True investment courage isn't just writing the first check; it's being willing to invest again in a category after a previous investment failed. Many investors become biased and write off entire sectors after a single bad experience, but enduring VCs understand that timing and team make all the difference.

Related Insights

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.

Top growth investors deliberately allocate more of their diligence effort to understanding and underwriting massive upside scenarios (10x+ returns) rather than concentrating on mitigating potential downside. The power-law nature of venture returns makes this a rational focus for generating exceptional performance.

When making early-stage investments, avoid the common pitfall of betting on just a great idea or just a great founder. A successful investment requires deep belief in both. Every time the speaker has invested with only one of the two criteria met, they have lost money. The mandate must be 'two for two.'

A common mistake in venture capital is investing too early based on founder pedigree or gut feel, which is akin to 'shooting in the dark'. A more disciplined private equity approach waits for companies to establish repeatable, business-driven key performance metrics before committing capital, reducing portfolio variance.

Thrive's late-stage philosophy starts with qualitative conviction in the team and product. Quantitative analysis is used to confirm this hypothesis, not generate it. This approach builds resilience against short-term metric fluctuations that cause purely quantitative investors to lose confidence, allowing for bolder, long-term bets.

Large, contrarian investments feel like career risk to partners in a traditional VC firm, leading to bureaucracy and diluted conviction. Founder-led firms with small, centralized decision-making teams can operate with more decisiveness, enabling them to make the bold, potentially firm-defining bets that consensus-driven partnerships would avoid.

'Gifted TVPI' comes from consensus deals with pedigreed founders who easily raise follow-on capital. 'Earned TVPI' comes from non-consensus founders whose strong metrics eventually prove out the investment. A healthy early-stage portfolio requires a deliberate balance of both.

Unlike operating companies that seek consistency, VC firms hunt for outliers. This requires a 'stewardship' model that empowers outlier talent with autonomy. A traditional, top-down CEO model that enforces uniformity would stifle the very contrarian thinking necessary for venture success. The job is to enable, not manage.

The majority of venture capital funds fail to return capital, with a 60% loss-making base rate. This highlights that VC is a power-law-driven asset class. The key to success is not picking consistently good funds, but ensuring access to the tiny fraction of funds that generate extraordinary, outlier returns.

Early-stage founders may face rejection because a VC has a pre-existing bias against their market. A Buildots founder was told "I'm not going to invest in construction" but was offered a $4M check to pivot to cybersecurity, demonstrating some investors have hard "no-go" zones.