Contrary to the instinct to sell a big winner, top fund managers often hold onto their best-performing companies. The initial 10x return is a strong signal of a best-in-class product, team, and market, indicating potential for continued exponential growth rather than a peak.

Related Insights

Contrary to the 'get in early' mantra, the certainty of a 3-5x return on a category-defining company like Databricks can be a more attractive investment than a high-risk seed deal. The time and risk-adjusted returns for late-stage winners are often superior.

Traditional valuation models assume growth decays over time. However, when a company at scale, like Databricks, begins to reaccelerate, it defies these models. This rare phenomenon signals an expanding market or competitive advantage, justifying massive valuation premiums that seem disconnected from public comps.

The most successful venture investors share two key traits: they originate investments from a first-principles or contrarian standpoint, and they possess the conviction to concentrate significant capital into their winning portfolio companies as they emerge.

Some companies execute a 3-5 year plan and then revert to average returns. Others 'win by winning'—their success creates new opportunities and network effects, turning them into decade-long compounders that investors often sell too early.

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.

For startups experiencing hyper-growth, the optimal strategy is to raise capital aggressively and frequently—even multiple times a year—regardless of current cash reserves. This builds a war chest, solidifies a high valuation based on momentum, and effectively starves less explosive competitors of investor attention and capital.

The standard VC heuristic—that each investment must potentially return the entire fund—is strained by hyper-valuations. For a company raising at ~$200M, a typical fund needs a 60x return, meaning a $12 billion exit is the minimum for the investment to be a success, not a grand slam.

Financial models struggle to project sustained high growth rates (>30% YoY). Analysts naturally revert to the mean, causing them to undervalue companies that defy this and maintain high growth for years, creating an opportunity for investors who spot this persistence.

The venture capital return model has shifted so dramatically that even some multi-billion-dollar exits are insufficient. This forces VCs to screen for 'immortal' founders capable of building $10B+ companies from inception, making traditionally solid businesses run by 'mortal founders' increasingly uninvestable by top funds.

Instead of focusing on relative performance against an index, the speaker sets an absolute goal of doubling capital every five years. This forces a highly selective process, screening for businesses with the potential to be 10x, 50x, or 100x winners, and treats benchmarks merely as an indicator of opportunity cost.