Australia's Future Fund started with a $60B lump sum, forcing a conservative initial strategy to avoid a catastrophic early loss. This contrasts with funds that grow via small contributions and can afford a higher risk appetite from the outset. Initial funding conditions significantly shape long-term strategy.
Related Insights
Benchmark learned that large funds create an "overhang of misfit" with the practice of early-stage investing. The pressure to deploy massive capital volumes conflicts with the hands-on, shoulder-to-shoulder partnership that early founders need, leading to less joy and purpose.
Mega-funds can justify paying "stupid prices" at the seed stage because they aren't underwriting a seed-stage return. Instead, they are buying an option on the next, much larger round where they'll deploy real capital. This allows them to outbid smaller funds who need to generate returns from the initial investment itself.
The continuous monthly inflows of successful evergreen funds create immense pressure to deploy capital quickly. In slow deal markets, this forces a difficult choice: halt inflows and kill momentum, or risk performance dilution from cash drag or investing in lower-quality assets to meet deployment targets.
Large, multi-stage funds can pay any price for seed rounds because the check size is immaterial to their fund's success. They view seed investments not on their own return potential, but as an option to secure pro-rata rights in future, massive growth rounds.
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.
The minimum seed capital for an ETF has jumped from $5M to over $25M, not due to rising operational costs, but to convey credibility. A substantial launch amount signals to the market that the fund can sustain itself for the 3-5 years necessary to build a track record and attract investors.
A large, multi-stage VC firm's growth fund serves as a risk mitigation tool. The ability to concentrate capital into late-stage winners covers losses from a higher volume of early-stage mistakes, allowing the firm to be more "promiscuous" and take more shots at Series A.
The increased volatility and shorter defensibility windows in the AI era challenge traditional VC portfolio construction. The logical response to this heightened risk is greater diversification. This implies that early-stage funds may need to be larger to support more investments or write smaller checks into more companies.
Contrary to the retail investor's focus on high-yield funds, the 'smart money' first ensures the safety of their capital. They allocate the majority of their portfolio (50-70%) to secure assets, protecting their core fortune before taking calculated risks with the remainder.
Contrary to the common VC advice to "play the game on the field" during hot markets, Founder Collective reduces its check size for high-valuation deals. This strategy allows them to maintain exposure to promising companies while intentionally keeping the fund's overall weighted average cost basis low.
