If you’ve ever been frustrated that your neat logical arguments aren’t persuading people, this article is for you…
Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow had a strong influence on my thinking last year. He helped me get greater clarity on the difference between instinctual and reasoned thinking and I blogged about how VCs need to switch between thinking fast and thinking slow.
Now I’m reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt which offers another take on the subject.
Haidt is interested in how we come to moral judgements and his work shows that most people start by making a snap decision and then afterwards they find a logical argument that supports their position. The point here is that the logic comes second, and it is rare for people to change their initial judgement in the light of rational argument. He then goes on to argue that this is the way most people think about all topics. He explains how western philosophy puts reason on a pedestal and venerates those who are able to think clearly and dispassionately with the result that we have ended up seeing emotion as an impediment to good decision making.
The reason Kahneman is so interesting because he challenges the notion that purely rational thought should be our goal. He shows that for a lot of decisions we rely on intuition and don’t employ reason at all.
I’m interested in Haidt because he goes a step further. He shares Kahneman’s view that most of our decisions are made intuitively, but argues for a more nuanced model of how that happens. He makes an analogy with how we process visual information. First there is a sub-conscious pattern matching and then if the image is ambiguous and resolving that ambiguity is important we add more and more reasoning until we’ve cracked it. Where Kahneman has a dichotomy between intuitive and reasoned thinking Haidt sees a continuum. Moreover, for Haidt, all thinking processes start as intuitive and then reason is added later if needed and to the extent the thinker is inclined to think that way.
Anyone who works in startups has to continually make decisions from relatively small amounts of information. Doing that well not only requires making the right calls, but also having good judgement as to when to make a decision and when to go looking for more data. Good investors and operators have ‘golden guts’ and come quickly to firm judgements. One of the challenges we all face from time to time is that our judgements don’t tally with our partners.
One of the things I like about Haidt’s model is that it helps understand how we come to those judgements and therefore offers an increased chance of resolving differences. Step one is to recognise that opinions on both sides are most likely rooted in an intuitive pattern match of some kind. Step two is to uncover those patterns and look there for the sources of differing views. People’s first answer to ‘why do you believe x?’ will most likely be post hoc rational analyses, and getting to the underlying patterns will require a commitment to the process on both sides and patient use of something like the five whys technique.
If this process is going to work it requires both sides to recognise that their opinions are most likely rooted in intuition as well as logic and to be ready to accept that they might be the one who needs to change.
The increasing capital efficiency of startups has been changing the face of venture for the last decade or so.
- The first thing to happen was that the bar for a Series A went up – unsurprising given that startups could now get much further with pre-Series A amounts of capital (2005-2010)
- That created a gap in market which sub $100m dedicated seed funds (aka micro-VCs) stepped into – there are now over 300 of them (2005-2016)
- Then competition in the seed market led to increased round sizes driving the Series A bar still higher and causing seed investors to in turn look for more progress before investing (2013-ongoing)
- Creating a gap for Pre-Seed which is beginning to emerge as a category (2015-ongoing)
NextView Ventures recently published this graphic which captures the trends nicely.
Note that they have added a ‘Second-Seed’ stage which I haven’t described above. Their point is that as the bar for Series A rises an increasing number of companies are raising second seed rounds to get them there. That’s definitely happening, but I’m not sure I would have broken it out as a separate category on this chart as the goals and investing disciplines of Seed and Second-Seed are pretty much the same – get from early traction to the scaleable economics that yield a Series A.
However, Pre-Seed is very different. The criteria and evaluation are very different and the goals are to be ready for Seed rather than Series A. As you can see from the table below, the most significant difference is that Pre-Seed investors base their decision on team, vision and desk research whereas Seed and later investors also look at companies’ products and customers’ reaction to them.
Note that venture is an industry of exceptions and whilst this table is accurate for the middle of the bell curve there are plenty of companies that have raised outside of these criteria. The exceptions come for a myriad of reasons, common ones include experienced founders are able to raise seed or even Series A size rounds at the pre-seed stage, companies in hot markets or sectors (e.g. current account startups in the UK last year), and situations where tech development or regulatory costs demand more capital.
Forward Partners invests at the Pre-Seed and Seed stages, with slightly over half of our deals coming at Pre-Seed. Our founding vision was to deliver amazing operational support to our portfolio companies through our startup and growth team covering product, design, development, marketing, recruitment and now PR and comms, and what we’ve learned over the last three years is that operational support makes most difference at the Pre-Seed stage (we say Idea Stage). When we invest at Idea Stage our team becomes the company’s team for a few months, and teams execute faster. The leverage comes because founders are able to spend less time on hiring and recruitment and because our experience helps them plot a better path.
ValueWalk have reported on new data out from Prequin that shows continued growth Micro-VC fundraising. Micro-VC growth has been going on long enough now that I’m hearing LPs question whether we’ve reached saturation point and this segment of the market would benefit from some contraction. Certainly that’s the argument Samir Kaji is making.
However, Samir’s comments are largely based on US data and don’t separate out Europe and Asia. Besides the continued growth the interesting thing for me in the Prequin data was the geographic splits.
This chart shows that compared to the rest of the world Europe has a lower ratio of Micro VC funds to Non-Micro VC funds than the rest of the world, suggesting that unless the US is 2x+ overweight in Micro-VC we can expect substantial growth in the category over here. Anecdotally that feels right to me.
For completeness I’ve also included charts showing the number of funds and the amount of capital raised. The surprising thing for me here is that in most years Asia has seen more Micro VC fundraises than Europe.
Stage-by-Stage Change in US Venture Capital Deployed (Deal Value) – Mattermark
Stage-by-Stage Change in US Venture Capital Deal Volume – Mattermark
Mattermark just released data for deal volume and value in the US in May. As you can see the trend is down, particularly in Seed and Series A. Moreover, as they point out these are lag measures because they report announced deals and deals are often announced 6-12 weeks after completion.
The implication is that Seed and Series A have been in slowdown for 3-5 months now.
The Q1 data for Europe showed investment was flat on Q4, but it will be interesting to see if we see the same declines as the US in April and May. Anecdotally it feels to me that activity is slowing here, but the slowdown isn’t as marked as in the US. That wouldn’t be surprising given that the ramp up in investment activity here in 2013-2015 was less pronounced.
Whatever your view on which way the market is likely to move it makes sense to plan for a difficult fundraising climate over the next 12-24 months. That means having an option of getting to profitability (where possible), allowing extra time to raise money, making existing funds last long enough to achieve significant progress (18 months) and focusing on unit profitability. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
New data out from BRC-KPMG shows online sales of non food products grew 13.7% in the year to May 31st, taking online penetration of non-food to 21.2%. Physical retail of course went the other way decreasing 1.6% in the three months to the end of May. During that period we also saw the collapse of BHS and Austin Reed – both bastions of the UK high street.
Retail analyst Diane Wehrle from Springboard is now predicting that retail footfall is in permanent decline and CityAM are running headlines saying 2016 set to be year of retail failures.
At Forward Partners we’re all about creating innovative, new businesses and it’s never nice when industries suffer, but the continued demise of non-food physical retail has an air of inevitability about it. The number of shoppers is declining and prices are under constant pressure and that will leave an increasing number of shops unable to generate sufficient sales to cover their fixed costs. This is likely to be an accelerating trend as each new failure further reduces footfall.
It’s a different story online though, where new retailers are coming to market with innovative products and services. The erstwhile physical retail shopper has moved online because the services are more compelling. That’s sometimes about price, but more often it’s about product selection, personalisation and convenience.
79% of non-food sales are still offline and at current rates of decline that will be 69% in three years. UK retail spend was £339bn in 2015, so that equates to £34bn of business moving online. That’s an opportunity!
Whilst the short term is all about retail market share moving from offline to online many of the more forward looking companies have blended clicks-and-mortar models and I expect that is what will dominate over time.