Michael Pollack

Have you ever noticed that the word Uber is both a noun and a verb? I have spent years studying shared economy, supply chain and logistics. The first and last mile space has proven profitable and lucrative but also fickle and unpredictable. And I love it. In the world of Yahoos and Googles, Ubers and AirBnBs, a person could argue that branding has very minimal impact on the potential success of a company. I have also spent years studying branding, marketing, product management and customer experience. People love all-inclusive. Sometimes when you're dealing with consumers, a little bit more goes a long way. In WebVans defense, while I'm sure they had the most advanced inventory management system, at the time, I'm sure they didn't have automated storage and retrieval, they didn't have the 5G ecosystem, they didn't have RFID and IOT, they didn't have shared economy and they obviously believed, like Jeff Bezos, that because they had figured out how to deliver a book to your door, they could innovate the entire supply chain. And I love the tenacity. They tried to create an all inclusive customer experience. But like, what happens when the name just kinda sucks? Is it possible that the plateau is being caused by a crappy name? Why would people think Cost Plus is a company that would give them a discount on pharmaceuticals? Why would people think WebVan or GoPuff is the best solution for getting things delivered? Branding is part of the customer experience. It's where the brand loyalty begins and creates the potential for evangelism. Don't forget that part.

1

Our Micro SaaS portfolio company just hit ARR / FTE productivity rivaling $50M SaaS firms. Here are 4 lessons we learned along the way: Focus on operating leverage, not just revenue growth. EBITDA/FTE is an excellent scoreboard. Lean teams move faster and punch harder. Return on effort matters more than chasing scale or deal size. Where have you most recently created operating leverage in your business? #ARR #MicroSaaS #BusinessEfficiency

21

4 Comments

Big announcement below! 👇 Let's talk about the current state of GP-LP affairs: 🤯Emerging VC managers have absolutely exploded over the past 5 years. 📈 At the same time, more and more data has surfaced that shows that emerging VC firms tend to outperform larger, established firms. 🤔 All of this has made it intriguing but tough for LPs to know where to direct their attention. 🛍 GPs frequently meet LPs at conferences who are window shopping but not committed to the asset class or emerging managers. 🧾 And both crews get overwhelmed by transactional convos. So Sydney Paige Thomas and I created Abundance. Abundance is a private, nomination-based retreat for active LPs and top emerging GPs to form new experiences together and build lasting relationships. Why Abundance? Abundance is knowing that there is more than enough for more than one to succeed. And a single win within a community is a win for the community itself. The journey of an emerging VC manager from 1st close to final close or Fund 1 to Fund 2 is (1) communal and (2) requires an abundant mindset. LPs look for structure and confidence to feel comfortable investing in early VC firms. Yet many of the feeds we scroll and conferences we attend reinforce inherent power dynamics and transactional thinking, which allows scarcity mindset to creep in for emerging GPs. Some of the best events I’ve attended have been intentionally non-transactional, e.g. Camp Hustle, Recast Summit, and other GPs’ AGMs. The fundraising success stories we see usually involve a community (usually of other GPs & LPs) coming together to support and open doors for the emerging GP. We designed Abundance to be an immersive gathering that fosters these connections. Starting tonight, ~100 GPs and LPs are descending upon Seattle for the inaugural Abundance retreat. This has been under wraps for months and I can’t wait to see it come to life! Thanks in advance to our awesome sponsors who were the earliest believers in this vision: Sydecar, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Gunderson Dettmer, & Zelda Ventures. And shoutout to my dad Ed Illig for logo design & Halle Kaplan-Allen being the first sponsor to say yes 🤩 Presented by The Council Capital & Symphonic Capital.

131

33 Comments

Why Buying Your First Business is the hardest & Financing The Fear is Being seen as too risky by lenders and investors. The Solution: Prepare a solid business plan with detailed financial projections. Work with a financial advisor to enhance your credibility. Consider alternative financing options like SBA loans or seller financing.

11

3 Comments

Great post by Josh Wagner on the importance of urgency. If you don't want to build a company characterized by urgency and extreme intensity over a long period of time - at least a decade - you would be better off not raising venture capital.

15

1 Comment

If you're a startup, inbound from VCs should be seen as an opportunity to build leverage for your GTM. For example, FTV Capital tracks 20k companies a year and speaks with ~5k, resulting in around 8 investments/yr from ‘21-’23. That's a ton of connections! Ultimately, this matters because you want a warm intro from the VC in order to arrange a top-to-top call between a very small selection of your C-Suite and a prospect's. Partners on company boards are typically best positioned to provide such an intro, but partners are rarely outbounding. Who is regularly leveling with CXOs in the portfolio and outbounding? Firms vary(!), but often VPs and typically Principals. Principals are usually seen as being on the path to Partner and have more influence, but VPs should not be overlooked. They’re essentially super-niche project managers who manage sourcing, due diligence, and portfolio support. Due to the nature of their jobs, they’re also engaged with a much broader set of companies who they view as investment prospects OR who they’ve built a rapport with but did not invest in. Things can get complicated here, but if your company receives inbound from a VP or Principal you should view it as an opportunity to receive a prospect intro. But what to do? (1) Determine whether your Co-Founder(s) or another designated team member should take the call (If you’ve done your homework, this should be an easy choice.) (2) Schedule a call to pitch, include 1-2 companies from their portfolio who fit your ICP. (3) Manage questions without over-sharing. (4) Ask *them* what next steps they’d like to take. If they say, “I’m going to bring this back to my partners…” OR "Let's check in in a couple quarters" it’s unlikely you’ll receive any prospect intro. If they say, “Let’s get (Your Co-Founder) and (My Partner) on the phone by (This Date)” OR “This seems like a great fit for (X Company). Let me talk to (X Company Co-Founder) and email you by (date within 2 weeks) if relevant,” you have a chance. This is only one part of the broader VC GTM. but have a system in place for handling this kind of inbound. These folks are often hustlers with influence, and treating them with conscientiousness and integrity can go a long way. #vc #pe #gtm #partnerships #fintech #saas

5

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

At Forum we look at thousands of deals each year across our Accelerator and Pre-Seed funds but only end up investing in a little over 1% of those startups.  As an early stage VC, I am in the business of saying no to nearly every startup I meet, and while there is nuanced rationale for many of the startups I pass on, a vast majority of businesses that don’t meet the qualification to get funded typically fall into one of two buckets. ▪ First time founders have a tendency to go out to market too early to raise pre-seed capital ▪   I’m sure most founders have heard some iteration of this from VCs that ultimately pass on their business.  In some cases it's a blanket excuse covering up for other pass reasons- perhaps a VC doesn’t believe in a team or isn’t bullish on the market opportunity - but in many cases founders simply haven't proven enough to the market to warrant an investment. I meet many teams with an articulate vision for the product that they want to build, but they either haven't performed enough customer discovery to prove demand for their initial wedge product, or need to raise pre-seed capital to build out an MVP.  In those cases, pre-seed investors are unwilling to underwrite those risks.  To be default fundable, teams need to be able to keep costs low, perform extensive customer discovery, and ship some version of an early product - pilots and early paid customers are key. A huge piece of this is having founding engineering talent on the team. ▪Not every startup is a venture opportunity ▪ By definition, a venture backed business is solving a problem within a market opportunity so massive and so desperately needed, that its growth rate is off the charts.   It spreads like a weed, absorbing almost unlimited amounts of capital to fulfill demand within its customer base.   Each year there are maybe 20 companies launched that ultimately have venture scale outcomes. The bar to reach this rarified air is unfathomably high and the reality is the vast majority of founders simply aren’t building for opportunities that have the potential to be one of these generational companies. Many startup founders view VC as the only viable option for capitalizing their business, but not every great business is a venture business, and most successful founders never take VC dollars.  In order to reach an IPO/acquisition large enough to generate venture returns, a startup needs a credible path to $100s of millions in revenue. This is the standard by which early stage opportunities are evaluated. The flip side to this, and I share this feedback often with founders I meet that are building interesting business in non venture markets, if you are able to scale to $10- $20M in revenue that can be a massively successful outcome for a founder.  There are investors who focus on these type outcomes, namely lower middle market PE shops, and the typical path to those deals is a bootstrapped business or a friends/family capital raise.

96

13 Comments

The acquisition game is very different from 10 years ago now that 70% of SaaS acquisitions are led by private equity investors or PE-owned strategic buyers. Most SaaS founders aren't thinking about the new realities of eventually selling their SaaS companies. It's very different than the old days of "sell it for big multiples to a strategic buyer, cash out, and see ya later." Here are 5 questions for founders to consider the new realities of a potential PE-backed exit: 1) Is my company built to keep growing efficiently after I sell it? - Your SaaS metrics need to be healthy. Growing steadily with efficient CAC and solid revenue retention - You need a business that runs without you, the founder. - And you will still be responsible for fixing the problems in your business. 2) Would I invest in the new company with my hard-earned equity or cash? PE buyers don't cash you out of 100% of your equity, just a partial "first bite of the apple" prize. They buy a minority or majority of your company, so you become the major private investor in the acquiring business. This is not an earn-out. You now own shares in a new company that you don't control. You must be confident enough in the new owners, operators, culture, and vision to invest 20-60% of your hard-earned equity in this new venture. 2) Why will this acquisition work to build and sell a much bigger company? Most old-style mergers and acquisitions didn't work for either side. In this new world, founders need to find the right owner/partner with the right strategy and team to ensure their hard-earned equity pays off on their "2nd bite of the apple" when it is sold again. Founders should also do deep due diligence on their acquiring PE investors, not just pitch themselves for "sale" to any takers. 3) Do I trust the new owners and operators to do the right things? Most founders don't stay on as CEOs when they sell to PE buyers. Someone else owns your business (PEs), and they have CEOs who will run the business their way. 90% of founder-CEOs who sell to PE end up as board members with the ability to make suggestions to the new leaders. That's it. You must trust the people and their approach to your business and your precious equity. 4) How will things change now that I'm not the CEO? Maybe you continue running the business as a CEO with new owners for a while, but eventually, you won't be there. Now what? How do you spend your time now that you're only an involved board member? This is very jarring for most former CEOs, so it's worth considering before selling. 5) How will things change now that I have money? The biggest reason to sell a major part of your healthy SaaS business is to take some chips off the table and win a major cash prize. You invested 5-15 years in this business and probably some of your own cash. Now what? Will your life change a little or a lot? It's a whole new world for successful SaaS founders when they sell to PE buyers. #practicalfounders

136

26 Comments

Crucial differences between Private Equity investment vs Venture Capital investment. This will help entrepreneurs at growth stage make the right choices when approaching financiers!

21

2 Comments

In vertical SaaS, the very best companies landed with a product solving a specific, burning pain point that horizontal solutions solved badly and then became broad product suites over time (ServiceTitan, Veeva Systems, Doximity, etc). My partner Gordon Ritter calls this “layering the cake”. In vertical AI, the landing wedges are much more brittle. While the painpoints they solve are very real (and often unaddressable by SaaS alone), they’re also much more likely to commodotize in the near term as the tech advances. 👀 Therefore, the need to layer the cake in vertical AI is much more urgent than in vertical SaaS. 👀 The best vertical AI CEOs not only recognize the dynamic, but talk about it openly. Helps those around them keep up the speed of innovation and their eyes on the bigger prize.

83

13 Comments

Insightful breakdown from my great Partner Omri Amirav-Drory on the simple factors that really separate the top 1% of investors from the rest, and how more operators should become investors! https://lnkd.in/gEiZdT2h

16

3 Comments

Worth reading: The Cost of Anticompetitive Pricing Algorithms in Rental Housing What is interesting here is the shift toward coordination at scale, which Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) referenced in his new nationalism speech in Osawatomie, Kansas - on August 31, 1910. The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. . . . We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary. No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered—not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective—a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate. Link: https://lnkd.in/gPrYK_ni --- "Pricing algorithms may help landlords and building managers set prices that are more responsive to market conditions, which could increase market efficiency in a competitive market. But the algorithms can also facilitate price coordination, which decreases market efficiency by harming competition. Small yet coordinated landlords can act as if they are a single dominant landlord, and use their collective market power to increase profits by setting higher prices." https://lnkd.in/gVzcZbzW

6

3 Comments

VC platform teams rarely add meaningful value to portfolio companies. They’re mostly a tool for GPs to justify raising larger funds and collecting higher management fees.

23

5 Comments

PE - How to Use AI to Unlock Growth in Portfolio Companies All PE firms and portfolio companies should be thinking about unlocking GTM and growth via AI (i.e. not merely ChatGPT or other LLMs but actually implementing apps that are "AI Agents"). 1. What are "AI Agents"? - AI agents are autonomous systems powered by ML and natural language processing, designed to perform tasks with minimal human intervention - They can interpret data, determine the workflow & direction (i.e. make decisions), and execute actions across various functions, continuously improving through self-learning 2. Examples of using AI Agents in PE portfolio companies: - For Sales: AI agents handle lead qualification, respond to inquiries, book meetings, and provide personalized product recommendations, ensuring no opportunities are missed - For Marketing: Generate campaign briefs, segment audiences, create tailored content, and analyze performance to optimize outreach efforts - For Customer Success & Support: Provide 24/7 support, resolve customer issues autonomously, escalate complex cases to human agents with full context, and ensure consistent, brand-aligned responses 3. How PE portfolio companies benefit: - Efficiency: Automate repetitive tasks, enabling teams to focus on high-value activities - Scalability: Handle growing customer volumes without increasing headcount - Personalization: Deliver tailored experiences using real-time data insights - $ Cost Savings: Reduce operational costs by streamlining workflows 4. Business Impact for PE Portfolio Companies: - Accelerate GTM Execution: Faster lead conversion, better customer retention, and enhanced marketing ROI - Improve Metrics: Boost Customer NPS, CSAT, and efficiency - Enable Growth: Scale operations seamlessly while improving team productivity. 5. How PE Firms Must Think About Adoption - Define clear portfolio objectives to use AI agents (not just LLMs) - Ensure integration with existing CRM and data systems - Prioritize high-quality data and ongoing performance monitoring - Use AI agents to complement existing GTM teams, focusing them on automation ------------------ #pe #privateequity #investing #ai

14

The software PE model of Vista, Thoma Bravo, etc. is fundamentally flawed. ​ Buying legacy market leaders in B2B SaaS categories, raising prices, offshoring a % of R&D, buying adjacent products you can cross-sell, etc. etc. - doesn't work that well anymore. ​ It might have worked from ~2000-2015. ​ But it doesn't work in the modern era of software and AI. Markets are too competitive and technology is changing too quickly. ​ --- ​ Vista founder Robert Smith's thesis- "Software contracts are better than first-lien debt. A company will not pay the interest on its first lien until after they pay its software maintenance or subscription fee. We get paid our money first. Who has the better credit?" ​ The problem with this premise is that software contracts have much shorter duration on average than debt. The typical loan duration in private credit is 5-7 years. ​ The avg. enterprise software contract is 1-3 years. But in SMB and mid-market, it's rare to see contracts much longer than one year. Many companies with month-to-month contracts. Not to mention usage based pricing. ​​ Additionally, there's a lot more liquidity in B2B software than their used to be. Software is easier to build. Markets are more competitive. Customers have more choices. And LLMs make migrations easier than they used to be. ​ The most under-discussed flaw in this thesis is that it treats the customer as a captive audience. Prisoners to your mission critical product that they can't live without. ​ Software companies usually win by building a great product that solves a meaningful problem. It's trite to say, but this only happens if you're customer obsessed. Once you lose that, you become extremely vulnerable to up-starts that will obsess over the customer. No one that views their customers as debtors is going to be customer obsessed. ​ This is less of an issue in commodity products / industries like CPG. Oreo's in 2024 are pretty damn similar to Oreos in 1987. But technology is constantly changing. State of the art software in 2010 is miles behind what people are doing in 2024. ​​ Distribution and brand moats can protect your legacy products for a while (esp in enterprise) but eventually you get lapped by competitors with better products, service, pricing, etc. ​ Buying other products doesn't fix this either. The answer to customer problems is not to buy other products and jam them together with your existing solution just so you can call yourself a platform company (rather than point solution). ​ Software is too competitive and changes too fast for this model to work in 2024. ​ Anyone competing with incumbents recently purchased by private equity (like we are) knows exactly what I'm talking about.

30

10 Comments