Top VCs' biggest regrets come from passing on genuinely 'great' founders over solvable diligence issues. Mike Maples Jr. advises that when you encounter this rare trait, you should invest immediately, even if the business model is unclear.
Related Insights
In a non-control deal, an investor cannot fire management. Therefore, the primary diligence focus must shift from the business itself to the founder's character and the potential for a strong partnership, as this relationship is the ultimate determinant of success.
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.
A compressed diligence process relies heavily on projections. A superior approach is building a relationship over 1-2 years, which allows an investor to witness the company's actual execution against its stated goals, providing far greater conviction than any financial model.
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.'
VCs with operational backgrounds value execution over credentials. They screen for founders who show an instinct to act and build immediately, such as launching a splash page to test demand, before raising capital. This "dirt under the fingernails" is a stronger signal than pedigree.
Since startups lack infinite time and money, an investor's key diligence question is whether the team can learn and iterate fast enough to find a valuable solution before resources run out. This 'learning velocity' is more important than initial traction or a perfect starting plan.
While assessed during diligence, the true caliber of a founder—their passion, authenticity, and ability to "run through walls"—becomes starkly clear after the deal closes. This distinction is not subtle; the impact of a truly exceptional founder versus an average one is immediately evident in the business's trajectory.
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.
When evaluating revolutionary ideas, traditional Total Addressable Market (TAM) analysis is useless. VCs should instead bet on founders with a "world-bending vision" capable of inducing a new market, not just capturing an existing one. Have the humility to admit you can't predict market size and instead back the visionary founder.
Venture capital should focus on what a founder does exceptionally well, rather than penalizing them for past failures or weaknesses. Ben Horowitz uses the Adam Neumann example to illustrate their principle: judge people by their spectacular talents (like building the WeWork brand) and help them manage their flaws, which is a more effective strategy than seeking perfectly flawless individuals.
