Brad's Books and Organizations

Books

Books

Organizations

Organizations

Hi, I’m Brad Feld, a managing director at the Foundry Group who lives in Boulder, Colorado. I invest in software and Internet companies around the US, run marathons and read a lot.

« swipe left for tags/categories

swipe right to go back »

Why Am I Passing?

Comments (19)

Every day I tell at least one entrepreneur that I am passing on investment in their company.  Some times I tell 10.  I don’t know what the most in one day is, but it’s probably more than 25.  I try to respond to all emails so a lot of these are in the "never were appropriate to pursue" category, but at least one each day is someone that I’ve actually engaged with beyond a cold email that was randomly sent to me.

While I try to give a short explanation – which often is that the company is not in an area that I’m interested in – it gets harder when I’ve actually spent some time looking at the company, like the idea and the people, and find it relevant to one of the investment themes we have active at the time.

Over the years – I’ve come up with a set of filters to quickly turn down deals.  This is an important process as I want to limit the time I spent investigating companies that I don’t investment in.  Rather – I want to maximize my time working with my existing portfolio companies and quickly / deeply evaluating new companies that have a high chance of us funding them. 

My first pass filter has three parts to it.  The top level filter is "is this in a theme that I’m currently interested in."  If yes, then I try to determine whether or not I think the people involved can create a huge company.  If yes, then I often at least spend some time going deeper.

Assume something falls in the "yes – this is interesting / relevant to my current investment themes and yes – I’m at least interested in the people."  Before I spent a lot my time (and their time) I try to figure out where this lives in the context of all the other companies we are looking at investing in.

This is where it gets fuzzy for the entrepreneur.  You don’t know the other active companies that we are working on.  We do.  Since all of my partners and I work across all of our deals, we all have good knowledge of the depth of our current pipeline.  As a result, I can ask myself the question "is this deal potentially in the top five things we are currently looking at."

If not, I usually pass right away.  We’ll only make a half dozen new investments or so a year and we are always looking at many more than six companies that we think are potentially fantastic investments.  As a result, if something is merely good (or even great) in our mind, it’s not going to ultimately make the cut, so it doesn’t make sense to spend time on it.

This is one of the benefit of having a fund our size.  While we aren’t a slave to a specific annual deal pacing, we’ve learned through the lessons of the bubble the value of having time diversity in our investing activity.  To be hugely successful, we don’t have to do every great deal we see.  In fact, we don’t have to do every fantastic deal we see. 

Now – just because you get through the first pass filter doesn’t mean we’ll do the investment.  The cumulative number of "top five deals" we are looking at in any given year might be 50 to 100.  We are going to do five or six of them.  So we are going to spent real time with a lot of companies that we won’t invest in.  This doesn’t mean they aren’t great companies or aren’t great investments – they just aren’t "for us, right now."

We always try to be respectful of the entrepreneurs and pass as soon as we hit the "this isn’t going to happen" point.  There are different triggers for each company and it’s not predictable.  I imagine this can be frustrating for an entrepreneur because it feels like you are making process with us when we suddenly say "we are passing", but I’d like to think it’s an efficient way for you since we unambiguously take ourselves out of the hunt when we realize we aren’t going to get there.  Ultimately, this is better for you since you don’t have to consume a bunch more time with us on a low priority outcome.

As I run out of gas on this post, I’m wondering how entrepreneurs that I’ve passed on perceive this.  I know many of you read this blog because you mentioned that to me in our initial introduction.  I encourage public or private (whatever you are comfortable with) feedback on this – did you feel like the experience with me was a rational one or an arbitrary one?

  • http://socialwrite.com Jevon MacDonald

    The biggest difference between a good VC and a bad one is the simple ability to say “No” as soon as is possible. Doing that avoids wasting everyone's time and also makes it easier for the entrepreneur to come back the next time they have an idea, because they know their time will be respected as well.

    For something as obvious as that statement is, it is amazing how few VCs actually live it.

  • http://sco.tt Scott Yates

    The difference between rational and arbitrary is more important to you, I think, than it is to the person who gets a no.

    You said “no” to me, and the reason really didn't matter that much. The thing I appreciated, and the reason that I'm a huge fan/read your blog/etc., is that you did so quickly. A quick “no” is 100 times better than no response at all, which is what you get from most of the others.

  • http://www.ragobeer.com Chris Ragobeer

    I completely agree with Jevon's statement. I have dealt with great VC's and not so good VC's. The ability to say no and good luck with your venture right away shows a mutual respect between both parties.

  • http://www.coloradostartups.com David G. Cohen

    I think it's fantastic that you've explained how you evaluate deals. You've always had a great reputation for not doing the classic “VC string along” so to me the value add here is just learning how you guys think about your dealflow in a bit more detail. Great post.

    • http://sco.tt Scott Yates

      I agree with David, and sorry if my post made it seem as though Brad should not have posted what he did. If I was in Brad's spot it would just be hard to make that kind of thoughtful reply to all the requests that come in through the transom.

      Now he can just point people to that post along with his “no.”

  • DisMonkey

    I'm sure bad pitches are _not_ a unique experience for you… In our case, we had a “perfect storm” of events that lead to us giving you one of the worst pitches I've ever presented. Obviously we would have preferred that things not turn out that way, but your quick follow up with clear feedback at least ensured we knew where we stood. You were relatively gentle too, all things considered…

    I'll take straight talk and transparency over vagaries and BS any day. We still think you guys are a great group and will undoubtedly try pitching you again — hopefully with a better result on both sides :-)

    Finally, I could not disagree more with the comment from Scott, above. The reason for the “no” is incredibly important to know. Otherwise how do you refine your idea and pitch? It'll be a very short ride as an entrepreneur if you can't digest clear feedback and figure out what to act on and what to ignore…

    • http://sco.tt Scott Yates

      Hey, I hear what you are saying, and it's always good to learn when possible, but a lot of Brad's post points out that he often says no for reasons that don't have anything to do with the pitch. If it's not in the “theme” he's looking at now or if there is some conflict because of some other investment, then there's nothing really for you to improve that would have brought a “yes.”

      Imagine if Brad, for instance, said, “This doesn't fit within what we are looking for. Oh, by the way, I think you should make your product in blue.” Well, the entrepreneur might have all kinds of hard data about why blue is no good, but they will then go out and make one in blue at great expense. Then they will go back to Brad with the blue one, and he still won't be interested because they didn't listen to the first part of the reason he's not interested.

      For the entrepreneur, there's a tricky balance between sticking with your vision and adopting the wisdom of others. It is important to learn, but the first most important part is to really listen.

  • Dan Mantineo

    This is great information and you are rational in your responses. Being on the “passed on” side of things, it is always a let down because you think your product is the next big thing in business. However, your explanation for why you did not want to invest got me looking in a different direction for financing. I am currently working with a differnet investor on my project that I would not have found if you did not word your response the way you did. If you had just said no, I would not have changed my strategy slightly. Also, your response also got me thinking about new ideas and startups that I could do that were more horizontal rather than vertical.

  • http://blog.jeffreymcmanus.com/ Jeffrey

    As another recent recipient of a “no” I'll chime in to say that I really appreciated getting the no quickly, but getting more information on the “why” would have been even more helpful. There's always the risk that the “why” will be a huge bummer, and I realize that composing a detailed response in each case may not be something you have time for, particularly since you've just launched a new fund.

  • James Mitchell

    I referred a deal to Brad several months ago and he handled himself great — same day response on a lot of emails, often within a few hours, knew the technology already quite well, the whole process took less than a week. Brad passed because he became convinced the company did not want to grow to a size that would make an investment by his fund worthwhile from a risk/reward point of view, and based on what I learned, I agreed with him. Overall accessment by me: A+

    A VC that acts this way has a HUGE advantage over other VCs. Guess who I am going to show the next deal to first?

    James Mitchell
    jmitchell@kensingtonllc.com

  • http://sophisticatedfinance.typepad.com rhhfla

    An interesting academic study on venture capitalist decision making was published recently. Readers may find it relevant. http://sophisticatedfinance.typepad.com/sophistic

  • http://sophisticatedfinance.typepad.com rhhfla

    An interesting academic study on venture capitalist decision making was published recently. Readers may find it relevant. http://sophisticatedfinance.typepad.com/sophistic

  • http://sophisticatedfinance.typepad.com rhhfla

    An interesting academic study on venture capitalist decision making was published recently. Readers may find it relevant. http://sophisticatedfinance.typepad.com/sophistic

  • http://stevenloi.tumblr.com Steven Loi

    I had limited interaction with you Brad, but I appreciated the referral and prompt e-mails (still waiting on hearing from your contact). What you wrote makes sense and I don't take offense to “no”; I just appreciate those the “no's” that gives an alternative push along into another direction. I think being prompt and clear is key. Especially for first time entrepeneurs that are looking for a break in, their consolation is to learn something from their interactions from that investor whether it be advice, a lead, or a reason.

  • Anonymous

    A quick no is useful for entrepreneurs. Even more useful for VCs and entrepreneurs would also be a VC willing to give a better sense of what is needed in order to get funding and get past a “no”, eg improved plan or team member (which they might help recruit to help build a great deal for themselves, just as they help some companies get a leg up with Techstars). It would also be interesting and perhaps useful to the VCs to (perhaps with NDA if needed) allow entrepreneurs to be able to hear what alternative deals the VC is considering and be able to make a case as to why they should be funded instead. This inspires entrepreneurs to perhaps spot holes in companies they wouldn't have suspected.. or to spot the ability of an entrepreneur to understand and critique a different business entirely to see that their minds are flexible enough to eg adapt if their own company morph's into something different than what it started out to be to begin with. Often entrepreneurs see a VC make an investment they think is clueless instead of their business and wish they'd had a chance to argue the comparative merits of the plans in case that meant the VC was missing something.

    Also it would be interesting to hear of a VC able to change their mind even after a no and breaking off talks if eg they develop a greater understanding of the market and realize they were wrong… and go and seek out the entrepreneur rather than just waiting for another similar deal to appear in their deal flow.

    Often a quick no might be based on lack of “getting” something new or innovative involved in a trend the VC hasn't yet caught onto but do later. Or something the VC was wrong about re: an industry where he relied on conventional thinking, those not open to new trends. I've heard of them changing their minds for future round but I'm not sure if I've heard of it happening for the same round.. so I don't know if its due to logistics (ie, the company got funded elsewhere or folded for lack of funding) or due to only being focused on the incoming deal flow and not considering that they might be able to salvage an idea they heard before that they finally get.

    I have heard mention of a local company, I think it might have been Lijit, where Brad either suggested an idea to the company founder or encouraged him to pursue one, so I'd be curious how much that happens to the companies that present or have presented in the past. ie, to say eg “if you want to head in this direction instead we might fund you..” to give them the option in case they see that as a better possibility.. or if again you just pass on the company and wait for one directly pursuing that direction to show up in deal flow. ie, how passive are VCs who are blessed(/cursed) with alot of incoming deals are in simply passing or approving them.. vs. creating better deals.

  • Bobby Martyna

    This is an important post — it brings up the fact that the entire fund raising process for entrepreneurs (and perhaps for VCs as well) is incredibly inefficient and imprecise.

    Think of the time entrepreneurs must spend identifying firms and partners that would even read the pitch, and then trying to determine if they would pass through all the gates, without even knowing what or where most of those gates are. Multiply that by 10 – 20 VCs a firm might pitch and subtract that time from the company's resource pool.

    While you and your firm may make it a lot easier by coming up with the quick no, others do not, making it worse than a multi-dimensional game of Battleship.

    Perhaps this is just the nature of most things where there is scarcity — a rock band trying to get signed, an author published, a ballplayer a tryout. It's much easier once it's been done the first time.

    Unfortunately, I don't have any answers for first time entrepreneurs — but it seems that VCs as gatekeepers of innovation leaves a lot of great ideas without backing. Hence the flight to alternate means of building companies and raising capital, which is both a natural and a positive response.

    I've been both successful and unsuccessful raising venture capital for companies that I have founded. Once funding has been acquired, a lot of stress is removed from the company, but a lot is also acquired, not all of it positive.

    On the other hand, the stress of building a company without venture capital is almost all positive — greater cash efficiencies, deeper and more realistic understanding of markets and customers, slower but more sustainable growth. And opting out of the game of Battleship, if possible, is a great time saver.

  • http://IMAGDG.com Aziz Grieser

    Bradster,

    First, it’s obvious to me from your blog, other people's comments, your partner Seth's blogs, his comments, and our emails and the brief phone pitch I gave to you, that you're the man, as VC's go. Both you and Seth actually give a sh1t, even with your status and success, enough to update your blog daily and respond to comments. This is not typical in the VC community. Other VC's blogs re-affirm my opinion of the majority of blogs on the web: one big circle-jerk.

    Second, my pitch to you was very helpful, and negotiations should conclude this week with my new-found investor. You see, you asked smart questions and actually paid attention to my nervous delivery, which I also think took away from the opportunity I was painting. At the end, you simply said, “I don't really know”. You wanted to see some more customer traction, (can’t blame you for lowering risk), and you offered to put me in touch with one of your portfolio companies when the time comes. Well, the time is coming in about a month, by my estimate.

    Last, I think most startups can relate to you, because you act the same way that we would, should we ever get in similar shoes. The phone conversation we had reinforces this too, because you talked about the idea’s details and dived right into thinking it through. I’ve been talking to a LOT of VC’s lately and let me tell you, bigger and more popular VC’s hire people that haven’t done “it” before to screen incoming investments, and those folks are trained to find “sure-wins”. The questions from them are never about what you plan to actually do and why, but limited to “how many people you got”, or “how much money are you making”. As you can see, these are not questions that will enable someone to see an opportunity, but generic questions by someone who admits that they don’t have the ability to recognize opportunity themselves.

    Thanks for differentiating. As long as you’re in this particular line of business, I suggest you continue to always be on the front line.

    Cheers.
    Aziz

    • http://www.feld.com Brad Feld

      Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad I was helpful – I look forward to connecting you up with my portfolio company when you are ready.

  • Gary Carroll

    Maybe a simple filter would be for you to list your hot button(s) for the month. If I know you are looking for “abc” then maybe I can tailor my plan to fit your need if it close enough.
    I'm starting a new plan and trying to find the right VC's to send it to.

  • http://blog.wellcomemat.com Christian Sterner

    Brad,

    I didn't catch this until you just referenced it within a more recent post, but did want to toss some feedback your way. I would categorize my experience with you as great. You passed, but you passed quickly, genuinely, and introduced me to people that might not. What’s better is that you are willing to serve as a resource for founders even if you have no interest in backing them financially, which is why I ping you with questions every couple of months. Let me just say this: there is a 90% chance that your name will come up in any conversation I have with someone about raising funds and I attribute this fact entirely to your genuine, honest dealings with people.

    • http://www.feld.com Brad Feld

      Christian – thanks for the kind words! I’m glad “what I’m trying to do / how I’m trying to be” is translating into reality.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/dgcohen dgcohen

    I think it's fantastic that you've explained how you evaluate deals. You've always had a great reputation for not doing the classic "VC string along" so to me the value add here is just learning how you guys think about your dealflow in a bit more detail. Great post.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/scott_yates498 scott_yates498

    Hey, I hear what you are saying, and it's always good to learn when possible, but a lot of Brad's post points out that he often says no for reasons that don't have anything to do with the pitch. If it's not in the "theme" he's looking at now or if there is some conflict because of some other investment, then there's nothing really for you to improve that would have brought a "yes."

    Imagine if Brad, for instance, said, "This doesn't fit within what we are looking for. Oh, by the way, I think you should make your product in blue." Well, the entrepreneur might have all kinds of hard data about why blue is no good, but they will then go out and make one in blue at great expense. Then they will go back to Brad with the blue one, and he still won't be interested because they didn't listen to the first part of the reason he's not interested.

    For the entrepreneur, there's a tricky balance between sticking with your vision and adopting the wisdom of others. It is important to learn, but the first most important part is to really listen.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/scott_yates498 scott_yates498

    I agree with David, and sorry if my post made it seem as though Brad should not have posted what he did. If I was in Brad's spot it would just be hard to make that kind of thoughtful reply to all the requests that come in through the transom.

    Now he can just point people to that post along with his "no."

  • DisMonkey

    I'm sure bad pitches are _not_ a unique experience for you… In our case, we had a "perfect storm" of events that lead to us giving you one of the worst pitches I've ever presented. Obviously we would have preferred that things not turn out that way, but your quick follow up with clear feedback at least ensured we knew where we stood. You were relatively gentle too, all things considered…

    I'll take straight talk and transparency over vagaries and BS any day. We still think you guys are a great group and will undoubtedly try pitching you again — hopefully with a better result on both sides :-)

    Finally, I could not disagree more with the comment from Scott, above. The reason for the "no" is incredibly important to know. Otherwise how do you refine your idea and pitch? It'll be a very short ride as an entrepreneur if you can't digest clear feedback and figure out what to act on and what to ignore…

  • Jeffrey

    As another recent recipient of a "no" I'll chime in to say that I really appreciated getting the no quickly, but getting more information on the "why" would have been even more helpful. There's always the risk that the "why" will be a huge bummer, and I realize that composing a detailed response in each case may not be something you have time for, particularly since you've just launched a new fund.

  • Jevon MacDonald

    The biggest difference between a good VC and a bad one is the simple ability to say "No" as soon as is possible. Doing that avoids wasting everyone's time and also makes it easier for the entrepreneur to come back the next time they have an idea, because they know their time will be respected as well.

    For something as obvious as that statement is, it is amazing how few VCs actually live it.

  • Dan Mantineo

    This is great information and you are rational in your responses. Being on the "passed on" side of things, it is always a let down because you think your product is the next big thing in business. However, your explanation for why you did not want to invest got me looking in a different direction for financing. I am currently working with a differnet investor on my project that I would not have found if you did not word your response the way you did. If you had just said no, I would not have changed my strategy slightly. Also, your response also got me thinking about new ideas and startups that I could do that were more horizontal rather than vertical.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/scott_yates498 scott_yates498

    The difference between rational and arbitrary is more important to you, I think, than it is to the person who gets a no.

    You said "no" to me, and the reason really didn't matter that much. The thing I appreciated, and the reason that I'm a huge fan/read your blog/etc., is that you did so quickly. A quick "no" is 100 times better than no response at all, which is what you get from most of the others.

  • Chris Ragobeer

    I completely agree with Jevon's statement. I have dealt with great VC's and not so good VC's. The ability to say no and good luck with your venture right away shows a mutual respect between both parties.

  • James Mitchell

    I referred a deal to Brad several months ago and he handled himself great — same day response on a lot of emails, often within a few hours, knew the technology already quite well, the whole process took less than a week. Brad passed because he became convinced the company did not want to grow to a size that would make an investment by his fund worthwhile from a risk/reward point of view, and based on what I learned, I agreed with him. Overall accessment by me: A+

    A VC that acts this way has a HUGE advantage over other VCs. Guess who I am going to show the next deal to first?

    James Mitchell
    jmitchell@kensingtonllc.com

  • Anonymous

    A quick no is useful for entrepreneurs. Even more useful for VCs and entrepreneurs would also be a VC willing to give a better sense of what is needed in order to get funding and get past a "no", eg improved plan or team member (which they might help recruit to help build a great deal for themselves, just as they help some companies get a leg up with Techstars). It would also be interesting and perhaps useful to the VCs to (perhaps with NDA if needed) allow entrepreneurs to be able to hear what alternative deals the VC is considering and be able to make a case as to why they should be funded instead. This inspires entrepreneurs to perhaps spot holes in companies they wouldn't have suspected.. or to spot the ability of an entrepreneur to understand and critique a different business entirely to see that their minds are flexible enough to eg adapt if their own company morph's into something different than what it started out to be to begin with. Often entrepreneurs see a VC make an investment they think is clueless instead of their business and wish they'd had a chance to argue the comparative merits of the plans in case that meant the VC was missing something.

    Also it would be interesting to hear of a VC able to change their mind even after a no and breaking off talks if eg they develop a greater understanding of the market and realize they were wrong… and go and seek out the entrepreneur rather than just waiting for another similar deal to appear in their deal flow.

    Often a quick no might be based on lack of "getting" something new or innovative involved in a trend the VC hasn't yet caught onto but do later. Or something the VC was wrong about re: an industry where he relied on conventional thinking, those not open to new trends. I've heard of them changing their minds for future round but I'm not sure if I've heard of it happening for the same round.. so I don't know if its due to logistics (ie, the company got funded elsewhere or folded for lack of funding) or due to only being focused on the incoming deal flow and not considering that they might be able to salvage an idea they heard before that they finally get.

    I have heard mention of a local company, I think it might have been Lijit, where Brad either suggested an idea to the company founder or encouraged him to pursue one, so I'd be curious how much that happens to the companies that present or have presented in the past. ie, to say eg "if you want to head in this direction instead we might fund you.." to give them the option in case they see that as a better possibility.. or if again you just pass on the company and wait for one directly pursuing that direction to show up in deal flow. ie, how passive are VCs who are blessed(/cursed) with alot of incoming deals are in simply passing or approving them.. vs. creating better deals.

  • Aziz Grieser

    Bradster,

    First, it’s obvious to me from your blog, other people's comments, your partner Seth's blogs, his comments, and our emails and the brief phone pitch I gave to you, that you're the man, as VC's go. Both you and Seth actually give a sh1t, even with your status and success, enough to update your blog daily and respond to comments. This is not typical in the VC community. Other VC's blogs re-affirm my opinion of the majority of blogs on the web: one big circle-jerk.

    Second, my pitch to you was very helpful, and negotiations should conclude this week with my new-found investor. You see, you asked smart questions and actually paid attention to my nervous delivery, which I also think took away from the opportunity I was painting. At the end, you simply said, "I don't really know". You wanted to see some more customer traction, (can’t blame you for lowering risk), and you offered to put me in touch with one of your portfolio companies when the time comes. Well, the time is coming in about a month, by my estimate.

    Last, I think most startups can relate to you, because you act the same way that we would, should we ever get in similar shoes. The phone conversation we had reinforces this too, because you talked about the idea’s details and dived right into thinking it through. I’ve been talking to a LOT of VC’s lately and let me tell you, bigger and more popular VC’s hire people that haven’t done “it” before to screen incoming investments, and those folks are trained to find “sure-wins”. The questions from them are never about what you plan to actually do and why, but limited to “how many people you got”, or “how much money are you making”. As you can see, these are not questions that will enable someone to see an opportunity, but generic questions by someone who admits that they don’t have the ability to recognize opportunity themselves.

    Thanks for differentiating. As long as you’re in this particular line of business, I suggest you continue to always be on the front line.

    Cheers.
    Aziz

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bobby_marty6077 bobby_marty6077

    This is an important post — it brings up the fact that the entire fund raising process for entrepreneurs (and perhaps for VCs as well) is incredibly inefficient and imprecise.

    Think of the time entrepreneurs must spend identifying firms and partners that would even read the pitch, and then trying to determine if they would pass through all the gates, without even knowing what or where most of those gates are. Multiply that by 10 – 20 VCs a firm might pitch and subtract that time from the company's resource pool.

    While you and your firm may make it a lot easier by coming up with the quick no, others do not, making it worse than a multi-dimensional game of Battleship.

    Perhaps this is just the nature of most things where there is scarcity — a rock band trying to get signed, an author published, a ballplayer a tryout. It's much easier once it's been done the first time.

    Unfortunately, I don't have any answers for first time entrepreneurs — but it seems that VCs as gatekeepers of innovation leaves a lot of great ideas without backing. Hence the flight to alternate means of building companies and raising capital, which is both a natural and a positive response.

    I've been both successful and unsuccessful raising venture capital for companies that I have founded. Once funding has been acquired, a lot of stress is removed from the company, but a lot is also acquired, not all of it positive.

    On the other hand, the stress of building a company without venture capital is almost all positive — greater cash efficiencies, deeper and more realistic understanding of markets and customers, slower but more sustainable growth. And opting out of the game of Battleship, if possible, is a great time saver.

  • Steven Loi

    I had limited interaction with you Brad, but I appreciated the referral and prompt e-mails (still waiting on hearing from your contact). What you wrote makes sense and I don't take offense to "no"; I just appreciate those the "no's" that gives an alternative push along into another direction. I think being prompt and clear is key. Especially for first time entrepeneurs that are looking for a break in, their consolation is to learn something from their interactions from that investor whether it be advice, a lead, or a reason.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bfeld bfeld

    Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad I was helpful – I look forward to connecting you up with my portfolio company when you are ready.

  • Christian Sterner

    Brad,

    I didn't catch this until you just referenced it within a more recent post, but did want to toss some feedback your way. I would categorize my experience with you as great. You passed, but you passed quickly, genuinely, and introduced me to people that might not. What’s better is that you are willing to serve as a resource for founders even if you have no interest in backing them financially, which is why I ping you with questions every couple of months. Let me just say this: there is a 90% chance that your name will come up in any conversation I have with someone about raising funds and I attribute this fact entirely to your genuine, honest dealings with people.

  • Gary Carroll

    Maybe a simple filter would be for you to list your hot button(s) for the month. If I know you are looking for "abc" then maybe I can tailor my plan to fit your need if it close enough.
    I'm starting a new plan and trying to find the right VC's to send it to.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bfeld bfeld

    Christian – thanks for the kind words! I’m glad “what I’m trying to do / how I’m trying to be” is translating into reality.

Build something great with me