The memo details how investors rationalize enormous funding rounds for pre-product startups. By focusing on a colossal potential outcome (e.g., a $1 trillion valuation) and assuming even a minuscule probability (e.g., 0.1%), the calculated expected value can justify the investment, compelling participation despite the overwhelming odds of failure.

A common mistake for emerging managers is pitching LPs solely on the potential for huge returns. Institutional LPs are often more concerned with how a fund's specific strategy, size, and focus align with their overall portfolio construction. Demonstrating a clear, disciplined strategy is more compelling than promising an 8x return.

Effective due diligence isn't a checklist, but the collection of many small data points—revenue, team retention, customer love, CVC interest. A strong investment is a "beam" where all points align positively. Any misalignment creates doubt and likely signals a "no," adhering to the "if it's not a hell yes, it's a no" rule.

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.

Post-mortems of bad investments reveal the cause is never a calculation error but always a psychological bias or emotional trap. Sequoia catalogs ~40 of these, including failing to separate the emotional 'thrill of the chase' from the clinical, objective assessment required for sound decision-making.

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.

The standard VC heuristic—that each investment must potentially return the entire fund—is strained by hyper-valuations. For a company raising at ~$200M, a typical fund needs a 60x return, meaning a $12 billion exit is the minimum for the investment to be a success, not a grand slam.

A core discipline from risk arbitrage is to precisely understand and quantify the potential downside before investing. By knowing exactly 'why we're going to lose money' and what that loss looks like, investors can better set probabilities and make more disciplined, unemotional decisions.

Three dangerous mindsets, or "coats of conviction," derail M&A deals. They are: reactive positioning (chasing auctions), integration negligence (delaying planning), and the model mirage (trusting an untested financial model). A disciplined, proactive process is the antidote to these common pitfalls.