2) if you are @elonmusk you can get access to cash (or use your own) to shoot for the moon (literally). But most first time founders can't raise money to build a new kind of car. It's not to say that shouldn't try but you have to have a cash strategy.
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
3) If you can't come up w a good cash strategy (such as in my case), you have to think through what is a stepping stone I can hit w cash I can access that allows me to build this end goal ultimately. It could be a smaller product. It could be to zag to a peripheral prod. Etc.
1 proslijeđeni tweet 12 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
4) as a vast generalization, it means that usually prev successful entrepreneurs who may have access to more capital than most ppl can shoot for something higher risk and higher return. That's a moat in itself.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 7 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
5) On the flipside, as a fund, cash is also an impt part of strategy. If you have a $10m fund, there are some cos that are better for *your fund* than others.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 8 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
6) For ex: as a $10m fund it isn't strategic to invest in ad based startups. Even if those cos go on to do very well, they need a lot of capital to get to monetization that you don't have in your fund! Similarly for other high cap cost cos - HW, e-commerce (inventory costs)
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 6 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
7) one way this can work well for a small fund is to have really close rapport w big funds that you know will just love whatever you are backing. This protects downside risk.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 7 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
8) 2 yrs ago, I talked to this Co that I really liked. Super seemingly scrappy founders. But a marketplace where I was really concerned w the unit econ. There just wasn't going to be a high enough take rate to build this biz w little cap.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
9) So there was risk in this failing because they needed lots of capital to make this work - that I couldn't provide and also even if they could raise from others lots of money, I would take huge dilution. So I passed.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
10) It was a great company but not a great match for our small fund. Just wouldn't have been good strategy. This co has since gone on to raise a large seed round from whose who investors & they will likely do well because these funds can pour in tons of $$. Did I make a mistake?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
11) Maybe they will become a unicorn that I missed but even if they do, you can't use "resulting" (read
@AnnieDuke) to retroactively take a result and say it was a bad decision. Strategically it was the sound decision given our fund size even if the outcome turns out differently.0 proslijeđenih tweetova 10 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit
12) Sometimes if you have a lot of cash you can play more aggressively and take more risk. If you have less cash, you need to play a longer game to amass cash to then take bigger risk.
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.