Deciding whether to back a competitor is fraught with conflict. When the speaker considered investing in Stripe, a Square executive called it a conflict, but CEO Jack Dorsey approved. This shows opinions on threats vary internally, justifying multiple checks before proceeding with a potentially conflicting investment.
Related Insights
To ensure robust decision-making, Eclipse requires that if a partner feels strongly against a potential investment, they must join the deal team alongside the champions. This forces a direct confrontation of the risks and ensures that by the time an investment is made, all major concerns have been addressed.
An investment committee's value extends beyond simple gatekeeping. It serves as a vital communication tool between company divisions, a focusing mechanism to prevent chasing distractions, and a mentoring opportunity where junior talent can learn from senior-level analysis and decision-making.
An acquisition target with a valuation that seems 'too good to be true' is a major red flag. The low price often conceals deep-seated issues, such as warring co-founders or founders secretly planning to compete post-acquisition. Diligence on people and their motivations is more critical than just analyzing the financials in these cases.
Unlike committees, where partners might "sell" each other on a deal, a single decision-maker model tests true conviction. If a General Partner proceeds with an investment despite negative feedback from the partnership, it demonstrates their unwavering belief, leading to more intellectually honest decisions.
Analyzing past failures, TA found that deals approved by lukewarm Investment Committee (IC) members led to poor outcomes. They now require enthusiastic IC support and add approved deals to the IC members' personal track records. This system aligns incentives and prevents conviction from overriding caution.
For data-less decisions, PhonePe's co-founders have a simple rule: the partner with deeper historical strength in that domain makes the final call. The other commits fully, and they never revisit the decision, ensuring they learn and move forward without blame.
The romanticized idea of a dramatic "investment committee" meeting is a myth. The most effective investment process is collaborative and iterative, where an idea is pitched early and gains momentum across the firm over time. The formal meeting becomes a rubber stamp for a decision that has already been organically reached.
Sequoia makes consensus investment decisions, viewing each deal as "our investment." This is only possible through a culture of high trust and "front stabbing"—brutally honest, direct debate about a deal's merits. This prevents passive aggression and ensures collective ownership.
Sequoia's internal data shows consensus is irrelevant to investment success. A deal with strong advocates (voting '9') and strong detractors (voting '1') is preferable to one where everyone is mildly positive (a '6'). The presence of passionate conviction, even amid dissent, is the critical signal for pursuing outlier returns.
While it's crucial to listen to markets and clients, founders must also be prepared to stick to their convictions when investors, who may not be specialists in their niche, offer conflicting advice. Knowing when to listen and when to hold firm is a key startup skill.
