Drew Uher

🌟Innovative VC Firm Overcomes Exits Drought with Secondary Sales🌟 ⛵Navigating a challenging landscape where exits are scarce, Santa Barbara Venture Partners (SBVP) has pioneered a novel approach to sustain its growth and attract investors for its second fund: secondary sales. Instead of waiting for traditional exits like IPOs or acquisitions, SBVP opted to sell shares of its portfolio companies, demonstrating its ability to generate returns for investors and stand out in a competitive market. 🎤According to Dan Engel, founder and managing partner of SBVP, these secondary transactions have been a game-changer, sparking investor interest and bolstering the firm's credibility. By leveraging its recent successes, including a lucrative stake in sports-betting company DraftKings Inc.' acquisition of digital lottery app Jackpocket, SBVP seized the opportunity to return profits to its limited partners (LPs) and pave the way for its second fund. 💡Engel highlighted the challenges faced by young VC firms in raising subsequent funds, particularly amid a downturn in exit activity and heightened investor scrutiny. With traditional exit routes becoming increasingly elusive, the pressure is on for firms to demonstrate tangible returns and establish a track record of success. ✨"For us, secondary sales have been a game-changer. They've helped us return profits to our LPs and attract investors for our second fund," said Dan Engel. 💰For SBVP, the decision to pursue secondary sales was driven by the need to provide liquidity to LPs and validate its investment thesis in the eyes of prospective investors. By strategically offloading portions of its holdings in high-performing portfolio companies like Bark Technologies and Rad AI, SBVP not only generated substantial returns but also bolstered investor confidence in its ability to deliver results. ⚠Despite the complexities and potential stigma associated with early share sales, Engel emphasized the importance of prioritizing investor returns and seizing opportunities to unlock value for stakeholders. With a focus on profitability and transparency, SBVP remains committed to its mission of delivering sustainable growth and maximizing returns for its LPs. 🔍 "Returning profits to our investors is our top priority. By strategically selling shares, we're proving our commitment to delivering results and driving value for our stakeholders," added Engel. As SBVP continues to explore secondary transactions and expand its investor base, the firm stands as a testament to innovation and resilience in the face of market challenges. 🚀 ✅ Looking to raise capital for your #fund and increase the international pool of your LP #investors?   🤝 Need warm #LP introductions?   📝 Selling #secondaries to increase liquidity?   🧐 Looking for co-investments?   ▶ G+QUANT's link for inquiries and fund decks: https://lnkd.in/gjC_EuTE #VCInnovation #SecondarySalesSuccess #InvestorReturns #ValueCreation 

2

Thrilled to announce the launch of our inaugural edition of Beyond Benchmarks at Emergence Capital. This comprehensive report dives deep into the metrics and trends shaping the early-stage enterprise cloud market. A huge thank you to our VC partners and contributors for making this possible! Here's a sneak peek of our findings: --> 60% of companies have already integrated GenAI into their service offerings, with another 20% planning to do so this year. --> While most companies use OpenAI as their primary LLM, many are experimenting with multiple models. We’re seeing a trend toward intelligently routing GenAI inference requests based on cost, performance, and security. --> Companies that have implemented GenAI are showing promising results, with a 7% higher NDR compared to those that haven’t. Beyond Benchmarks goes further with more GenAI trends, insights on the current fundraising environment, and key performance metrics. Our goal is to provide founders and their teams with valuable benchmarks to help them make better-informed decisions. At Emergence Capital, we're committed to helping founders build iconic companies. Dive into the full report here: https://lnkd.in/g6bnvAZM

70

3 Comments

Lesson for first time founders. "As much as they want to be your friends, the fund comes first (as it should)." As hard as it sounds the VC business evolves around a fight for survival first and being friends as a distant second. #openvc #investmentmanagers #assetmanagers #fundmanagers #venturecapital #assetallocation #limitedpartners #returnoninvestment #pitchdeck #fundraising #vc #vcrelationships

2

Ross Haleliuk posted the fantastic article below. This is the world where I live day-to-day. At TechOperators, we invest mostly in early-stage cyber, but we do things a little differently, and we believe there are ways to invest successfully outside of pure Power Law math. The article argues that many security problems are too small for VC. I agree. I often try to convince bootstrapped founders not to raise venture because doing so can turn a successful, slow-growing bootstrapped company into a failed venture-backed company because, despite a large infusion of capital, it couldn't double every year. VC is not monolithic--not by stage, strategy, or style. Venture is often equated with "Tier 1 Venture". Ross argues that VC is not always great for early-stage cyber--and he is right. Bootstrapping AND VC work when incentives are aligned. Does it work for an early-stage VC with a <$200M fund to invest in several early companies at reasonable valuations, setting up the conditions for reasonable exits that pay off for both investors and founders? Yes. Does it work for $800M funds investing in seed stage at $100M+ valuations? Well, that depends! Power law says it does (for VC), but the unfortunate externality is that these rounds destroy companies and founder equity more often than not. There is a role for patient capital in this ecosystem to fuel successful companies that retain exit optionality as they scale--driving exit value for both founders and investors.

34

2 Comments

📰 Solo VCs are rising in popularity once again. This means only one General Partner is leading the firm, versus multiples. 💔 Why? There are GP breakups going on all around us after partnerships have been tested by the market for years now. The bar to co-found a venture firm with a partner is very high. Those GPs that thought they might graft another one on in the short term to share the load are stopping in their tracks to deeply consider those implications. 🌱 Many are opting to bring in more junior talent and grow them into Partner roles instead. It’ll take time and capital to be able to do that as the firm grows. Talked to 3 diff GPs about this at dinner last night and we’re all leaning toward that approach in our short and long term planning. 💡 FYI - this is just an observation of the moment we’re in. There are plenty of firms thriving with full partnerships as well as solo GPs. But it’s worth calling out that new partnerships are particularly risky right now, especially if the partners haven’t worked with each other for a long time.

32

Last month, Uncork Capital celebrated its 20th anniversary with a jubilant gathering attended by 420 guests, marking two decades of success in the venture capital realm. Over the years, the firm, alongside industry peers like First Round Capital and Felicis, has witnessed remarkable growth, now managing billions of dollars in assets. This expansion reflects the flourishing landscape of venture capital, with the industry experiencing exponential growth in investment. Moreover, positive shifts in VC norms, such as the evolving attitudes towards board seats, underscore a commitment to providing tailored support to startups, enhancing their growth prospects. Amidst discussions surrounding sectors like AI, optimism prevails, emphasizing a steadfast dedication to investing in innovative ventures with lasting impact. Read More Here: https://lnkd.in/efN6-Spd Branded Hospitality Ventures Jeff Clavier Susan Liu Ashley Cravens Tripp Jones Sarah Du Andy McLoughlin Amy Saper #innovation #technology #management #venturecapital #startup

6

This is a good resource I've stumbled upon. It covers a plethora of VC and startup-related topics and contains links to expand your knowledge. https://lnkd.in/dqkdV4fA TL;DR: "It's the founders, stupid!" These two lines made me hover over: "I know the physical and emotional tolls that entrepreneurs face". "Resources for Managing Founder Anxiety and Depression" I've been one myself, and it's not for the faint-hearted. I struggled and failed many times. From the standpoint of a person working now for a VC fund, the ability to support a founder who was hit with too much at the same time, to know how to listen, mirror and label Chris Voss's style, and a bit of guidance to build confidence back can do wonders. Assisting portfolio companies doesn't have to be just intros and throwing money or unsolicited advice. And what about identifying troublesome founders before investing to prevent assisting portfolio companies from becoming a nightmare flop? Ahh, that's a tricky one. Startups fail for a variety of reasons. At the early stage, we should look at many things, to name a few: product-market fit, go-to-market, blue ocean or zero to one, CAC and LTV ratio, CAP table, passion, leadership potential, intelligence, technical ability, and many, many more. Crunch the numbers. Sure. What about the early stage? Limited information and knowledge when a decision has to be made, and the outcome is impossible to predict because the future is unknown and unknowable. Examine the founders. If you don't read the founders right and overlook some hidden toxic traits and coping mechanisms that mask something that can derail the startup and founders down the road (vulnerable narcissism, antisocial tendencies, Machiavellism, blameshifting or more benign like anxiety-prone, conflict avoidance, burn-out tendency, inability to delegate, perfectionism, risk aversion, etc.), the chances that it will be your next outlier significantly diminish. How many of you saw dead equity on the capable, founders' clash, low morale, a founder playing the sunk cost game with the fund after burning cash, lying, or even more brazen behaviours like experimenting with horse tranquilisers and smoking weed on a podcast? A "Sudden" shift of values with a splash of megalomania could lead to a CEO removal attempt by the board. Or stealing "HER" voice. It is fun to watch as a TV drama, not to deal with as your portfolio. We won't be able to see it all during a few conversations with the founders and not everyone is Wendy Rhoades from Billions. Knowing how to ask a question behind which is a hidden question and being able to detect when founders say what they think we want to hear to get the funding is a good start. Spending extra time learning that is a good investment. A splash of psychology, empathy, self-awareness, and emotional intelligence to become an excellent GP won't harm your ability to identify and help the right entrepreneurs build great companies.

14

Let's finally get rid off the "VC alphabet song" and redo the system to become more founder friendly. "The benchmarks set by funding stages are often arbitrary and not necessarily aligned with the actual development needs of individual startups." #vc #venturecapital #founder #fundraising #startups #fundingstages #funding #fundingrounds #pitchbook

5

Interesting concept to rename rounds by milestones. But "Series Client Expansion Extension" just doesn't have the same ring to it 😋 . Maybe we can start incorporating it into a descriptor to add context, "Series Seed Extension: client expansion." #startups #venturecapital

24

2 Comments

Seed VCs are turning to new ‘pro rata’ funds that help them compete with the big firms Alpha Partners, SignalRank and now SaaS Ventures help seed VCs pay for shares when big VCs try to price — or push — them out Lee Edwards, partner at Root VC, has a saying at his firm that “pro rata rights are earned, not given.” That may be a bit of a stretch since pro rata refers to a term that VCs put in their term sheets that gives them the right to buy more shares in a portfolio company during consequent funding rounds to maintain an ownership percentage and avoid dilution. Still, while these rights are not exactly “earned,” they can be expensive. One of the latest trends in VC investing these days are funds dedicated to helping seed VCs exercise their pro rata rights. https://lnkd.in/dRM3RvdA By Christine Hall

13

At an LP’s annual meeting: ~100 quality VC and growth equity firms gave brief overviews. <5 said they invest in consumer. The consumer is the engine of the economy and 2/3 of GDP but is a bad word. Watch - we’ll look back and this will be a great time to invest in consumer.

67

11 Comments

What do you do when a radical new technology puts your main product right in the crosshairs of disruption? Listen to David Okuniev — co-founder of Typeform | Ask awesomely — discuss the challenges of innovation within existing structures. David shared a game-changing insight: Radical innovation is really, really difficult to do inside your own product. He emphasized the need to break free from the constraints of familiarity and embrace change from outside the box. Henrik Werdelin and I have both seen our fair share of this in our respective careers. What struck us most was how David leveraged structure to overcome the innovator’s dilemma. By creating a culture of experimentation and providing space for bold ideas, he propelled Typeform beyond incremental improvements. What other hacks have you seen or employed to help your organization overcome the innovator’s dilemma? Share your stories below! 👇 And if you want to dive deeper into our conversation, click the link in the comments to catch the full podcast episode!

4

2 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

It was a real honor to interview Brad Burnham co-founder of Union Square Ventures and partner Placeholder on the history of hype cycles in technology and the value they bring to capital and market formation. Brad has had tremendous success across decades investing at the frontier - when it was the frontier/ before it was obvious. Crypto is still the underdog and his views on the opportunity and its nuances are prescient. Specifically it is both a technical and financial innovation which can lead to excess volatility and a unique muscle as it relates to being a venture manager. But the returns are real. And the innovation is real despite some of the the common narratives. No one debates the breakthrough applications in AI at M13 we have been very active. It is also very clear that incumbents have massive data and distribution advantages which can make it challenging to find the right pockets to invest. AI is on its own hype cycle and as always the best teams (typically with contrarian takes) win. Very exciting times to be a venture investor.

39

Want a front-row seat to the frontier of tech? We’ve got the role (or two) for you! We’re expanding our frontier-tech team at Blackbird by hiring a Frontier Tech Investments Associate and Foundry Fellows! Got questions? We've got answers... 1️⃣ What are the roles? 🧪 Associate = a full-time VC investment gig in our Blackbird Investments team, working directly with me. We’re looking for someone with a science and/or engineering background and more curiosity than they can handle. You’ll grow your own investment brand and practice, support our portfolio founders, and will help build Foundry, our early-stage frontier-tech accelerator. ✨ Foundry Fellow = a casual/contract gig in our Blackbird Investments team, ~15h per week for 3 months. The Fellowship is ideal for PhD students and ECRs who want to learn more about startups and VC. You’ll go deep on emerging areas relevant to your expertise (or curiosity!), get a front-row seat to groundbreaking companies in those areas, build out your non-academic network, and develop a solid writing practice. 2️⃣ Why are you hiring? We love frontier tech, and we’re ready to grow our team. 3️⃣ Wow, it’s so great that you’re starting to look at deep tech! Look, we get it: we don’t make a lot of noise about our frontier tech investing. Buuuut we’ve been deep-tech investors since we backed Tim Kentley-Klay to found Zoox back in 2014—we’ve been on incredible journeys with PsiQuantum (building the world's first utility-scale quantum computer right here in Australia!), Inventia Life Science (transforming drug discovery with high-fidelity cell models), Remedy Robotics (surgical robots for remote endovascular procedures), Opto Biosystems (minimally-invasive neural implants to treat cancer), and more. We believe that frontier technologies, and great frontier-tech investing, will be part of the solutions to the greatest problems humanity faces today. 4️⃣ When do applications close? May 31st at 11:59pm AEST. 5️⃣ I have more questions! I’m sure you do! Clare Birch and I are hosting an AMA to answer any and all questions about these roles. Want to know what a week in the life of our team looks like? What’s keeping us up at night? What our ideal candidate looks like? Come along and find out - registration link in the comments 👇 Apply for these roles: Associate - https://lnkd.in/gCfj4EUJ Foundry Fellowships - https://lnkd.in/gj6ATZVZ If you know anyone that we should meet, send me their details! Cameron Elise Ben Andrew Robin Joseph Adelaide James Olivia Lucinda Raghav Jesse Christie Mohamed Tom Amee Pablo Haya Loong Hon Joshua Benjamin Megan Harry Denzil Matthew Diana Daniel Tom Deanna Justin Amar Lilly Stone Thomas

114

4 Comments

I am joining dynamic Victoria Yampolsky to talk about "Where's the Money for Women" funding their businesses. Join me today at noon EDT - registration below. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐅𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬 🚀The current fundraising landscape is less favorable for female founders, but it doesn’t have to be this way. 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬: ➤ 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬: Female founders often spend 65-75% longer fundraising compared to male founders. ➤ 𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝: Women-led startups typically secure less funding, limiting their growth potential. In 2023, women founders were the only group who raised less than $500K on average, according to the DocSend Report. ➤ 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐃𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐢𝐠: Female founders often set less ambitious goals, making their ventures less attractive to investors. When evaluating teams, VCs often make decisions based on intuition and subconscious biases rather than rationale. These obstacles can be disheartening, but many female founders succeed, and you can join their ranks by being prepared. 𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐞, 𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐉𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 - 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐃𝐨 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐄𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐅𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐬?” 📅 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬: 🗓️ 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐞:June 27th 🕛 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞: 12 PM EST 📍 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Zoom (Link to be provided upon registration) 💡 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝? ➤ 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐮𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: Learn which questions investors ask to evaluate teams and what they are looking for, and leverage that knowledge to better navigate and counteract the subconscious biases. ➤ 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:Discover what you can do NOW to improve your chances of successful fundraising and building a great company. 🔥 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐍𝐨𝐰 - 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 3 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭!🔥 Don’t let these barriers hold you back. Secure your spot today and take control of your fundraising journey and the success of your venture. 🔗 𝐑𝐄𝐆𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 https://lu.ma/lse01zqw Let’s turn your vision into reality! 🌟

6

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

Are you better off being an angel investor or an S/EIS fund investor? When you’re thinking about making early-stage investments for the first time, you have a choice of two main options: Invest directly into startups or invest into funds that invest a portfolio of startups for you. * Direct (Angel) Investing: You select and invest in individual startups, taking on the tasks of sourcing, decision-making, and managing your investment. * Fund Investing: You invest in a fund that invests and manages a portfolio of startups for you, handling the sourcing, investing, and management on your behalf. There’s a romantic notion attached to the idea of investing in startups - we can play Dragon’s Den and discover the next Reggae Reggae Sauce. For every Reggae Reggae Sauce, though, there are 100 other startups that fail along the way. The first rule of startup investing, whether you do it directly or through funds, is that you need to build a portfolio of companies to cope with inevitable losses. Investing directly into startups as an angel investor suits those with access to credible, high-potential startups. It’s a hands-on role that requires active involvement to source the startups. Further, most of the best startups have minimum investment amounts of £10k or £20k, which means direct investors often need a lot of available capital to properly manage risk by investing in a portfolio of companies. This doesn’t need to be done all at once, but that is the mindset every good angel investor should have when setting out on the journey. Fund investing, on the other hand, suits those who prefer to invest indirectly, relying on the access, experience, and skill of the Fund Manager to invest and manage the investments for you. It’s a hands-off approach, with investors not involved in management and simply kept updated on a regular basis. Because funds pool your money with others to invest in a portfolio of startups in one go, this can be a more effective way of managing risk while investing smaller amounts. Most SEIS and EIS funds have £10k minimums for investors, meaning you could build a portfolio of 10-20 companies for just £10k, rather than needing to invest £10k into 10-20 separate companies as a direct angel investor. Whichever approach you choose should depend on your resources, access, interests, and time. Regardless, though, a key principle to follow is to not be reliant on the success of just one or two companies; instead, build a portfolio of startups to manage risk and cope with inevitable losses along the way. Which one is best for you? Let me know if you’d like to chat. Capital at risk. For professional investors only.

42

21 Comments