These medium sized funds, if you go with Goldilocks and the three bears, the just right size, it was big enough to support a seed or series a all the way through to the end, but not so big that a home run can't really move the pile or you need too many of them.
“The the the the three prior funds for Venrock were all exactly four fifty over the course of a decade or that the the fund prior was even smaller.”
The the the the three prior funds for Venrock were all exactly four fifty over the course of a decade or that the the fund prior was even smaller. And there was a sense that these medium sized funds or or, you know, if you go with Goldilocks and the three bears, the just right size, it was big enough to support a seed or series a all the way through to the end to have the resources you need to to be, a fund in the big leagues, but not so big that, you know, a home run or or, you know, the winners can't really move the pile or you need too many of them or you need some massive, I guess, it would be white swan event to to really have a great outsized return. So we felt like four fifty, 500, that that's a number where your really big winners can really move move the whole fund. So why did we go up to six fifty?
Why this clip
The Goldilocks analogy provides a memorable framework for fund sizing strategy. Specific numbers ($450M) and clear trade-offs between fund size and returns make this highly actionable for fund managers and LPs.
From the blog
Want clips like this for your podcast?
We find your top 5-8 clips, write the hooks, and deliver ready-to-post content. First 2 episodes are free.
Get 2 Episodes Clipped Free