Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

A $500M exit is "completely unexciting" to institutional VCs. Sheel Mohnot breaks down the economics behind why, and it changes everything about how founders should think about fundraising. His fund: $140M Their minimum exciting exit: $500M+ Fund math is unforgiving. To return 3x to LPs, they need their winners...

40,649 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

16 Kommentare

Profilbild von Dave McClure
Dave McClurevor 7 Monaten

founders shouldn’t build businesses according to VC math — they should build based on their customer & market opportunity. what VCs need for good fund performance != always good startup advice. (also Sheel is wrong about #LatAm startups — #MercadoLibre & #Nubank are huge)

Profilbild von Francis Santora 🎌
Francis Santora 🎌vor 7 Monaten

What about Nubank?

Profilbild von Chinmay A. Singh
Chinmay A. Singhvor 7 Monaten

This has been my point with YC and other VCs. When they say "growth matters", they dont say for whom? Customer, Investor, or Founder? If you remove VC from the equation, profitability matters for both the customers and founders. A founder can meaningfully change his life with $5M exit as long as the founder owns 50% company.

Profilbild von Gregor
Gregorvor 7 Monaten

I've seen VCs like Sheel's have a tough time justifying their own returns, let alone their fund's reputation, when exits don't hit those massive targets. This mentality creates a self-fulfilling cycle where VCs prioritize high-risk, high-reward investments over more sustainable ones.

Profilbild von Rafael Costa
Rafael Costavor 7 Monaten

There will be and there are multiple billion dollar companies built serving Brazil only and/or latam. Some financial profiles down there are hard to come by in the US. I’m talking 100M+ EBITDA company, growing 70-80% YoY… 100pct agree on the global ambition, but there are local oppties that will create 5- 10B companies

Profilbild von Bruno Faviero
Bruno Favierovor 8 Monaten

Good question when diligencing VCs: what's your MEE?

Profilbild von Marcus Stromeyer
Marcus Stromeyervor 7 Monaten

What's the source link? Curious to listen to whole thing.

Profilbild von $FKN coin
$FKN coinvor 7 Monaten

I figured this out DAY ONE, and I dont have 200M AUM…. Im a beverage company trying to expand our geographic footprint. THATS THE WAY, BUT…. You gotta have the brand and ideas locked down. We DO!!!!

Profilbild von Alexis Roman
Alexis Romanvor 7 Monaten

Very similar pattern to what we're seeing in SSA. Either markets evolve locally / regionally and help warrant outsized returns. Otherwise founders will have to build global companies that warrant stronger exit multiples.

Profilbild von asif khan
asif khanvor 7 Monaten

Love @pitdesi but isn’t all he’s saying - ‘that one company better pay back for my all my inefficient investing’.

Profilbild von BoxNCase
BoxNCasevor 7 Monaten

True that ..

Profilbild von Chris Lee
Chris Leevor 7 Monaten

Build for global markets early. You're going to need a product like @deel to scale globally

Profilbild von Ernest🚜
Ernest🚜vor 7 Monaten

THINK BIG or go HOME

Profilbild von Dominik Warchoł
Dominik Warchołvor 7 Monaten

This is such a powerful perspective. Your emphasis on thinking globally while launching locally really resonates. It highlights how critical it is for founders to transcend geographical boundaries to achieve those massive outcomes that VCs are targeting. By focusing on global problems, entrepreneurs can unlock market potential that far exceeds their local contexts, thus aligning better with investor expectations.

Profilbild von Jagadeesh
Jagadeeshvor 7 Monaten

Till date betting on top grads and exp tech professionals. So,what is the futuristic model ?

Profilbild von Enguerand / VitroBot
Enguerand / VitroBotvor 7 Monaten

"Think global. Launch local. Scale everywhere." Almost worth tattooing

Ähnliche Videos

Watch this game-changing dissertation on "expert writing." Expert writers write to "think" about the world. 99% of experts write and think at the same time. They use the writing process to help themselves think. This is how they do their best thinking. Write to think about the world. Do this because you care, because you want to be part of progress, because you want to make a dent in the universe. Write to inspire and influence. And when you are finished writing, and you click publish, think about your work this way... the intent of your text is to cause readers to change the way they think about the world. Engagement metrics don't really matter in comparison. Whether or not your text is valuable, depends on whether or not your readers perceive that you have valuably changed what they think, or what they do, or how they decide. One of the reasons it's so hard for smart people to write well is because they don't write to change the way people think about the world. They write to complete a project, to earn a grade, to be assessed. Or they write to publish *their* thoughts without going through a mental and soulful exercise of writing to think about the world, without writing to change how people think about the world. Write to think about the world. Change how people think about the world. In an era of #GenerativeAI, content isn't the end game. Your goal isn't just to get someone's attention, generate reactions, or show up in search. Your mission is to change how people think about the world. Change How People Think About the World. Thank you, Larry McEnerney (now-retired former Director of the University of Chicago's Writing Program).

Brian Solis

113,733 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

William got margin called and pledged over $1B of his own stock to fund Column. He explains why extreme personal risk is what makes great founders, and why we see less of it today: "I think that the good founders bet on themselves and take an extreme amount of risk to do that. The extreme amount of risk part is something that we no longer have. But when there's literally only one door in front of you. You don't have a choice, and that fear and innate desire creates another part of you. It creates creativity, it creates inspiration. It's extremely valuable part of the founder journey. And in many ways, Silicon Valley we've actually removed that. I don't know why we don't talk about it more. If you go back to pre 2008, you're on the edge of the knife. We don't create environments where a founder has to bet themselves. I think starting companies are just too f**king safe. It's caused a lot of companies to be super safe companies like, we're gonna pivot to AI...that's not bold, that's not ambitious. It's because we are attracting founders that actually want to be employees. They don't think if I don't pull this off, I'm going to become bankrupt. My life is over and I think that's pretty healthy. That's when you bring out the rawness of humanity and I don't see that very much anymore. The weird thing is an early stage employee takes way more risk than an early stage founder. And I don't think we should actually de-risk the early stage employee. I just think we need to increase the risk for founders. I think we need to make failure much more expensive."

Patrick OShaughnessy

86,597 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten