Aia Sarycheva

VC world can be cruel and unforgiving. With LPs more and more pushing for distribution and liquidity, fund managers in the mid-tenure of their fund with zero DPI and TVPI around 1.0 would have much more difficulty to raise new fund. The ability to fundraise is one of the crucial indications and validation of the job for VCs. Key highlights from the article below: Thirteen percent of venture General Partners (GPs) no longer plan to raise another fund due to LP pullback. This rate has doubled since H1 2023 when only 6% of GPs had no plans for another fund. Nearly 44% of venture firms surveyed in mid-2023 had previously postponed their fundraising plans due to concerns about overexposure to the asset class. Many emerging managers entered venture capital in 2019 or 2020 when the LP market supported more funds. However, slow exits in the first half of 2024 have led to challenges in raising second funds without significant cash distributions to LPs. Some venture GPs are now actively participating in the secondaries market to demonstrate returns. Despite the challenges, GPs who secured fresh capital remain optimistic. They expect the 2023 and 2024 vintages to be the strongest return years since 2019. 🚀📈 #VC #VentureCapital #Fundraising #LPs #EmergingManagers #TechInvestment #MarketTrends #CountdownCapital #IndustryInsights #JetVentures #JetInvestment‍‍‍‍‍‍

23

I'm excited to announce that Canapi Ventures has led OpenYield's seed round. OpenYield is redefining how bonds are traded and who gets to trade them. Despite being one of the largest global asset classes, fixed income has long lagged behind equities in terms of innovation. Outdated systems, fragmented liquidity, and barriers to access have made bond trading inefficient, opaque, and inaccessible to many, particularly retail investors.   OpenYield is changing that. By delivering an equity-like trading experience for bonds, the platform transforms the fixed income market into a space defined by transparency, efficiency, and access. With real-time pricing, seamless execution, and intuitive workflows, OpenYield is making bond trading easier and more effective for institutional players, market makers, and retail investors alike. This progress wouldn’t be possible without the exceptional leadership of Jonathan Birnbaum and Hilton Lipschitz, whose decades of experience in capital markets and fintech have earned them the right to build a category leader in this market. Also hard to believe that meeting Jonathan over 20 years ago led to this partnership today!   For Canapi’s network of financial institution LPs, OpenYield represents an exciting opportunity to enhance wealth platforms, attract new client assets, and deepen advisor relationships. As the competition for wealth clients intensifies, access to efficient fixed income trading will be a critical differentiator, delivering real value for customers and strengthening client loyalty. Thrilled to be partnering with Ben Savage and Ned Daoro at Clocktower Ventures. Shoutout to Harrison Kioko. More thoughts on our investment thesis here:

169

6 Comments

"Simply put, there is too much capital seeking too few opportunities, particularly at the seed stage. Multi-stage firms have eliminated pricing discipline at seed stage and the proliferation of seed firms has made the task of investing at this stage as competitive as it’s ever been, leading me to believe that indexed seed investing in today’s environment will produce poor returns. What does this mean for today’s environment? It’s never been more important to break away from median performance. While there is risk in breaking away from the pack, the risk (at least performance wise) of staying part of the herd is simply far worse. Median returns for the recent vintages are simply terrible. One could argue that funds are still in their j-curve phases, but I suspect this doesn’t explain the divergence we’re seeing between GOOD performers and GREAT performers. More than ever before, it’s clear to me that playing the same game as everyone else will not work, so fund managers should question whether they are really capable of being in the top 5% of whatever strategy they are employing. From a LP perspective, allocators should likely ask the same of their managers and consider whether allocating to indexed mega funds or indexing across too broad of a portfolio of managers is tenable in achieving their return targets." https://lnkd.in/g8GqHY-P

5

What should investors expect from the VC industry over the next 3-5 years when it comes to exits and performance? Rick Zullo, on X, has argued that there will be a greater divergence between VC funds, with the most successful ones producing even stronger performance, while the median fund return will reduce. I would agree with this as we are likely to see fewer, but typically larger, exits. It will become more important than ever to have meaningful exposure to the small number of winners that drive VC performance. We saw this divergence in VC fund performance very clearly after the 2008/09 financial crisis. As you can see from the chart below, it was the top-tier, established managers who make up our Core Manager cohort that massively outperformed as the market recovered. We have identified three key factors that we believe materially contributed to this outperformance: 1. Quality of portfolio companies. We know that VC is a power law asset class, but the distribution of returns is even more concentrated after a correction. The number of successful exits falls significantly and the small number of VCs able to back these companies will materially outperform. We usually see the best companies actually improve their competitive positioning during a correction. They become more capital efficient, increase market share and benefit from many of their competitors being unable to survive. 2. Availability of capital. In a downturn, even the very best companies will usually need to raise additional capital. As a VC, if you don't have the capital to support these companies and protect your ownership, then you are in trouble. The best VCs can still raise new funds even in the worst of markets and will have the capital to ensure their best companies survive. 3. Willingness to continue to invest during the most challenging periods. The best managers have the experience of managing through prior downturns as well as the confidence (and the capital) to take advantage of the opportunities that a correction creates. This means that they can double down on their best companies, often at attractive valuations, and also access market leaders they may have missed in prior rounds. We have seen a major flight to quality from LPs to date in 2024, with a small number of VCs responsible for the vast majority of capital raised. Unfortunately, this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Venture capital is a cyclical asset class - corrections are a feature, not a bug. This means that LPs need to construct a portfolio that not only captures the upside as the market rises, but is also resilient during a downturn.

75

3 Comments

As a GP in climate venture capital, I often meet high-net-worth individuals or family offices new to VC, wondering if they should invest as LPs. While LPs choose which VC funds to partner with, GPs also select which LPs to admit. VC is not a typical financial product—it's a relationship. LPs and GPs will work together in the same fund for the typical 10-year fund life. It's crucial for LPs to understand the firm's strategy before becoming fund LPs and be good partners with the other limited partners, potentially supporting the fund's best outcomes. Common Questions from New LPs 1. Can I take my money back in the middle of the fund? Typically, no. VC investments are long-term, and GPs expect LPs to stay for the full time horizon. Startups need time to mature and exit, requiring patience. However, you can trade your LP shares in the secondary market, though this may involve negotiation and a valuation cut. 2. Can I force the GP to invest or not invest in a startup? No. LPs cannot and should not influence GP investment decisions. GPs have a portfolio strategy and make decisions for specific reasons. Trust the GPs' expertise. If their financial returns align with the fund's goals, join the next fund. If not, look into the reasons but don't interfere. 3. Is VC more risky than growth capital? Many believe early-stage investments are riskier than later-stage ones, but VCs typically return 3x with longer time frame, whereas growth funds return 2x with shorter time frame. Growth investments need careful valuation. The 2022 SPAC wave's stock price drop did not end too well for many growth investors. 4. Does having brand-name co-investors demonstrate a good GP? No. Each fund or investor has its own strategy. Strategic investors might invest for synergies, not just financial returns. Focus on understanding GPs' rationale rather than buzzwords. 5. Should LPs have irrelevant requirements on how GPs should run a fund? LPs need to know the asset class and sectors they are investing in. If unfamiliar, GPs can provide background information. Imposing irrelevant requirements can hinder operations and make GPs reconsider the partnership. GPs prefer constructive input and have limits on the number of LPs and the size of checks accepted. By understanding these points, new LPs can better navigate the venture capital landscape and form productive partnerships with GPs. Fellow GPs, other points to add?

39

3 Comments

Check out my recent post on why President Trump is the forcing function for us to solve the “Missing Middle” and catch the industrial Tsunami of onshoring coming to the US!

84

9 Comments

Here’s a question investors are often asked: When evaluating early stage companies, how much time do you spend on due diligence around future exits? It’s not surprising we hear this question a lot. Also not surprising: it’s got a wide range of answers depending on the firm. Some don’t spend much time here at all. Others make it a point to put meaningful time in as part of their process. Our current thinking: take the time to do the work on public market comps. At Alpaca VC, we spend significant time understanding how public market investors will  realistically value a business based on margin profile, product, business model & TAM. In short, we want to know: how will this company be valued at scale when we get taken out? Yes, we can acknowledge that the journey toward exit is a windy road and that there may be pivots along the way, but there are still public market companies that have a business model similar to the early stage company you're evaluating. And you can always look at gross profit multiples if you think the margin profile will change over time. So we still do the work on the comps. Quantitative metrics we look at when making the comparison to public market comps include EBITDA multiple, revenue multiple, Gross Profit multiple or all of the above. As part of this process, it’s also important to factor in the public market company’s year-over-year revenue growth as this will also significantly impact the multiple it trades at. Simple example: if you have two public market companies with similar business models and similar margin profiles, but one's growing 100% year over year, and one's growing 50% year over year, then obviously the DCF (discounted cash flow) analysis is going to spit out a very different valuation for the one that's growing faster. Why this matters: When you take all of that information into account as you evaluate an early stage business, you can begin to create a realistic picture of how this company will be valued in the public markets at exit - or how an acquirer will value the company for an acquisition. Strategic acquirers may, of course, pay a premium, but we won’t underwrite for that. This allows us, for example, to form conviction around valuation based on revenue and gross profit predictions. If we think they can do $100M of revenue five years from now, we use this diligence process to form a thesis about whether the characteristics above (product, margin, business model, etc.) will cause the company to be valued at $200M vs. $500M vs. $1B at exit. Curious how other early stage investors think about underwriting an exit and how much time they’re spending on public market comps even though these companies are in their infancy.

39

3 Comments

Reasons why I care about more women being LPs in venture funds (specifically in Fireroad Ventures, but generally, too): 1. Diverse dealflow. A lot of dealflow to fund managers comes from their LPs, and women know women starting ventures. 2. Opportunity perspective. The more diverse our perspectives around problem spaces, the more we'll understand an opportunity. 3. Talent networks. When one of our portfolio companies is making a key hire or looking for a service provider, the first network we tap is that of our LPs. Women know women who are ballers in their field. 4. Economic empowerment. When I worked in philanthropy, the adage was that women make 94% of a household's financial decisions. After fundraising for a year, I don't buy that anymore because it is NOT true for household investing decisions. Let's make sure that investing opportunities are part of those financial decisions and that women are empowered to bring opportunities to the household, not just "giving permission" to their partners. 5. Selfishness. When I wire money to a new portfolio company, there are two faces in my mind: that of the founder and that of an LP. I imagine myself introducing the founder to the LP and try to think about how the LP will feel about their money being allocated toward that opportunity with that leadership. It's *so* personal. I'd like to see more women on both sides of that mental exercise because there are women at every stage of my career that have played significant roles modeling, supporting, and propelling me in my own path.

30

4 Comments

Dan Primack had some pointed criticism for #VC yesterday in his Axios Pro Rata newsletter (a daily must read IMO 😤). In short, the model doesn't work if it can't produce exits for LPs. Don't blame public markets (which are at all-time highs) for the lack of liquidity either. 📈 💸 Instead, this is a "liquidity drought of your making" where "...swinging for the fences on every pitch, rather than taking the single or double that's available" is the only way out when you invest at "sky high valuations." 😰 "A whopping 37% of "unicorns" are being held for at least nine years by VC funds, including 13% that are past the 12-year mark." 😳 ⌛ Is he right? Is VC at a dire inflection point? Or is Primack prematurely hitting the panic button? 🚨 https://lnkd.in/dts92pXr

2

LP Tip #20 out of #50: To re-up or not to re-up A re-up refers to an LP making an additional investment in a fund where they previously invested. Before we dive in I want to share that there are reasons an LP may not to re-up which are not in your control. Here is a short list: ➡️ The LP may have evolved their strategy and needs to scale back the #️⃣ of funds they invested in.   ➡️ The LP was never set up to re-up in the first place. ➡️ The LP could be an individual that found themselves in a cash crunch and overly exposed to venture.  I'm assuming that when you got your investment that the LP explicitly told you they do re-ups. Please do not assume they do. My expectation is also that the LP dug in to properly underwrite the fund. 🏴 Re-ups are not automatic. An LP will have to re-underwrite each fund. The speed of the re-up also depends on how much work was done in the initial investment, who led the investment, level of confidence there existed when that investment was done, and current pipeline of funds. There are 4 flags that may cause an LP to walk away. 1️⃣ Partner Breakups/Changes and Team Turnover:  The biggest risk in Partnerships are whether the Partners will stay together. One LP gave me a framework on how to think through this issue that has stuck with me. Partnership is like a marriage. If one feels there is potential for a breakup, does one believe it will be an amicable breakup? Or, does one believe the spouses will never talk again? If it is an amicable split that is manageable. The Partners can find a way to support the fund. Then the question becomes whether the LP wants to back the Partner/s that remain.  If there is high team turnover. The LP will want to investigate because team stability is used as a proxy for firm sustainability and ability to scale. 2️⃣ Fund Does not Execute on what they Sold the LP:  The LP “bought” something specific and typically it is because they were missing this strategy or wanted exposure to a strategy for the portfolio they were constructing. An institutional LP will invest and write a detailed investment memo flagging all the things you said you were going to do and then go back and compare when you come back to ask for money. If for example you pitched a generalist seed stage fund and you show up asking for money sharing that you invested in deeptech at A that will cause alarm. The same can be said for the number of companies you promised to invest in or check sizes you wrote. If there are big differences LPs will want to know why. 3️⃣ Bad Actions  The fund manager/s does something that is unethical. This is a no go for an LP.  What if the situation is not clearcut? This is different for everyone and requires discussions b/w GP and LP, but most LPs don't want headline risk. 4️⃣ Continuous Underperformance  If it's early days an LP will look at some key indicators to see how you are progressing over time.

17

I've participated in 100+ conversations with venture fund LPs this year. The most frequently discussed topics include: Team dynamics Sourcing differentiation Decision-making and selection process Portfolio support Sector thesis Track record Model and deployment strategy Network Long-term vision Timing (why now) References Fund infrastructure and reporting

25

3 Comments

"Small funds may have more incentive to produce higher returns The alignment of incentives between GP and LP varies drastically based on fund size. Managers of smaller funds who have invested substantial personal capital demonstrate an unwavering commitment to lucrative returns, while managers at the helm of colossal funds, buoyed by significant management fees, may exhibit a diminishing drive. This constitutes an almost incontrovertible structural benefit of managing a small VC fund. Furthermore, fund managers of established funds may, over time, raise larger subsequent funds and grow more risk averse. This can present a sub-optimal outcome for their LPs and, by virtue, manifests a bad omen for VC investing." https://lnkd.in/gHKgea4e

150

15 Comments

Interesting data and good work from Carta in their inaugural VC fund performance report analyzing benchmarks for more than 1800 funds across six recent vintages - https://lnkd.in/e5R_dhXp Take a look at the pace of investments. As expected, capital deployment has slowed since the 2020 peak, with 2022 funds only using 43% of their capital after 24 months, down from 60% in 2020. This trend seems broadly consistent across private company and fund investing, with GPs and their LPs being more cautious and selective with capital allocation. Raising capital is tough today. Full stop. It's easy to focus on that, but I'd encourage us all to instead consider and focus on what is less talked about - that this cautious approach has created a large amount of available capital aka "dry powder," dedicated and ready to support special founders. The best founders are aware of private market dynamics, which impact the time needed to raise rounds and the milestones they must hit to successfully do that, but their primary focus is always the mission and the customers they serve. They are committed to building products to solve their customers' problems regardless of what us investors think. Building generational companies is never easy, but many have been and will continue to be built in tough markets. I try to take a similar approach in supporting founders. That doesn't mean ignoring market conditions, which can greatly impact my investment decisions and outcomes, but like focused founders, I know it makes more sense to dedicate my limited daily energy to what I can control. That means finding and supporting founders who are transforming or creating markets and doing everything I can to help them win, no matter what the market is doing. I hope to collaborate with many doing the same. Have a great week and see you out there! Note: These thoughts and opinions are solely mine and and mine alone. They do not reflect and are not associated with any company I am part of.

19

1 Comment

I used to think LPs only invested in emerging VC / PE firms for better returns. That’s true…sort of They obviously first and foremost want high returns, but in building our firm and studying the industry I’ve learned that LP motivations are more nuanced than that To understand why an LP really might invest in us, I start with the assumption that they could invest that $ in Blackstone (or a similar large PE firm with top quartile track record) What could we offer that is incremental, and how should we position ourselves in that way? 1. Smaller funds can be higher upside — LPs may be looking for higher risk / higher return opportunities, so we have to emphasize the path to outlier returns. This means discussing not only their expected value but also the distribution of outcomes, and how that might differ from the rest of their portfolio 2. Harder to partner with successful firms later — LPs are often looking to build long-term partnerships with firms that will be around for many fund cycles, and that is about more than just returns. It’s important to emphasize not just the strategy of this fund but also the vision of the firm we’re building 3. Co-invest opportunities — Some LPs don’t care about co-invest, others only invest in funds for co-invest. When speaking with the latter, we emphasize that we have a disciplined and repeatable process to generate and share co-invest opportunities (easy to say, harder to execute) 4. Learning and thought partnership — We have LPs that invested in us because they have conviction in or personal passion for health & wellness and want to learn more about the ecosystem. For these folks we might talk through investment opportunities they see that are in our industry, or invite them to industry events. We also spend a ton of time writing quarterly letters to help them track the industry and learn from our companies It takes years to know where our returns will ultimately shake out, and we’ll have no reason or permission to exist if they aren’t good In the meantime it’s crucial to recognize and deliver on these other needs of our LPs, to provide the experience that they signed up for

94

6 Comments

As the Shasta Ventures approval deadline approaches, we're presented with a unique opportunity to observe the complexities and inherent conflicts in GP-led secondary transactions. This scenario sheds light on the considerable leverage GPs hold within the private equity infrastructure. According to the article, proposed continuation fund requires LPs to approve the transaction if they wish to roll their interests into the new structure—a stipulation that could be seen as putting undue pressure on LPs. This raises critical questions about the balance of power in private equity deals and the alignment of interests between GPs and LPs. What are your thoughts? Is it appropriate for GPs to demand such conditions for LPs to participate in a continuation fund? How do you see this impacting the broader private equity landscape and the perception of GP-led secondary transactions? Looking forward to hearing your insights and perspectives on this pivotal issue. #PrivateEquity #VentureCapital #InvestmentTrends #ShastaVentures #GPledSecondaries

3

2 Comments

The Great Divide: Fundraising Fundraising Disparities Between Large and Small Buyout Funds With Bain Capital recently raising $9bn, the chasm between large and small buyout funds has never been more pronounced. Large buyout funds, with their established track records and deep-pocketed investor bases, continue to find fundraising relatively straightforward. These giants benefit from economies of scale, brand recognition, and the ability to attract institutional investors who are eager to deploy capital into proven entities. On the other hand, small buyout funds face a much tougher landscape. Despite often having innovative strategies and niche market focuses, these smaller players struggle to gain traction. The challenges are multifaceted: limited access to large institutional investors, higher perceived risk, and the need to demonstrate a track record in a highly competitive environment. Additionally, the due diligence process for smaller funds can be more rigorous, as investors seek to mitigate risks associated with less established managers. Looking ahead to 2025, the fundamental advantages held by large buyout funds will persist. However, whilst the fundraising landscape remains challenging for small buyout funds, opportunities for growth and differentiation exist. The key will be for these smaller players to leverage their unique strengths and continue to build compelling narratives that resonate with investors seeking both returns and innovation.

7

I recently saw this metric from Carta’s 1Q24 VC Fund Report, which is very concerning. DPI... is nowhere to be found in earlier vintages that probably should start showing DPI. Funding early-stage projects is great, but ultimately, these venture dollars need to exit their investments and pay back their limited partners. That’s where the metric Distributed to Paid-In Capital (DPI) comes in. While managing a fund, we get interim measures during the life of the fund (e.g. IRR, MOIC), but ultimately, “you can’t eat IRR.” If you want to build a lasting venture capital organization, you need to start showing DPI for your fund. Keep in mind that this is traditional VC data from Carta, and is not strictly crypto venture. Crypto venture tends to get liquidity earlier (tokens) and things tend to go parabolic sooner (faster, more unicorns) - but I’d wager that the data here is somewhat similar for Crypto VCs… Not as much DPI as there should be from these earlier vintages. Read the full article, as well as a recap of all the crypto fundraising rounds for August, here: https://lnkd.in/g3eVJ-iF

25

2 Comments

2024 Halftime – Complicated VC Landscape… There are two important considerations that will frame the venture capital narrative for the remainder of the year: the elections and financial condition of the country. According to Bank of America, 2024 will see national elections in countries that account for 60% of the global GDP and 40% of the world’s population, with the U.S. election arguably being the most seminal. The U.S. election is in 119 days and our national debt is increasing approximately $1.0 trillion every 100 days… Thoughts on what to expect in 2H24… https://lnkd.in/e-5tAPF6 Flare Capital Partners #digitalhealth

34

A new era of deep tech has emerged. First time funds will raise “unheard of” amounts of capital to fuel next gen deep tech startups - producing outsized, superior returns for LP’s compared to the rest. Prudent investors will act on this data and shift investment strategy as LP’s or risk being left behind savvy wealth managers and CIO’s / FO’s who saw this trend begin 4 years ago.

100

8 Comments