5 ms·

This is the most accurate comment I've seen here. Sequoia, Benchmark, Kleiner, etc. will all tell you "no" and why with minimal turnaround time. The same is tru

This is the most accurate comment I've seen here. Sequoia, Benchmark, Kleiner, etc. will all tell you "no" and why with minimal turnaround time. The same is true for second-tier players like Craft, smaller shops started by breakaways from the big firms, and scouts. Good VCs are professionals and have no interest in wasting your time or theirs. A "no" now never precludes future participation anyway; they don't need to string you along for that.

mbesto 3y ago
Which actually reinforces the grandparent's point. Sequoia, Benchmark, Kleiner, etc. can say an actual "no" and you'll still go back to them because they're...Sequioa, Benchmark, etc. You'll go back to them, because its a huge signal to prospective buyers, potential acquirers, partners, etc. that you're being funded by a top tier VC. > Good VCs are professionals and have no interest in wasting your time or theirs. "Good" VCs has less to do about professionalism and more to do about pedigree. Professionalism and "good"/"bad" VCs are not mutually exclusive things.
- FreakLegion 3y ago
  The grandparent said "VC's never actually say no". I did the opposite of reinforce that. Every good VC will give you a version of the following if it's a "no": 1. It's a "no". (Clear, unambiguous.) 2. Here's why. (E.g. not believing in the space, issues with customer background or another part of due diligence.) 3. We make mistakes all the time and hope you prove us wrong. (I've pitched the partner at Sequoia who invested in FTX. His name's Alfred, super nice guy and fully aware that screwing up is part of his job. "No" isn't a value judgment.) 4. Happy to talk again for the next round. (If they're a multistage fund, e.g. you won't hear this from First Round.) It's all very predictable. The one real "why" you won't typically hear back on is strength of the founding team. They won't tell you when they think you're the problem. But product, space, GTM, basically anything else they're happy to dissect. This is true for all of the firms that people have heard of. Of course there's a long tail of bad VCs, too, generally podunk firms few people ever encounter anyway. Avoid TechOperators out of Atlanta, for example.
j-a-a-p 3y ago
Hmm, my experience with one of the largest investors in NL was a full verbal 'yes'. The investor was actively involved in the hiring process (that is how I got in). A founder put in his cash (think a small apartment) for a lower single digit percentage of agreed valuation. I signed for something smaller / similar but without bringing in cash. In reality the money never arrived, they forked in few times 250k. The other investors who bartered a deal all brought in their share. My takeaway is that even the most reputable investor has absolutely no limit in saying yes and doing no. The motivation for everybody was greed, and that was buzzing around due to the fact a large investor was involved. They know that and they used it. But in the end in this world signed contracts and wire transfers are the only credible thing.
- rmbyrro 3y ago
  What is NL, the Netherlands? One of the largest investors in a given location might not be "top-tier" in the overall VC market.
  - j-a-a-p 3y ago
    Yes, but it is not a VC. If they would, measured by asset size they would easily fit in the top-10 VCs of the US (United States).
    - wslh 3y ago
      It is not about asset size only but real experience and a portfolio leading rounds.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - thunfischbrot 3y ago
        Sounds like those "corporate VC-sounding but not really VC-operating accelerator" investment programs some larger corporates have. Their goal seems to be funding technology development aligned with their interests, few to no strings attached, with the potential for the occasional moonshot. If successful, acquire before any competitors even fully understand the potential. Worst case they hire the top talent if the venture fails. See Shell GameChanger[0] for an example. [0] https://strategos.com/cases/shell-gamechanger/ https://strategos.com/cases/shell-gamechanger/

mbesto 3y ago

Which actually reinforces the grandparent's point. Sequoia, Benchmark, Kleiner, etc. can say an actual "no" and you'll still go back to them because they're...Sequioa, Benchmark, etc. You'll go back to them, because its a huge signal to prospective buyers, potential acquirers, partners, etc. that you're being funded by a top tier VC. > Good VCs are professionals and have no interest in wasting your time or theirs. "Good" VCs has less to do about professionalism and more to do about pedigree. Professionalism and "good"/"bad" VCs are not mutually exclusive things.

FreakLegion 3y ago
The grandparent said "VC's never actually say no". I did the opposite of reinforce that. Every good VC will give you a version of the following if it's a "no": 1. It's a "no". (Clear, unambiguous.) 2. Here's why. (E.g. not believing in the space, issues with customer background or another part of due diligence.) 3. We make mistakes all the time and hope you prove us wrong. (I've pitched the partner at Sequoia who invested in FTX. His name's Alfred, super nice guy and fully aware that screwing up is part of his job. "No" isn't a value judgment.) 4. Happy to talk again for the next round. (If they're a multistage fund, e.g. you won't hear this from First Round.) It's all very predictable. The one real "why" you won't typically hear back on is strength of the founding team. They won't tell you when they think you're the problem. But product, space, GTM, basically anything else they're happy to dissect. This is true for all of the firms that people have heard of. Of course there's a long tail of bad VCs, too, generally podunk firms few people ever encounter anyway. Avoid TechOperators out of Atlanta, for example.

j-a-a-p 3y ago

Hmm, my experience with one of the largest investors in NL was a full verbal 'yes'. The investor was actively involved in the hiring process (that is how I got in). A founder put in his cash (think a small apartment) for a lower single digit percentage of agreed valuation. I signed for something smaller / similar but without bringing in cash. In reality the money never arrived, they forked in few times 250k. The other investors who bartered a deal all brought in their share. My takeaway is that even the most reputable investor has absolutely no limit in saying yes and doing no. The motivation for everybody was greed, and that was buzzing around due to the fact a large investor was involved. They know that and they used it. But in the end in this world signed contracts and wire transfers are the only credible thing.

rmbyrro 3y ago
What is NL, the Netherlands? One of the largest investors in a given location might not be "top-tier" in the overall VC market.
- j-a-a-p 3y ago
  Yes, but it is not a VC. If they would, measured by asset size they would easily fit in the top-10 VCs of the US (United States).
  - wslh 3y ago
    It is not about asset size only but real experience and a portfolio leading rounds.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - thunfischbrot 3y ago
      Sounds like those "corporate VC-sounding but not really VC-operating accelerator" investment programs some larger corporates have. Their goal seems to be funding technology development aligned with their interests, few to no strings attached, with the potential for the occasional moonshot. If successful, acquire before any competitors even fully understand the potential. Worst case they hire the top talent if the venture fails. See Shell GameChanger[0] for an example. [0] https://strategos.com/cases/shell-gamechanger/ https://strategos.com/cases/shell-gamechanger/