The worst feeling for an investor is not missing a successful deal they didn't understand, but investing against their own judgment in a company that ultimately fails. This emotional cost of violating one's own conviction outweighs the FOMO of passing on a hot deal.

To ensure robust decision-making, Eclipse requires that if a partner feels strongly against a potential investment, they must join the deal team alongside the champions. This forces a direct confrontation of the risks and ensures that by the time an investment is made, all major concerns have been addressed.

Post-mortems of bad investments reveal the cause is never a calculation error but always a psychological bias or emotional trap. Sequoia catalogs ~40 of these, including failing to separate the emotional 'thrill of the chase' from the clinical, objective assessment required for sound decision-making.

To predict the future health of a partnership, intentionally have difficult conversations before any investment is made. If you can't productively disagree or discuss serious problems before you're formally linked, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to do so when the stakes are higher post-investment.

Unlike committees, where partners might "sell" each other on a deal, a single decision-maker model tests true conviction. If a General Partner proceeds with an investment despite negative feedback from the partnership, it demonstrates their unwavering belief, leading to more intellectually honest decisions.

Analyzing past failures, TA found that deals approved by lukewarm Investment Committee (IC) members led to poor outcomes. They now require enthusiastic IC support and add approved deals to the IC members' personal track records. This system aligns incentives and prevents conviction from overriding caution.

Bessemer's investment process favors individual partner conviction over group consensus. A partner can "pound the table" for a deal (the "gold nugget") without the risk of another partner vetoing it (the "blackball" model). This fosters ownership and bold bets, with performance as the ultimate accountability.

To avoid emotional decision-making, especially with losing positions, write down the specific criteria for any investment. Then, backtest those rules against historical data. This replaces emotional struggle with a systematic, data-driven process.

The romanticized idea of a dramatic "investment committee" meeting is a myth. The most effective investment process is collaborative and iterative, where an idea is pitched early and gains momentum across the firm over time. The formal meeting becomes a rubber stamp for a decision that has already been organically reached.