Founders Fund's perk allowing employees to co-invest personally is a clever mechanism to test true conviction. If an investor sponsoring a deal is unwilling to put their own money in, it raises a serious question about their belief in the investment's potential, forcing them to justify why it's a better allocation for LPs than their own capital.

Related Insights

Backing independent sponsors on a deal-by-deal basis is more than an investment strategy; it is an extended due diligence process. This approach provides deep, real-time insights into a manager's problem-solving skills under pressure, offering transparency that is impossible to achieve before a Fund I commitment.

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.

For LPs, the primary benefit of pre-fund co-investments with emerging managers isn't just financial returns. It's a critical diligence tool to observe intangible qualities, such as a sponsor's discipline to abandon a flawed deal, which strongly correlates with long-term success.

When making early-stage investments, avoid the common pitfall of betting on just a great idea or just a great founder. A successful investment requires deep belief in both. Every time the speaker has invested with only one of the two criteria met, they have lost money. The mandate must be 'two for two.'

Seed-focused funds have a powerful, non-obvious advantage over multi-stage giants: incentive alignment. A seed fund's goal is to maximize the next round's valuation for the founder. A multi-stage firm, hoping to lead the next round themselves, is implicitly motivated to keep that valuation lower, creating a conflict of interest.

The rise of founder-optimized fundraising—raising smaller, more frequent rounds to minimize dilution—is systematically eroding traditional VC ownership models. What is a savvy capital strategy for a founder directly translates into a VC failing to meet their ownership targets, creating a fundamental conflict in the ecosystem.

The best investment opportunities are often with managers who have strong demand and don't need any single LP's capital. The allocator's core challenge is proving their value to gain access. Conversely, managers who are too eager to negotiate on terms may be a negative signal of quality or demand.

Instead of focusing on process, allocators should first ask managers fundamental questions like "What do you believe?" and "Why does this work?" to uncover their core investment philosophy. This simple test filters out the majority of firms that lack a deeply held, clearly articulated conviction about their edge.

Seed funds can win deals against multistage giants by highlighting the inherent conflict of interest. A seed-only investor is fully aligned with the founder to maximize the Series A valuation, whereas a multistage investor may want a lower price for their own follow-on investment.

When a private equity investment thesis is primarily built around a single person (e.g., a star CEO), it's a sign of weak conviction in the underlying business. If that person fails or leaves, the entire rationale for the investment collapses, revealing a lack of fundamental belief in the company's industry or competitive position.