A VC firm's brand can be disproportionately defined by its most controversial investments, even if they represent a tiny fraction of the fund's capital. A single high-engagement, 'slop' company can easily overshadow a portfolio of solid, less sensational businesses in the public eye.

Related Insights

In today's founder-centric climate, many VCs avoid confrontation to protect their reputation (NPS) within the founder network. This fear of being blacklisted leads them to abdicate their fiduciary duty to shareholders, failing to intervene even when a company's performance is dire and hard decisions are needed.

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.

Successful concentration isn't just about doubling down on winners. It's equally about avoiding the dispersion of capital and attention. This means resisting the industry bias to automatically do a pro-rata investment in a company just because another VC offered a higher valuation.

Investing in founders like Rippling's Parker Conrad or Anduril's Palmer Luckey post-controversy is a bet that the media narrative was wrong and they were unfairly 'thrown under the bus.' It's a high-conviction strategy focused on backing resilient individuals who emerge from public firestorms stronger and more focused.

New VCs often rush to make deals to prove themselves, but this leads to a portfolio of mediocre companies. These investments consume a disproportionate amount of time and energy, leaving no bandwidth to pursue the truly exceptional, career-making opportunities that may appear later.

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.

'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.

When Marc Andreessen appeared on Fortune's cover, competing VCs were furious, arguing the entrepreneur should be the hero. This reaction exposed the industry's unspoken rule that VCs operate in the background. A16z's public-facing strategy deliberately broke this cartel-like code of silence.

The institutionalization of venture capital as a career path changes investor incentives. At large funds, individuals may be motivated to join hyped deals with well-known founders to advance their careers, rather than taking on the personal risk of backing a contrarian idea with higher return potential.

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.

VCs Funding 'Slop' Risk Their Brand as Low-Allocation Bets Can Dominate Perception | RiffOn