We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
While VCs write case studies about successful investments, they rarely discuss the companies that failed. This 'silence of the dead' prevents the entire ecosystem from learning from mistakes, making the industry as a whole less intelligent because the most valuable lessons come from what went wrong.
We don't write case studies on the hundreds of companies that failed while trying similar playbooks. We incorrectly attribute success to the visible strategies of survivors (like an org model) while ignoring luck, timing, and funding, which are often the real differentiators.
The CEO believes the most profound lessons in biotech come from speaking with founders of companies that did not succeed. In an industry defined by high clinical trial risk, understanding the missteps and navigating the challenges of unsuccessful ventures provides more practical wisdom than studying success stories alone.
For a venture capital fund, the costliest error isn't investing in a startup that fails (a sin of commission); it's passing on one that becomes a massive success (a sin of omission). This fear drives a high-volume sourcing strategy that prioritizes seeing every potential deal.
Even professional venture capitalists struggle to predict their breakout hits. Morgan Housel notes that at his fund, the companies that became their biggest winners were not the ones they initially expected to succeed, while their 'obvious' bets often failed.
Advice from successful people is inherently flawed because it ignores the role of luck and timing. A more accurate approach is to study failures—the metaphorical planes that didn't return. Understanding why most people *don't* succeed provides a more robust framework for navigating risk than simply copying a survivor's path.
In venture capital, a portfolio with no failed investments is a sign of a flawed, risk-averse strategy. The goal isn't to avoid losses but to back the market leader in a potentially huge category. Losing money on the leader if the entire category fails is an acceptable and expected outcome.
Bessemer Venture Partners publicly lists massive companies it passed on to foster a learning culture. This highlights their philosophy that the opportunity cost of missing a transformative company (a crime of omission) is far more damaging than investing in one that fails (a crime of commission).
Investors who lose money in a sector develop an emotional aversion, causing them to irrationally pass on the next great company in that space. This 'learning from mistakes' becomes a liability, prioritizing avoiding small losses (commission) over capturing huge wins (omission).
The financial loss from a failed startup investment is capped at 1x the capital. Conversely, the opportunity cost of passing on a company that becomes worth billions is uncapped and unlimited. This asymmetry dictates that VCs should fear sins of omission more than sins of commission.
Andreessen warns that "learning from mistakes" in VC is dangerous. A bad experience in a sector (e.g., AI in the 80s) can create an emotional bias, causing investors to pass on the next massive opportunity in that same space due to a "scalded stove" effect. The focus should be on avoiding omission errors.