It Ain’t the Firm, it’s the PARTNER!


I don’t care if you’re talking about law firms, venture capital firms, talent agents, or the Catholic Church. When you are choosing some vendor/partner/relationship, whatever, don’t be fooled by the brand name. It all comes down to the people you deal with.

You may be dealing with a brand name law firm, but know that your experience will only be as good as the partner in charge of your account. “What?”, you ask slyly. Are you intimating that it’s really the junior lawyer who does all the drafting that counts?  Well, that’s important, but guess who picks which junior lawyer is going to be…that’s right, the partner.

That’s not to say that you want to go to an unknown firm. Sometimes, you do want some brand name value behind you, but–especially if you’re paying–you should be able to assess and then pick your firm DEPENDING ON THE PARTNER.

Lots of times, you can try before you buy–before you settle on a church, you can check out the priest at a mass or two.

If you’re thinking VC, some questions could include:

  • What are the firms YOU brought into the firm and why
  • Can you give me the names of 2-3 client CEOs of firms that have been successful with you and the same number who have cratered with you. (Also a good question for lawyers.)
  • How have you personally added value to some of YOUR portfolio companies, separate from that offered across the board to all of your firm’s portfolio companies.
  • How quickly do they grok your business? Do they have insightful questions, or even better, does their imagination get them started and they follow up with you on an unsolicited basis with an idea or an intro?

My personal favorite is the email test. Send an email out really early, or really really late. How soon does the partner get back to you? That’s a really simple test, but one that shows the work ethic and commitment. It’s not XYZ firm that is responding, it’s the PARTNER.

Find a good one.

PS–the only exception to the rule: banking for startups. There is only one choice. Silicon Valley Bank. Extraordinary service across the board.

As always, Steve Blank and Friends Nail It


Readers know I’m not posting much nor doing a lot of (non-syndicated) angel investing now, but I read a great post on Steve Blank‘s blog yesterday inspired by John Selep. The post shows one investor’s framework for tieing in Steve’s management teachings to improve not only his odds of making successful investments, but those of every startup looking to raise money.

In one way it’s a great filter–is the entrepreneur sufficiently sophisticated? coachable? flexible? pragmatic?  But equally important for angel investors, it’s a great positive way to give helpful commentary back to the inevitable 95% of “no’s” that result when you talk to startups.

Accelerators–(I’m talking about you, @MassChallenge and @TechStars)–this has to be on your curriculum. Every entrepreneur should read not just the post, but the referenced materials from Eric Ries, Alex Osterwalder, and Steve. As should angels and mentors. I’m sure there’s a closing joke about angels, evangelists, and the Gospel according to Steve, but I’m back to work on BuysideFX.

Sometimes the best way to advise is just to point. Go read it!



The Power of … WOO!


My last angel blogpost was months ago as I threw in the towel and announced I would only be investing passively. So after this and this and this and this on why and how, I outsourced all early stage investing. And I have been pleased so far.

But now I’ve gone and broken my new year’s resolution, because I…just…had to. I met the firm I couldn’t resist–and it’s Woosports (nee KinematIQ). You can’t find out much about them, and they don’t have an updated website. That is all ending soon, however, as tomorrow they step into the limelight at TechStars Boston DemoDay. I’m, however, calling it now–Woosports should be the best IRR investment out of any TechStars company this class because I smell a strategic bidding war to snap this up, and it won’t take long for people to discover the power of Woo. If I’m wrong and this doesn’t happen fast in a few months, even better–the absolute value should build and build.

So what is it that made me abandon my promise to only be a passive investor? I had promised myself that I would do not spend any brain cycles other than on my own startup. What pushed me back just this one time? Read on.


But first–What the Hell is a Woo?

The Woo is a tiny piece of hardware that attaches to a kiteboard, a snowboard, skis, a BMX bike, a luge, almost any piece of extreme sports gear you can think of, and blow your mind with data. Want to know how much air you got on that awesome trick in the halfpipe? How many G’s you pulled on your bobsled in that curve? How far over you were cranking on that GS course where you almost ate it? Turn on  your woo, and it wirelessly stores the data, visible right after your run on your phone, tablet or laptop. I haven’t checked, but I’m guessing you could even tape a few on your body to check your rotational speed and alignment off of the high-dive or trampoline.


Now, today there are a lot of cool things you can do with your phone. But I wouldn’t take my phone in the water or tape it onto my skis. That needs some specialized gear. In the same way that active athletes use a GoPro instead of their standard phone or camera to film their exploits, those same people can use a Woo instead of any other makeshift gear to check out all of the other data–speed, rotation, g-forces, altitude, orientation, whatever. Hell, connect one to your dog’s tail and figure out how happy he is to see you!

Now, just imagine Olympic lugers having this attached to their sleds, perhaps in combination with a GoPro. Before Woo, all you had were split times, perhaps 4-5 over your run, to determine where you were gaining or losing speed. Was this line more effective than the previous run IN THAT CORNER? It is really hard to tell. With Woo, (granted, with a little programming,) it’s now possible to know, and compare acceleration from one line to another with surprising accuracy. I just cannot conceive of an X-Games where ESPN would not want this data superimposed when the athletes are, say, doing snowboard cross. How high, how far, and how fast? Check the Woo.

It’s Always the TEAM


But if I wasn’t going to distract myself looking at any companies, how did I get wooed by Woosports? Simple–I work next to them every day. My own company, BuysideFX (we’re HIRING, spread the word!), had to move our Boston office when our old lease expired, and our friends at PivotDesk hooked us up with some terrific co-location space. And guess who our neighbors are, working 25 feet away from my desk. You guessed it, Woosports. And that’s how I got reeled in.

I previously had met these guys a few months ago at a TechStars “Meet the Mentors” event, but I’m not actively mentoring this year–just too busy. But I sure noticed them. Amidst all of the typical engineers who make it into TechStars, the Woosies (yeah, I like that too) stood out like supermodels in a computer lab: everyone of them were tan, fit, and talking about kiteboarding. Leo from Germany, Kirk from the US, Sally from South Africa, Ytzen from Holland, Johnny from France. They were fun, but I didn’t them seriously. I didn’t realize that they were mostly all engineers, all with advance degrees, holding issued patents and coming from MIT Labs and General Dynamics and Adidas and Vertex Pharmaceuticals with pedigrees that you don’t associate with jocks.  But I did see them at work when I got in early. And they were still cranking when I left at night. And it was those random meetings going by the kitchen, or stepping into the elevator which slowly started eroding my heretofore steely discipline against getting involved directly in more angel investments.

You can tell a lot about people watching them play pingpong. Not just who’s good (and these guys are way too good for most mortals), but who enjoys each other, who is humble enough to take it easy and be patient with a beginner, and who you begin to respect and like on a personal basis. For angel investors, it’s rare to be able to get that type of insight into teams, and I just lucked into it without even trying. In a way, this reminds me of the time I spent with EverTrue. “Hey Leo, I’m from VT, want an intro to Burton Snowboards?” (Too late–they were already on it.) “Hey Ytzen, you met any sports sponsors like Red Bull?” (Ditto.)  “Kirk, can I help with some of my old Olympic connections?” (“Absolutely! By the way, do you this guy Tony that we’ve been talking to at the Olympic Training Center?”)  Now THESE are my kind of people.

There are all sorts of neat monetization paths, and normal stuff. But it’s the team, always the team. Anyway, I’ve spent more time writing this than I spent all year thinking about angel investments. I’ve got to get back to work, but I’m so glad I have been fortunate enough to get to know these guys. WOOOOOOOOOOOO!






Unintended Consequences

frankpetersSounds like ace angel podcaster Frank Peters just lost one of his charter sponsors due to him releasing an interview with me about my recent change of angel investing strategy. Gust, nee AngelSoft, pulled their sponsorship of him.  I don’t know anyone who has been more supportive of both angel groups and Gust than Frank.

I explain in the podcast why so many entrepreneurs avoid going to angel groups–they are too damn slow. And I said that in the new wired world, many of the functions that traditionally have been provided by angel groups are now done better via the internet: better education, better access, and via syndicates, better filtering. What’s a better filter, agreeing to listen to someone, or listening and then putting money into a company? The former describes an angel group approach, the latter a syndicated approach. I then simply stated that Gust had based its business model on the old approach, linked to a pre-internet world of angel groups, rather than the current world where the most connected angels share deals outside of groups.

Before we went on, I told Frank I intended to take on the sacred cow, the raison d’etre for angel groups themselves, and by extension, that of his sponsor, Gust. Frank replied, “We’re journalists, say what you think.” I feel terrible that he’s now paying the price.

I haven’t spoken with Frank since the interview, but I think that it sucks that being open to airing non-traditional thoughts has cost him. Take a listen to the interview, but join me in doing the right thing and donating a few bucks to help keep his podcast going. It’s the only game in town for good audio interviews on angel investing.

So, Which Syndicates? How Much?


I promised no more long pieces, but people wanted to know what syndicates I’m investing in specifically, and they don’t seem to know that you can look under my “Representative Angel Investments” page (see above) to see what I’m doing. Here’s the basic breakdown as it stands now. Seeing as there is an anticipated dealflow commitment of more than 100 deals (although roughly half of those are to FG Angels, for whom I’m doing a tiny amount per deal), I won’t be investing at my standard investment amount. But the overall amount committed annually should probably double in size from the average over the last few years. I also have a few other syndicates I’ve put in for, and others (Jeff Seibert, Jennifer Lum, Phil Beauregard, etc.) I’m trying to convince. I’ll update on the  Representative Angel Investment page if I get them, and probably once a quarter show what companies those investments have been in.  In some ways these are the prototypical angel investments–maximum name dropping/bragging rights for small commitments and uncertain outcomes.  Let’s see what happens…

Syndicate                   My Size     Fees      Expected #deals/yr     FundSize (11/28/13)

Naval Ravikant          xx             0/20       5                                $382,000    (AngelList)

Wayne Chang            xxx           0/5         5                                 $167,000    (Crashlytics)

Kevin Rose                 xx              0/5        5                               $2,612,500    (GV)

Salil Deshpande         xxx           0/5         6                                  $80,000    (Bain Capital)

Elad Gil                      x              0/25        4                                  $162,000    (xGoogler)

Thomas Korte             x              0/20       8                                    $97,000     (AngelPad)

Matt Mullenweg         x              0/20        10                                  $46,500    (Automattic)

FG Angels                   x              0/20        50                                $392,000 (Foundry)

Semil Shah                 x              0/20         10                                 $77,000  (blogger)

9 Syndicates                                                103 deals/yr anticipated,

Here’s an FAQ done by FG Angels. Will any of this work? I’m betting it does, but who knows? As the Foundry folks wrote: Are there AngelList specific dynamics which make an investment more/less attractive? We have no clue! That’s one of the reasons why we started FG Angel: to learn how this new channel of investing changes investing itself.

The same holds true for my new investing thesis. Happy Thanksgiving, and may few of your investments end up as turkeys.

Angel Heaven: Building the Ultimate Syndicate Vehicle

Continuing my recent onslaught on articles about angel syndicates. (Last one before I go back to hibernation.) Here is my dream wish list for the ultimate angel investing vehicle.

The Killer Angel Vehicle combines the best of institutional asset management with ease of shopping on Amazon. Let’s have an instrument that delivers filtering, scale, governance, diversification, benchmarking, standard documentation, access, and actionable low cost passive indices. Oh yeah, and make it easy. And easily transferable in a secondary market.

I think AngelList Syndicates has a shot at pulling off most if not all of this. I’m already committing to their v1.0, but here’s where I hope it goes.


FILTERING:  My biggest problem is lack of time. So the last thing I want to do is try to kiss 1000 frogs trying to find a prince. One of the great things about going to a demo day at YCombinator or TechStars is knowing that they have already separated a lot of the chaff from the wheat, making my job as an early stage investor much easier. I found AngelList compelling back in 2010, when it essentially was a curated list of high quality startups filtered by Naval and Nivi. But their dream was always to democratize the whole financing process via the power of the interwebs, whereas I want strong filters. For me, it’s like the old Yogi Berra line about a popular restaurant: “Nobody goes there any more—it’s too crowded.” (But if you still want to comb through the individual deals on AngelList or are new to it, here’s how to best do it.)

What’s the best filter? People you respect who put their hard-earned bucks at risk. What do you take more seriously, a recommendation of a company from someone who doesn’t invest, or from someone who does? And the more tight that filter, the higher the likelihood, in my opinion, of a good outcome. To quote Ring Lardner, “The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong – but that’s the way to bet.” I’m happy for syndicate leaders to do the filtering for me.  I’ve signed up for Salil Deshpande’s syndicate: he’s a partner at Bain Capital Ventures, and he is syndicating all of his deals. So first of all, there’s no anti-selection, where you keep your good deals to yourself and only syndicate the ones which can’t get filled otherwise. Two other angels who have pledged not to anti-select are Wayne Chang and Naval Ravikant, and I’m going to join in those syndicates as well.  What really makes Salil’s advocacy such a strong signal is the limiting fact that as a VC, he will be sitting on boards…and there is only so much of him to go around. Which makes for a doubly strong bet, and a really great filter.


Another good signal is if anyone will restrict their syndicate or lower their carry. Sorry, Jason Calacanis, I like your podcasts like this one with @naval on syndicates, and I respect your hustle and nose for opportunities, but as far as I can see, you are optimizing for YOUR gains, not mine. How are our values not aligned? Well, if you put up 100k, but charge 15% carry net of AngelLists’s 5%) on $1 million of follower money, your profit is 50% higher, with no risk, on other people’s money than your own. Same reason why I’m passing on Tim Ferris, or Scott and Cyan Bannister (30% fees!! Come on, I don’t care HOW good their connections are.) The highest expected value for such an investor is to make tons of bets, because their return is more tied to other people’s money. If we’re going to go with wildly popular syndicates, give me someone like Kevin Rose, or the other professional VCs like Wesley Chan (also of Google Ventures) or Salil Deshpande of Bain Capital Ventures, all of whom are waiving their share of fees as they look at the grand experiment. They know that having a syndicate can help put some friendly wood behind their portfolio companies, and that is incentive enough to do it.


SCALE:  To make this truly scalable, a platform has to be able to handle a lot of volume. For someone my modest size of investments, this isn’t a problem, but as long as we’re dreaming, I’d like a platform wherein I can invest with the same or better efficiency and price as someone like a huge state pension fund. For me, investing via angel groups doesn’t scale—it takes too much time for due diligence, and not enough good deals come around.  I physically can’t join 20 angel groups, but I can commit to 20 syndicates with 2 mouse clicks each.  To make it to institutional strength, however, will need some serious infrastructure and tackle all of the following points like…

GOVERNANCE: As a former institutional investor as well as a trustee of two foundations, I’m well aware of the layers of protection that are necessary. That means independent boards, well-known counsel and accountants, regulatory supervision, the works. I’d love to see some people like former FDIC chair Sheila Bair, Mary Schapiro of the SEC or John Bogle of Vanguard on a board to make me feel safe. I know this is antithetical to the free spirits of Silicon Valley, but embrace audits—you KNOW there is going to be a great scam in crowdfunding, make sure that your funds are not caught up in it.

DIVERSIFICATION: I’d like this to be so easy to do that I can create my own fund of funds, but without the fees on fees. I’m a big believer in diversification, and as defined above this is not spray and pray, but rather reduce risk and increase expected returns. But it’s important for me to be able to know what the makeup of both the assumed portfolio of any syndicate as well as any actual one. I, for instance, used to invest about 40% of my angel funds in healthtech and medical devices. Going forward, I see that at no better than 10%. So, for any syndicate, I’d like to have some statistics of what the manager has invested in over, say the past 4 years, as well as what they believe they want to invest in going forward, since investing strategies can change. I’m not super strict about the concept of “Style Drift”, but I do want to know what people do. The amazing Manu Kumar of K9 Ventures makes it clear—he invests in a tight area around Palo Alto. Foundry Group has defined investment themes. (Their VC fund is way different than their to FG Angels syndicate, which may end up anywhere for as much as I can tell. I’m still backing FG Angels at the minimum amount for fun–it’s my money, I don’t have to always be internally consistent, so no needling, please.) But back to focus: please have the leaders of syndicate be as specific as possible in their writeups about what they want to invest in. I’m not necessarily disqualifying someone who says “whatever I feel like”, but the more definition they have, the more likely they are to appeal to me.


BENCHMARKING: I mean two types: the intellectually rigorous kind, and the consumer comparison kind. Let’s start with what an institution needs. You know how it takes a few years to get organic certification, and then those foods command a higher price? Similarly, I happily will pay up to know that I’m getting a certified financial record. I believe that anyone who uses the platform should sign a pledge to have audited financial performance. This should be easy in the case of AngelList, in that their fees are expressed as a percentage of the carry, and to my knowledge, the investment vehicles will be some type of pooled vehicle. Hence, AL will know all the dollars in, all the dollars out, and can perform consistent IRR and Total Return calculations across all syndicates. It will take a few years, but this is what is necessary to get big institutional investors involved.

And while you’re taking a page out of the world of investment managers like Cambridge Associates, you can establish not just investment returns for individual managers, but also all activity through the system. None of this self-reported crap that groups like the Angel Capital Association, NACO, EBAN, the Kaufman Institute or academics have had to rely on. But cold hard numbers. With knowledge of the individual deals, you can not only rank managers, but geographies, returns based on pre-money valuations, sector, the works. Be the shining light of truth! (And if at the same time, AngelList, if you can provide a format for me to privately include and calculate the returns of my non-syndicate investments, incorporating those numbers into my personal return, that would be awesome.)

As for comparability, take a page out of all of the ecommerce websites: allow us to compare one syndicate to another, ranking not just by size, but by fees (it currently takes multiple clicks in AngelList, that needs to get friendlier), sector, etc. I don’t mean the Netflix “if you liked this movie, you’ll love this one”, but think easy tags and search.

STANDARD DOCUMENTATION: A pet peeve of any angel investor is that despite best efforts, docs are always different. At the very least, let’s have a consistent documentation for any syndicate, with a lookup table clearly defining wherever there are different parameters, such as fees.


ACCESS: This is where AngelList should shine, and one of the reasons I am jumping in with both feet. The standard angel group no longer has access to the best deals, because they are based on old pre-internet technology. An entrepreneur might have to wait a few weeks to be seen by an investment screening committee, then wait again for the next open monthly slot to present to the membership, then wait for those part-time angel members to organize to do due diligence, then re-circulate to see interest among all members, then work on a termsheet, then discuss syndication…it’s a nightmare for an entrepreneur, and the very reason why when I funded both of my companies, I never approached an angel group. (One exception—I asked one group head to give me the names of the angel investors in his group most familiar with fintech.) The only way an angel group can access a hot deal is if they have the ability to commit to a sizeable, fast check, and few groups can compete with “super-angels” in this regard. Who are going to be the most successful syndicate leaders? Those very superangels who don’t have to go through committees to make a decision.

ACTIONABLE, LOW COST, CUSTOMIZABLE INDICES:  The first “pool” I bought via AngelList was a participation in all of the TechStars Seattle 2013 class. (See “Filtering” above.  FWIW, I and others have been asking for this for years, as in this June 2011 blogpost on how to pick a commingled fund.) While the cheapest way to participate in a broad TechStars bet is as a Limited Partner, this is the next best thing. (Provided that all of the companies opt in or out at the beginning of the class, so there is no anti-selection of just getting the less popular companies who aren’t already oversubscribed.) Investing in TS Seattle 2013doesn’t just give me filtering and deal diversification, it also gives me geographic diversification, something I discussed 2 years ago on this Frank Peters podcast.

What else would I love? The ultimate would be to mix and match offerings identified by individual syndicates. For instance, my favorite focus is on companies that tap into the unique benefits of mobile phones: like CardMunch (acquired by LinkedIn,) LocalMind (acquired by AirBnB,) and UpNext (acquired by Amazon), each of which were on AngelList back in the glory days of 2010-2011 when the dealflow was better curated. What if I could designate a group of, say, 15-20 syndicate leaders I don’t otherwise invest in, with the ability to join their syndicates when they committed to a company doing mobile phone apps? To put it into portfolio terms, I have an “approved list” of the syndicate leaders, and give an order to fill me up with a diversified mobile app portfolio, say, $100k based on the first ten $10k investments available/originated from those groups? In that way, anyone could create their own specialized funds, and even benchmark it via the AngelList “mobile phone app” universe that would include all backed syndicate deals, not just those on my approved list. And that mobile phone index could also be compared to any other index. For those of us who believe it is easier to spot a trend than pick a company, this is just the ticket.


EASE:  Believe it or not, this is probably the biggest reason I want to see syndicates succeed. Anything is an improvement on the hassle of angel paperwork. I just spent 40 minutes in my little Vermont bank waiting to get a wire approved for an angel investment. What is the iron test for ease of use: the ability to execute or confirm an angel trade in under a minute. Even the supposedly low-maintenance commingled funds I am in now have capital calls, which are a big PITA. 10 capital calls over the life of a deal seems to me like 9 too many. So make my life easy. I realize most angels probably don’t want to hand over all the money at once to a registered broker/dealer, so instead just copy the Amazon “1 Button” sale. I set up all my info in a master account once, including electronic signatures, SS#s, bank ACH instructions linked to my debit account or brokerage money market fund, links to my Vanguard or Mint accounts for communications, a preferred notification approach (text or email), and then notice that a deal is due. I have one centralized place to access all paperwork, and searchable pdfs of all deal documents get delivered into my secure account. When I get the notification, I have 3 days to hit the button to confirm or opt out, and if I don’t see the email, someone will track me down with a phone call. If I don’t respond, I’m not in, and you have every right to kick me out of future deals. (Hell, you have that anyway.)  And, I give you a total limit of amount I am willing to commit to any one syndicate and overall. When I get to that limit, I get an auto-notification to see if I want to do more, but it doesn’t automatically roll–it’s just a reminder for me to review my top-down allocations and revisit my assumptions.

Give me a reporting dashboard where I can see the total I’ve invested, some big picture overview, links to any messages sent to me by other investors or syndicate leaders, and a way to print out stuff to give to my accountant after each calendar year. And lastly, give me a way to list a transferable ownership interest in the syndicate pool and make it available to other accredited investors in the pool or outside of it. I’d be happy to pay a transfer fee of a few percent going in or out on a secondary trade.

That’s my dream. Please make it happen.

PS–Got any comments? Please leave them–I know you have something to say, Chris Douvos! (Who has the best top-down LP oriented blog around.)

It’s Wayne’s World! Party On, Excellent Syndicate!

angellist syndicates

Wayne is IN! And I’m thrilled to be along for the ride. Details below.

Let’s start with some non-controversial startup investment logic:

1)   Critical elements to successful startup investing are staying on top of technology trends and having access to good deals

2)   Smart entrepreneurs seek out as advisors/investors those successful role models who they can relate to (i.e., are the same age, travel same circles, have friends in common, etc.)

3)   I have a limited amount of connections and knowledge, so the best thing I can do is get great scouts who see things (in both the access and perspicacity sense) that I never will.

All of which make me want to hop on the coattails of great young entrepreneurs once they take some of their well-earned cash and start reinvesting in the ecosystem as angels. How to do this? Guys, start an AngelList Syndicate!

I’m not the only one thinking this. This tweet came out a little after the Twitter IPO.

Screen Shot 2013-11-24 at 10.42.25 AM

And I’m delighted to learn this morning that Wayne Chang, the co-founder of Crashlytics, has agreed to lead a syndicate on AngelList. And best of all, he’s agreed to syndicate everything he does, so there’s no anti-selection going on. Plus, as head of Twitter Boston, he is at the vortex of what’s going on.


I remember asking Wayne to take a look at two deals I was looking at given his expertise. I expected perhaps a “I like it” or “Stay away”, but instead he produced two dense pages of really incisive industry trends, probable snags I hadn’t envisaged, as well as where he thought the real killer app would come from in the field.  I already knew Wayne was a fearless investor who didn’t rely on social proof(first check into Onswipe, for instance), but the level of investment blew me away, and I promised myself to follow Wayne however I could. And I was fortunate enough to have him let me into his own Crashlytics deal, for which I will be playing with house money for several years.


Who are the other investors I want to encourage to syndicate? How about this for a list: Jennifer Lum (co-founder of Adelphic Mobile, and a mobile ad expert with previous success at Quattro Wireless, with several angel investement wins via her vehicle Apricot Capital, including Crashlytics, Peekaboo Mobile, TribeHR…),

Phil and Matt

Phil Beauregard and Matt Grace (co-founders of Objective Logistics…who also invested in my company, BuysideFX; Phil already harangues me to invest in his favorite companies, ones I had never heard of, showing that young connected entrepreneurs have a lot of sourcing that us old angels never get),


Jeff Seibert (Wayne’s co-founder, former head of Box in Boston having previously sold another of his startups to Box, and like Jen, a bi-coastal presence giving him a wider perspective of what’s out there), and


Bowei Gai (founder of Snapture and CardMunch—see my earlier article on Why I Invested in CardMunch), who is recharging his batteries on his great World Startup Report. You think 500 Startups is going global? That’s nothing compared to what Bowei is seeing on the road full-time. Bowei has a special meaning for me relative to AngelList—he was the first company I invested in via AngelList, and forever will hold the best IRR record for an investment. Even though it wasn’t a great absolute return, LinkedIn made the offer for them 1 day after I got in, meaning I just sent the check in and got an immediate bigger check back. I’ve got the feeling that Bowei may be ready to start his 3rd company when he gets back, but I’m hoping he shares his knowledge via syndicating.

I think there’s beauty in the idea of investing in a syndicate of someone who is still an entrepreneur. (What I would give, for example, to be able to have an angel portfolio like Dharmesh Shah!) First, for them to stick their head up and take notice of something, it must be something special. Second, they are putting their own money in—and you know that as a startup person you don’t take out much salary, so it’s not just bloviating about money, it’s using real chips. And lastly, there are undoubtedly fewer bets going out compared to full-time spray and pray angels (like I used to be before I got a real job again), creating essentially a “best ideas” portfolio.

So Jeff, Bowei, Jen, Phil, Wayne: as far as I can tell, the hassle is minimum: AngelList takes care of the paperwork and recruitment. You get more wood behind your investment, you leverage up your returns, and you only charge your fans fees on successful carry. (Keep it to <=20% including AL’s 5%, though, please.)

Win win win win win win win win win!   (PS: Naval, please connect up these other guys to start the bandwagon rolling.)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 122 other followers

%d bloggers like this: