Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Bill Maris argues that smaller funds (<$750M) consistently outperform larger ones due to simple math. A multi-billion-dollar fund needs to return a value that can exceed the entire annual VC-backed exit market to achieve a 3x return. Smaller funds have more achievable targets and can offer founders more focused support.

Related Insights

Applying Conway's Law to venture, a firm's strategy is dictated by its fund size and team structure. A $7B fund must participate in mega-rounds to deploy capital effectively, while a smaller fund like Benchmark is structured to pursue astronomical money-on-money returns from earlier stages, making mega-deals strategically illogical.

Benchmark Partner Ev Randall argues that large, multi-billion dollar VC funds struggle to generate the high-multiple returns (e.g., 5x net) that LPs seek from venture capital. He claims the sheer size of these funds "defies the laws of physics," positioning smaller, more constrained funds like Benchmark as better able to deliver traditional venture-like returns.

In an environment of large, multi-stage funds, smaller firms differentiate by providing stable, long-term partner relationships and highly specialized networks. This appeals to founders who value dedicated support over just a large check and high valuation from a firm with high employee turnover.

A smaller fund size enables investments in seemingly niche but potentially lucrative sectors, such as software for dental labs. A larger fund would have to pass on such a deal, not because the founder is weak, but because the potential exit isn't large enough to satisfy their fund return model.

For a megafund like Andreessen Horowitz's $15B vehicle to generate venture returns, it must consistently capture a significant market share—roughly 10%—of all successful outcomes. This transforms their investment strategy into a game of market share acquisition across all stages, not just picking individual winners.

A multi-billion dollar exit's impact is relative to fund construction. For a concentrated Series A fund (30 companies), a $20B exit is a "Grand Slam." For a diversified seed fund (300 companies), the same exit is just a "Home Run" because it needs a 200x return, not a 30x, to be a true "fund returner."

Solo GP Zal Bilimoria intentionally keeps his fund size small and consistent at $50 million. This disciplined strategy is designed so that achieving a 5% stake in a billion-dollar company at exit would generate a $50 million return, covering the entire fund and ensuring strong performance from a single breakout investment.

Contrary to the belief that smaller VC funds generate higher multiples, a16z's data shows their larger funds can outperform. This is driven by the massive expansion of private markets, where significant value is now created in later growth stages (Series C and beyond).

The venture capital landscape is bifurcating. Large, multi-stage funds leverage scale and network, while small, boutique funds win with deep domain expertise. Mid-sized generalist funds lack a clear competitive edge and risk getting squeezed out by these two dominant models.

David George of Andreessen Horowitz reveals that contrary to the belief that smaller funds yield higher multiples, a16z's best-performing fund is a $1B vehicle. This success is driven by capturing enough ownership in massive winners like Databricks and Coinbase, demonstrating that fund size can be an advantage in today's market where value creation extends into later private stages.