Get your free personalized podcast brief
We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Brian Singerman's venture strategy was almost entirely focused on founder assessment, making up over 98% of his decision. He famously doesn't read financial reports or use spreadsheets, instead concentrating all his effort on one question: is this founder the best in the world at something novel?
Related Insights
a16z's investment philosophy is to assess founders on how world-class they are at their core strengths. Horowitz warns it's a mistake to pass on a uniquely talented founder due to fixable weaknesses (e.g., no go-to-market plan) and an equal mistake to back a less talented founder just because they lack obvious flaws.
When you find a special founder, all other rules (ownership targets, valuation) can be broken. Andreessen echoes VC pioneer Arthur Rock's conclusion: he would have been a better investor by focusing 100% on the founder's resume and ignoring the business plan entirely. Great people trump everything else.
Singerman dismisses standard VC practices like reserve calculations and ownership targets as "nonsense." He argues that to truly beat the market, a firm must abandon these rules and concentrate as much capital as possible into its highest-conviction companies, creating extreme, fund-defining outcomes.
Ben Horowitz states a common VC mistake is over-indexing on a startup's weaknesses. The better investment is a team that is unequivocally the best at a single, critical thing. Being "pretty good" at everything is a red flag, as greatness in one area is what drives extraordinary outcomes.
When selecting new GPs to back, Brian Singerman uses a powerful heuristic: could this person, playing their own unique game, have beaten him at his peak as a VC? This test cuts through superficial metrics to identify raw, world-class talent, irrespective of their specific investment strategy.
Rabois's investment formula requires a founder to be the absolute best he's ever met in at least one specific dimension—be it intelligence, tenacity, or strategy. He avoids investing in founders who are merely B+ across the board, betting instead on extreme, world-class exceptionalism.
A truly exceptional founder is a talent magnet who will relentlessly iterate until they find a winning model. Rejecting a partnership based on a weak initial idea is a mistake; the founder's talent is the real asset. They will likely pivot to a much bigger opportunity.
In early-stage investing, the quality of the founder can be more important than the initial business concept. A strong founder is seen as someone who will eventually find success, even if the first idea requires a pivot.
Horowitz instructs his team to focus on how exceptionally good a founder is at their core competency. He warns against two common errors: passing on a world-class individual due to fixable weaknesses, and investing in a founder with no glaring flaws but no world-class strengths.
The quality of the founder is the single most important variable. A great founder with a mediocre plan will outperform a mediocre founder with a great plan. The best investment strategy is to back exceptional people and give them leeway, as they will create upside that breaks all precedents.
