We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Glenn Solomon argues against the trend of asset aggregation, stating that fund size must be determined by the firm's investment strategy. A strategy of making concentrated, early-stage bets naturally dictates a smaller fund size, while letting AUM demand dictate size corrupts the model.
Samra argues that as AUM grows, finding undervalued securities becomes exponentially harder. To maintain high returns, he focuses capital only on his absolute best ideas, avoiding the dilution of a "30th best idea." This concentration is a direct response to the constraints of scale and the difficulty of finding true value.
The optimal strategy for solo VCs is to resist the urge to scale fund size. Instead, they should raise smaller funds (sub-$50M) and deploy them on faster cycles (e.g., every 18 months). This approach aligns with LP constraints, avoids competition with larger firms, and enables the high portfolio velocity (80+ companies) needed for the solo GP model to work.
Applying Conway's Law to venture, a firm's strategy is dictated by its fund size and team structure. A $7B fund must participate in mega-rounds to deploy capital effectively, while a smaller fund like Benchmark is structured to pursue astronomical money-on-money returns from earlier stages, making mega-deals strategically illogical.
Micah Rosenbloom of Founder Collective argues that keeping fund sizes small is a strategic choice. It aligns the firm with founders by making smaller, life-changing exits viable, maintaining founder optionality, and focusing on multiples rather than management fees from a large AUM.
As venture capital firms scale to manage billions, their business model shifts from the 'artisan craft' of early-stage investing to an industrial process of asset gathering. This makes it difficult to focus on small, early opportunities and will likely result in IRRs that are no better than the industry average.
The primary risk to a VC fund's performance isn't its absolute size but rather a dramatic increase (e.g., doubling) from one fund to the next. This forces firms to change their strategy and write larger checks than their conviction muscle is built for.
Solo GP Zal Bilimoria intentionally keeps his fund size small and consistent at $50 million. This disciplined strategy is designed so that achieving a 5% stake in a billion-dollar company at exit would generate a $50 million return, covering the entire fund and ensuring strong performance from a single breakout investment.
Notable Capital's Glenn Solomon argues that massive VC funds are mathematically challenged. Their size forces them to write large, late-stage checks at high valuations, making it difficult to achieve the ownership percentages needed for outsized returns enjoyed by early-stage investors.
Bill Maris argues that smaller funds (<$750M) consistently outperform larger ones due to simple math. A multi-billion-dollar fund needs to return a value that can exceed the entire annual VC-backed exit market to achieve a 3x return. Smaller funds have more achievable targets and can offer founders more focused support.
Founder Collective intentionally keeps funds sub-$100M to ensure that moderate, life-changing exits for founders (e.g., $95M) are also significant wins for the fund. This strategy prioritizes founder flexibility over the binary, “unicorn-or-bust” pressure imposed by larger funds.