Strict investment theses (e.g., "only second-time founders") are merely guidelines. The high volume of meetings required in venture capital provides the essential context and pattern recognition needed to identify exceptional outliers that defy rigid heuristics.

Related Insights

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.

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.

An investor's best career P&L winners are not immediate yeses. They often involve an initial pass by either the investor or the company. This shows that timing and building relationships over multiple rounds can be more crucial than a single early-stage decision, as a 'missed round' isn't a 'missed company'.

YC now provides founders an investor's conversion rate (meetings vs. checks). A low rate signals to founders not to prioritize that meeting, forcing VCs to abandon a "catch-all" meeting approach in favor of being highly selective upfront to avoid damaging their reputation within the ecosystem.

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.

'Gifted TVPI' comes from consensus deals with pedigreed founders who easily raise follow-on capital. 'Earned TVPI' comes from non-consensus founders whose strong metrics eventually prove out the investment. A healthy early-stage portfolio requires a deliberate balance of both.

The most critical decision in venture isn't the final investment vote but the mid-funnel choice of which companies get a deep look. The costliest errors are false negatives—great companies dismissed prematurely. Firms should therefore optimize process hygiene at this stage, implementing mandatory post-meeting debriefs to avoid these misses.

Unlike operating companies that seek consistency, VC firms hunt for outliers. This requires a 'stewardship' model that empowers outlier talent with autonomy. A traditional, top-down CEO model that enforces uniformity would stifle the very contrarian thinking necessary for venture success. The job is to enable, not manage.

Lior Susan highlights the biggest mental hurdle for former operators becoming VCs: internalizing the power law. Operators are builders wired to fix problems and believe they can turn any situation around. In VC, success is driven by a few massive outliers, requiring focus on winners, not on fixing every company.

VCs Need High Reps (100:1 Meeting-to-Deal Ratio) to Know When to Break Investment Rules | RiffOn