Despite constant talk of new venture capital models, firms like Index Ventures and Benchmark demonstrate that the traditional approach still reigns. Their success comes from disciplined, competent execution within a chosen strategy, not from reinventing their fundamental approach to investing.

Related Insights

The 'classic' VC model hunts for unproven talent in niche areas. The now-dominant 'super compounder' model argues the biggest market inefficiency is underestimating the best companies. This justifies investing in obvious winners at any price, believing that outlier returns will cover the high entry cost.

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.

Successful concentration isn't just about doubling down on winners. It's equally about avoiding the dispersion of capital and attention. This means resisting the industry bias to automatically do a pro-rata investment in a company just because another VC offered a higher valuation.

Many LPs focus solely on backing the 'best people.' However, a manager's chosen strategy and market (the 'neighborhood') is a more critical determinant of success. A brilliant manager playing a difficult game may underperform a good manager in a structurally advantaged area.

Benchmark Partner Ev Randall argues that large, multi-billion dollar VC funds struggle to generate the high-multiple returns (e.g., 5x net) that LPs seek from venture capital. He claims the sheer size of these funds "defies the laws of physics," positioning smaller, more constrained funds like Benchmark as better able to deliver traditional venture-like returns.

Acknowledging venture capital's power-law returns makes winner-picking nearly impossible. Vested's quantitative model doesn't try. Instead, it identifies the top quintile of all startups to create a high-potential "pond." The strategy is then to achieve broad diversification within this pre-qualified group, ensuring they capture the eventual outliers.

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.

Investors should seek "boring" companies that are well-oiled machines with repeatable processes and disciplined execution. The goal is consistency in outcomes, not operational excitement. Predictable, relentless execution is what generates outsized, "exciting" returns.

While limited partners in venture funds often claim to seek differentiated strategies, in reality, they prefer minor deviations from established models. They want the comfort of the familiar with a slight "alpha" twist, making it difficult for managers with genuinely unconventional approaches to raise institutional capital.

In today's market, 90% of VCs chase signals, while the top 10% (like Sequoia or Founders Fund) *are* the signal. Their investment creates a powerful self-reinforcing dynamic, attracting the best talent, customers, and follow-on capital to their portfolio companies.