soul to try and extract that.
- [32:56]
A
This confirmation bias that you talk to is very real. We so desperately want people to confirm our views on them. It's our aspirations. Same thing happens in interviewing people subconsciously feed easier questions to the people they want to hire. And it's especially pronounced in people that are proactive because they want to help the person, they want to coach the person. The trick that I found is you need to really look at the steady state of the person. The way that I look at it is how somebody treats you the first day, the first week that they know you is extremely predictive of the next 50 years. I would probably say close to 90% predictive. I would go out on a limb and give that kind of number. And it's so rarely that it changes in both directions, by the way. And why is that? It's because it's not about you, it's about them. These are fully formed adults. They might be coming to you at 20 years old, they might be coming to you at 50 years old. They might be even, even a seven year old, mostly formed. It has nothing to do with you. And this desire to change people, to have people conform to your views on them, is so extremely strong and leads to so many bad mistakes in business and investing. It's. It's something you can't. We could talk about it every day on a podcast and still not talk about it again. That's. That's how deeply ingrained Spice is in people.
- [34:12]
B
That's actually a question we get about the coaching aspect of like, you want. You just want people to follow your advice and tell you do what you tell them is like, couldn't be further from the truth. Couldn't it be? If you're asking me, I mean, like, look, I've been a multiple times cmo. If you're asking me, the last time I had my finger on the trigger of a full acquisition campaign was 2021. Right. If you're asking me exactly what to do, I think you're in a bad spot. One of the things we tell our founders during that time is like, I do not have the answers. We have the right questions and order of questions to think through. But I am not going to tell you, nor will I accrue bias and positive signal if you do what I say. If anything, I think it's negative signal if you're doing. There's a reason I'm an investor and not an operator anymore. It's because I know how hard it is. I've been in the fray. I've been out of the game operating hardcore for a presidential administrator for four years. If you're trusting me, this is not good. You do not want that. I'm interested in how they respond to the conception of the tasks in front of them that they've chosen. They've chosen to try and build the next great wealth startup or change the future of work or change climate or change education. I'm just here to give them questions and parameters and milestones to look at. And that data is where we try and live versus oh do X. Oh you did X over two. That's not enough. You're out. That that is not. That is. That couldn't be further from the truth and would be a terrible way for us to execute that strategy.
- [35:50]
A
Said another way, if you truly want to dramatically change somebody's life, go help somebody struggling in high school, in college. Do not do it through your investment portfolio going back to 1998 when you were just graduating Harvard. Just celebrate 27 years. What is one piece of advice you would have given that younger version of yourself that could either accelerate your career or help you avoid some common mistakes?
- [36:16]
B
I would say two number one, write and understand everything like a fourth grader. If I don't understand this business like for at a fourth grade reading level, both externally, if I'm underwriting a company or even internally, why are you making this decision? You need to write at a fourth grade level internally and externally. Second, document your screw ups. I always deliver the quip. Four stars, two exits. Founders say like oh tell me about your exits. My answer is like wrong question, wrong question. You should be asking about my screw ups and write it down. I'm not saying to publish it or like put it on LinkedIn. I write it down for yourself, at least for yourself and I would share it with a very small circle of people that you trust. Those are the two things. Fourth grade level and write down your screw ups. I wish I did that more because I think a lot of time I wasted and I hope people don't waste is seeing something that wasn't there and using to be honest. As you mentioned Harvard like a lot of polysyllabic self congratulatory signal to make yourself feel better and just and it's BS doesn't work. 4th grade level write down your screw ups. Those are the two things I wish I would have told myself back then.
- [37:49]
A
To quote Einstein, if you cannot explain something simply you do not understand it. It's a good gauge of whether you yourself understand it or others understand it, or they're just charlatans trying to sell you confusion, essentially because there's no core truth to what they're saying. On that note, Mike, this has been absolute masterclass. Thanks for jumping on and I look forward to continuing conversation.
- [38:11]
B
Likewise. Thank you so much for having me on. This was an amazing time.
- [38:14]
A
Thank you, Mike. Thanks for listening to my conversation. If you enjoyed this episode, please share with a friend. This Helps Us Grow also provides the very best feedback when we review the episode's analytics. Thank you for your support.