Sequoia's internal philosophy dictates that venture capital is not a downside minimization game. A fund with a write-off rate below 40% is seen as not taking enough risk to generate outlier returns. This counter-intuitive metric prioritizes bold bets over preserving capital on every deal.
Related Insights
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.
Undiversified founders can't afford a VC's portfolio mindset. Instead of pursuing ideas that *could* work, they must adopt strategies that would be *weird if they didn't work*. This shifts focus from optimizing for a chance of success to minimizing the chance of absolute failure.
Many sub-$500M venture funds are over-invested and under-reserved. While venture capitalists like Josh Wolfe predict a 50% failure rate for these "minnows," the Limited Partners (LPs) who fund them are even more bearish, believing the involuntary extinction rate will be closer to 90%.
Sequoia quantifies its search for 'outlier founders' in statistical terms. An exceptional founder is three standard deviations above the mean in a key trait, but a true outlier is four. This statistical lens explains their high bar, reviewing around 1,000 companies for every single investment.
Top growth investors deliberately allocate more of their diligence effort to understanding and underwriting massive upside scenarios (10x+ returns) rather than concentrating on mitigating potential downside. The power-law nature of venture returns makes this a rational focus for generating exceptional performance.
Venture capital returns materialize over a decade, making short-term outputs like markups unreliable 'mirages.' Sequoia instead measures partners on tangible inputs. They are reviewed semi-annually on the quality of their decision-making process (e.g., investment memos) and their adherence to core team values, not on premature financial metrics.
Large, contrarian investments feel like career risk to partners in a traditional VC firm, leading to bureaucracy and diluted conviction. Founder-led firms with small, centralized decision-making teams can operate with more decisiveness, enabling them to make the bold, potentially firm-defining bets that consensus-driven partnerships would avoid.
The firm distinguishes between speed (magnitude) and velocity (magnitude plus direction). Founders are encouraged to focus on velocity, ensuring the entire team is moving quickly *in the right direction*. This prevents wasted effort where mere motion is mistaken for progress, a common trap in turbulent markets.
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.
The majority of venture capital funds fail to return capital, with a 60% loss-making base rate. This highlights that VC is a power-law-driven asset class. The key to success is not picking consistently good funds, but ensuring access to the tiny fraction of funds that generate extraordinary, outlier returns.