May 8, 2025 • 45 mins
Joel Palathinkal chats with Ishaan Sachdev about his journey from engineering to investing. Ishaan discusses his educational background, the role of technology in trading, and his experience with iPay's sale. They explore his time as a summer policy advisor, his move to PSG for growth equity, and founding Dessian's Capital. Ishaan offers advice on scaling a fund, including KPIs, strategies for subsequent funds, and building an institutional firm. The episode covers fund four strategies, nurturing LP relationships, and high conviction sourcing. They also discuss founder perseverance, pre-seed investment, and year-end fundraising strategies.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
I think secondly, and this comes to yourquestion about funds two and three.
(00:03):
You know, building a fund is a long game.
Right?
You might meet LPs in the course of fund one,and then they might not invest for years later.
They might invest Yeah.
Fund three or four.
And a lot of it, I think, is LPs wannaunderstand, hey, do you have a strategy?
And then if you have one or you can actuallyexecute on it.
And if you execute on it, does it work?
(00:24):
And that can take a lot of cycles.
It could take a whole fund to see that.
But I think that, like, if you do those things,you're actually ahead of most people, which is
being able to deploy a defined strategy,execute on it, show that it works.
Like, that, I think, is the most importantthing to show that consistency of thought
across multiple funds.
(00:47):
Welcome to The Investor, a podcast where I,Joel Palofinkle, your host, dives deep into the
minds of the world's most influentialinstitutional investors.
In each episode, we sit down with an investorto hear about their journeys and how global
markets are driving capital allocation.
So join us on this journey as we explore theseinsights.
(01:12):
All right, excited to have my guest, IshaanSachdev.
He's a general partner at Dessian's Capital.
Ishaan, welcome to the show.
Thank you.
Great to be here.
Yeah, excited to really go deep on yourbackground.
We really enjoyed meeting you, as I mentionedearlier before we started and hearing about
your journey.
I think it'd be really valuable for thecommunity of LPs, GPs, angels that are on this
(01:36):
podcast to kind of learn a little more aboutwhat it takes to build a firm and what it takes
to scale a firm to where it needs to be.
So I would love to maybe start with youreducation.
I'll do a quick intro.
So again, Sean is a general partner atDestinence Capital.
And, you know, he went to school at HarvardBusiness School and then previously worked at
(01:57):
PSG.
He was one of the co founders and managingpartners of the MIT Alumni Angels of Boston,
and then also was a research associate atHarvard Business School.
So excited to just go deeper on yourbackground.
Tell me a little more about just your earlyeducation and, you know, what what made you
(02:18):
think about number one, into the investmentindustry, And then we'll go into kind of firm
building a little after that.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
So I so I was actually an engineer byeducation, and so I went to MIT for my
undergrad and did both an undergrad and amaster's in electrical engineering and computer
science.
(02:38):
And really for me, you know, I was in highschool as the first tech bubble was building
and unfolding.
I think it was just really amazing to see whatsome of these young, the time very young
founders were building and the impact they weremaking.
And so, you know, my initial, plan was to go bean engineer and then go, work for a start up.
(03:01):
And so, really, that changed over the course ofmy time at MIT and sort of happy to talk about
that and what led me into the investment world.
What was your favorite I'm an electricalengineer too by trade.
So what was your favorite class and what classdid you not like as much?
And I'll share mine too.
Oh, got it.
You know, so my favorite class was, computersecurity class, which was taught by Ron Rivest.
(03:24):
And Ron was he is the r in RSA security, whichis one of the original cryptography companies.
And, you know, I I had a I had a a teacher inhigh school who taught us things I think were
much very much off curriculum, and one thing hetaught us was the RSA, algorithm.
And so I had always been fascinated by that andby computer security.
(03:47):
And then going into college knew that Ron,luckily enough taught the intro security class.
And so that was by far my favorite class.
Yeah, remember, I worked in my first job, Imean, it was in the in the DoD industry.
So I would always get those RSA tokens, youknow, and I guess that's kind of one of their
key product.
(04:07):
So was he involved with RSA or was he just kindof one of the, you know, really respected
experts in security?
Yeah.
He was one of the co founders.
So there are three co founders.
And so the there are three co founders in theRSA or each of their, initials.
And so he's the R in RSA, and he was really is,you know, on the ground building the building
(04:29):
that business.
So did when he was he teaching kinda like afterhe retired or he was just kinda like an adjunct
faculty teaching while he was well, at whatentry point did you did you meet him?
So so RSA was already a going concern in a bigbusiness by the time I got to college.
And so I don't know the original sort of story.
I believe that he had been an academic alongwith, I think, the others, and they started it
(04:54):
in conjunction with being professors.
And so I think he had always been doing both.
That may not be, completely accurate, but thatwas my impression that he had been doing both
along the way.
And so he had been on faculty at MIT, you know,for for quite a long time at that point in
time.
And then what was your least favorite class inin your engineering curriculum?
(05:16):
You know, I think it was probably, it was theintro one of the introduction to electrical
engineering courses.
Courses.
So we we did both computer science, electricalengineering as a core.
Sure.
And I just remember the professor would writethese formulas that would literally go across
three chalkboards.
(05:37):
We still had chalkboards.
And I just realized that was not for me.
Yeah, that's what I resonate with the samesentiments.
Classes that I Because I mean, back then youhad to really just memorize.
So like the way that I got through calculus, Iwould essentially just memorize the formulas
and all the different steps and the sub steps.
(06:00):
And then, know, the test would be, you know,you sometimes we get like the old tests or kind
of, study guides, but the test was essentiallya derivative of what you studied in the
chapters.
So same way, I didn't really love that thatmuch.
My favorite class was I think it towards theend, when I was about to graduate, we had this
(06:21):
engineering economics course.
And at the end, we got to present a business,it was almost like a startup pitch.
And I just felt I was much more comfortablekind of working with people and collaborating
versus kind of being the lab expert behind thescenes hot wiring circuits and stuff or
creating circuits on a breadboard.
(06:43):
So yeah, totally agree with you.
Then tell me what happened after that.
So did you work in technology for some time?
I did not.
So actually, I actually went immediately intoinvesting after college.
So I did both undergrad and master's togetherin the course of five years.
And then really in my fifth year is where Idecided, hey.
(07:05):
I I didn't necessarily wanna pursue a career asan engineer.
Mhmm.
And I also along around that same time got veryinterested in the financial markets and in
investing particularly.
And I think just was fascinated by thisquestion of how do people make money in the
markets, started reading a lot about, you know,some of the more notable investors over time.
(07:26):
And it was just fascinating to see peopledevelop different strategies and so on.
And so I became really captivated by that.
And so I decided that after school, I reallywanted to go into investing and learn much more
about that role.
You know, with you having a technicalbackground like myself, what advice would you
give to people that are trying to get rightinto investing right after maybe an engineering
(07:47):
degree?
Should they supplement their electrical orcomputer science education with some finance
books or some coursework, or just kinda do someindividual reading on their own?
Yeah.
I think probably two things.
Like, if you know you're interested, I woulddefinitely do some additional coursework.
It would have Yeah.
Probably been great had I, you know, had Ifigured that out earlier on and and done more
(08:10):
earlier on.
But, certainly, I think there's a there's a lotof value in just getting exposure early on,
starting to really think about internalizethose topics if you know it's something you're
interested in.
And and plus, I think it's just a reallyhelpful way to figure out, hey.
Is this really a thing I'm interested in?
You know, I think second, the, the good partfor me at the time was that, you know, the
folks on on Wall Street, Wall Street wasgetting more quantitative and Yeah.
(08:33):
And not even in the sense of quant algorithms,but just mathematical because because fixed
income was becoming such a big part of WallStreet derivatives, all of these things.
And so they concluded, hey.
It's maybe easier to teach people who know mathfinance than the reverse.
And, historically, that's what they had donewas go recruit folks who had liberal arts
backgrounds and finance, backgrounds and andand bring them in.
(08:56):
And they said, let's just go and find thesepeople who really understand math really well.
And so I think Ben I got the benefit of thatbecause they were looking for engineers,
computer scientists, etcetera.
I think the other thing, you know, is the waythe world has moved, I think that now
technology is much more a part of trading andinvesting than it was when I was there.
(09:18):
And know, my sense is that whether it'strading, whether it's, you know, different
types of, you know, investing roles, like thethings I was doing, especially inside of a bank
where I was, you know, people who write codeand all of those things, it's much more a part
of the daily it's becoming much more a part ofthe daily job.
And so I suspect as well that if you've gotthat sort of computer science engineering
background, those skills are much more directlyapplicable in a way they they weren't back
(09:42):
then.
Sure.
And you have a unique experience too because Iwas looking at your background.
Looks like you managed, the process to selliPay, which was a portfolio company of Bain
Capital Ventures.
So how was that experience and what were someof the biggest things that you learned,
especially with your It
was great and maybe, you know, to sort of bringyour audience full circle.
(10:02):
So I went to you know, after, undergrad, I wentto Goldman.
I was a prop trader, invested in illiquid debtderivatives, which was a fascinating both place
and market to be, and then decided, hey.
I really wanna get back to working withtechnology and startups.
And then went into venture, came back to Bostonto work for Bain Capital Ventures and was
(10:23):
investing in fintech from seed through growth.
And then really got very excited about fintechin the course of that.
It was my first exposure to the space andsubsequently had the opportunity to jump into a
portfolio company in the fintech space, callediPay, as you mentioned.
And what iPay was doing, it was an investmentwe made with Spectrum Equity.
(10:45):
And really what they were doing was billpayment software suite selling into small,
medium, regional banks and make and movingupmarket.
And so this was the idea that, you know, nowyou can go to your bank's website, their
banking portal.
You can do all kinds of bill payment throughthat.
And this was and this was at a time when thebig banks started deploying that and then iPay
(11:05):
built that and was selling it into the rest ofthe market.
And so that was really what the business did.
I think, you know, in that sale process, Ithink what was fascinating to me was, you know,
number one, we talked to a large number offinancial services and other companies in the
space.
So both companies you would think are obviouspeople to acquire a business like that and many
(11:27):
that were not.
And so I think it was just really interestingto hear both how do these bigger companies
think about the market, how do they think aboutexpanding their product universe.
You know, you we had the opportunity to be inthe room with some of the most senior people at
some of the biggest payments companies in theworld.
And And so it's just fascinating to hear, like,what do they actually care about?
Right?
When it comes down to brass tax of, like, do webuy this company or not?
(11:50):
How is it that, they think about what mattersto them?
I think secondly, it was really interesting tounderstand how do you actually create value
through an m and a process.
Right?
Like, what's the way to do that in a way to getto the best outcome for the company, for the
employees, for the investors, and what are thethings that one can do to really put yourself
(12:11):
in the best place.
And I think we had a lot of really smart peoplearound the table on that, the board, etcetera.
It was a great a great learning experiencethere.
And then I think it was really interesting justto see where's the world headed.
Right?
And and part of the reason that people wereinterested in that business was where they
wanted to take their businesses in the futureand where they thought the world was going.
(12:31):
So I think that was also fascinating.
Yeah.
No.
I think that's totally important too tounderstand where everybody's incentives are.
And if you could make it where it's a win winfor everybody.
Right?
The founder has some type of path tax ofwhether it's whether it's cash or equity.
And then on the acquirer side, if there is anacquirer, if that's the outcome, how do they
(12:56):
get incentivized for investing in the companyand the multiples and you know, what what kind
of ways should they kind of think about how tohow to return capital to maybe their LPs as
well.
So, like, with that, you know, I see kind ofthis this adviser role that you took on over
the summer in DC.
(13:17):
So that seems like a really interesting role asthe summer policy advisor to the office of
capital markets.
So tell me a little bit more about thatexperience and some of the things that you
learned and maybe some of the interestingpeople that you met there.
Yeah.
For sure.
So I think you know?
So I was at Goldman for the very beginning ofthe financial crisis and so got kind of an
inside perspective on how the crisis wasunfolding, and so got got to sort of see that
(13:44):
from the perspective.
And then even after I left, really becamefascinated in the topic of how did this come
about?
You know, how did the financial crisis bothstart?
How then did it unfold and make its way throughall these Wall Street institutions?
And, you know, you look at all these reallylarge organizations and the idea that how do
they end up getting themselves into a position,where they were in such trouble?
(14:07):
And so it became really a passion area for methat I spent a lot of time thinking about.
And then going into business school, you know,knew, in the summer advisory role came about
because I was in business school and knew that,you know, I was interested in exploring that
topic further and thought, you know, maybe I'lldo research, maybe I'll find a professor to
work with.
And then, ended up meeting this group, officeof capital markets, and the office of capital
(14:31):
markets was created during the financialcrisis.
And, really, I think the interesting thingabout treasury was in the treasury department,
which is where where this group was set up,there really weren't markets people prior to
the financial crisis.
There were a lot of economists and lawyers andfolks like that.
And so one of the advisers to, the treasurysecretary and and to the administration said,
(14:54):
hey.
We really need to bring people from the marketsin to help us deal with this financial crisis.
Yeah.
He convinced one of the folks who was, Ibelieve, partner at Blackstone running their
financial institutions investing to come totreasury in the depths of the crisis and start
this team.
And the team was staffed by all kinds of peoplefrom, you know, from Goldman, Blackstone, like
(15:14):
those kind of places, but who understood themarkets.
And so they really advised on everything thatwas financial crisis related.
And so I got there sort of post crisis.
So this was in 2012, but they were stillworking on a lot of the topics that were going
(15:34):
that had come about because of the financialcrisis and also some new activities.
And so I think, you know, some of the thingsthat I got to spend time on were, you know,
number one, we looked at sort of Title IIresolution, which is how do you you know,
there's Dodd Frank created a a a part whichsaid there needs to be a plan to unwind a large
(15:59):
globally systemic institution like these largebanks if they get into trouble.
As we worked on certain aspects of that, weworked on certain topics related to derivatives
clearing, which was another part of Dodd Frank.
And so how do you prevent these derivativesissues from reverberating through the market?
We worked on, things that were relating to theJobs Act, which was different and unrelated,
(16:19):
but things that related to crowdfunding andbeing able to file S-1s confidentially, which
had come up and was already being implemented.
And so there was sort of a broad set of topicsthat I got to work on.
I think that what was fascinating to me was, A,the teams are it's very lean, right?
(16:40):
Like the group was five to seven people, andthe teams generally are lean.
This is not an organization with tens orhundreds of people in a given group.
And so these are small teams that are basicallyworking on these huge topics, which will impact
the entire market.
And I think that's really the interesting partis, you know, as somebody involved, the thing
(17:03):
the the things that you get to work on willhave a a market wide impact, where if you're in
an investment firm, you're very narrowlyfocused on your handful of investments.
So that scope is totally different.
The other thing that was fascinating is, youknow, there really is it's really a SWAT team
aspect of, like, whenever there's a crisis thatthat blows up, pretty quickly, somebody's got
(17:25):
to form an opinion that goes up to the treasurysecretary of whomever, and these are the, you
know, these are the groups inside that actuallyare forming that opinion.
And so it's some interesting mix of big longterm things that you're working on and then
also, like, reacting to crises that come up andtrying to figure out, hey.
What has unfolded?
And do we make or we actually have a response?
Sure.
No.
That's really helpful.
(17:46):
And then tell me what happened after that.
It looks like after that, you worked at PSG forsome time.
You got some really good growth equityexperience.
And then walk me through kind of the the originstory of Dessiance.
Yeah, absolutely.
So that's right.
So ultimately, I joined PSG.
PSG was at the time was called ProvidenceStrategic Growth, and it was the growth equity
(18:08):
arm of Providence Equity, the buyout fund.
And they were fully focused on software growthequity.
And really, the bread and butter of the firm atthe time was, growth buyouts.
And so this was, you know, investing in lightlycapitalized businesses, often hadn't raised
venture capital, were founder owned, and hadgotten to 10 or 20,000,000 of ARR, and we're
(18:30):
really looking for a partner to help them go tothe next phase.
And so would come in, buy a majority of thebusiness, partner with the founders, and then
help them with professionalizing, you know, goto market financial operations, more capital
for product expansion, m and a, all of thosekinds of things.
That's really what what PSG did.
And PSG has subsequently spun out of ofProvidence, and so they they shrank the name
(18:53):
from Providence Strategic Growth to PSG, but isnow a very large and global growth equity fund.
And then so Dessian, so really my partner, DanKemmerling founded Dessian in 2017.
And Dan had been a founder and in particular infintech.
And he started Dessians really to be the bestpartner to early stage financial services
(19:20):
founders with the idea that it was just gonnabe a focus on seed and pre seed investing and
lead only.
And so in other words, have a very concentratedportfolio of high conviction companies that you
spend a lot of time working closely with andreally helping those founders see around
corners because, as you know, financial serviceis pretty complicated, a lot of complexity that
(19:43):
is hard to understand if you haven't livedthrough it.
And so there's a lot of value that an investorcan bring.
And so, you know, to to roll things forward,Dan did fund one, his fund one as a solo GP.
And then we really met, in 2020 and started Ishould say we had met before, but we started
talking about my joining in 2020.
(20:04):
And really, as I was thinking about, you know,the longer arc of my career and what I wanted
to do for the the long term, you know, came tothe conclusion I really wanted to do three
things.
So I wanted to do fintech full time.
You know, ever since my time at Bank Capitalhad been my passion personally and
professionally, I wanted to go back early stageand really be doing pre seed and and seed
(20:25):
investing, and I wanted to help build the fund.
And so those are those are all the things thatDan was doing at Dessian's.
And so I joined him at the beginning of, of2021.
Now we're the two general partners.
We then, we then raised fund two subsequently,and now we're actually on to fund three, and we
built the team up since then.
So happy to dig into any aspects of buildingthe firm that would be interesting to your
(20:48):
audience.
Yeah, so we have a topic, we run this thingcalled the fund accelerator and one of the
topics that we talk about is kind of graduatingto fund two and fund three.
So what advice would you have for people numberone that are building the firm from scratch?
And your co founder probably has a lot ofwisdom on this, but then what do you think you
(21:09):
need to think about when you're ideating fundtwo?
And then what do you think and what have youheard from other LPs when you're thinking about
Fund two and Fund three and beyond?
What are the hot hot topics to really consider?
Yeah.
I mean, I think yeah.
The the zero to one certainly, Dan, has a greatperspective on.
(21:30):
I think the first piece is it's really hard.
You know, going zero to one just just like astart up, there's a ton that goes on.
I think that probably the biggest piece of itis building a fund and starting a fund is a lot
different than just being an investor at abigger fund or being an angel because you're
building a firm, and there's all the thingsthat go along with that.
(21:52):
So I think that's really one of the things thatprobably, you know, folks doing it for the
first time is is a surprise of, like, how muchother work there is to be done and
infrastructure to put in place and so on.
I think number two is it's really about, youknow, what what's the difference you're gonna
make in the market?
And I think that Dan's strategy is the samestrategy we've deployed ever since, and that's
(22:16):
a big part of, you know, why I joined was I hadthe same perspective on how to think about
investing.
But, really, it's there's a ton of venturefirms out there.
Mhmm.
Right?
And so and growth equity firms.
And so the question is, what are you doingthat's different?
Like, what's the new thing that you werebringing to the market?
Tons of smart people out there runninginvestment firms, but I think that the best
firms and the ones that break out really take adifferentiated perspective on how they're gonna
(22:41):
create value, how they're gonna invest.
And I think that is important both forcompanies you want to partner with because
those founders want to understand, hey, whatare you doing that's different than all the
other branding firms that they know?
And then also for LPs, right?
Like LPs want to know how are you differentthan all the other firms that are out there?
So I think really bringing a differentiatedperspective.
(23:02):
I think secondly, and this comes to yourquestion about funds two and three, building a
fund is a long game, right?
You might need LPs in the course of fund one,and then they might not invest for years later.
They might invest in fund three or four.
And a lot of it, I think, is LPs wannaunderstand, hey, do you have a strategy?
And then if you have one or you can actuallyexecute on it, and if you execute on it, does
(23:26):
it work?
And that can take a lot of cycles.
It could take a whole fund to see that.
But I think that, like, if you do those things,you're actually ahead of most people, which is
being able to deploy a defined strategy,execute on it, show that it works.
Like, that, I think, is the most importantthing to show that consistency of thought
across multiple funds.
(23:46):
And so I do think that's been a big part ofwhat we've done across funds one, two, and now
into three is it's the same strategy.
And we're able to show what we told LPs evenwhen I joined beginning of Fund two, we then
went out and did it and built the portfoliothat we told people we would build at the
beginning of Fund two.
We think it's working really well.
(24:07):
I think the other thing I would think a lotabout too is just, you know, as you're adding
to the team and adding partners and other folksis having great alignment, right?
I think that it's so critical that the peopleyou partner with as you go from one person to
two to three, that everyone is really signed upto do the same thing and has a belief in the
(24:29):
approach that the firm is following.
And I think that's where you and really trusteach other.
And I think that's where you see partnershipshave issues is when there isn't that alignment.
And so when you talk to LPs, the biggest thingthat they care a lot about in early stage funds
is, hey, who are the partners?
(24:49):
How do they know each other?
How do they collaborate?
How do they work well?
Is this a partnership they can see going on forten, fifteen, twenty years?
Because every fund could be ten to fifteenyears, right?
And so I think that part is super important aswell as you as you think about it.
And so I'll maybe pause there, but certainlycan talk more about, you know, the fund two and
(25:09):
three cycle and how that's evolved as well.
Yeah.
No.
I think that's really helpful.
And then, you know, if you can if you can kindago into two and three and kinda thinking
through that, maybe some of the KPIs, you know,so I met an LP recently that only invest in
fund four.
And the reason why is because fund three isreally when they might start seeing some DPI at
(25:31):
that stage.
So they kind of meet funds that are kind of inthat stage because from some of their previous
vintages, they might start to determine ifthere is the possibility for that because
they're thinking more long term.
So what's your reaction to that?
And then what are some of the thought processesthat you've been thinking about for, you know,
fund two?
There's a lot of pieces to it's like,obviously, a lot of fund managers when they get
(25:54):
to fund two, their infrastructure is much moresophisticated sometimes, as well, They may be
moving off of the fund admin that they wereusing previously and they're now going to a
more institutional grade.
So are there any other levers that you'reseeing to kind of that you've seen kind of
trigger amongst your peers to kind of move intomore of an institutional grade mindset and
(26:18):
strategy to kind of deliver that experience totheir LPs?
Yeah, absolutely.
I think it's a great, two great questions.
So I think we will tackle the last one first.
But I think there's and sometimes I would saythis, there's a bifurcation.
Like there are people who wanna buildinstitutional grade firms and there are people
who don't.
And there's not like really a right answer.
(26:38):
They're just different approaches, but you'retotally right that depending which direction
you wanna go, you build your firm differently.
And so there are people who say, hey.
We just wanna be a small team of partners.
We wanna make investments.
We don't really wanna grow fund size.
We don't really care about being institutional,etcetera, etcetera.
And they don't need to necessarily build out alot of infrastructure.
For us, we wanted to go institutional, we knewthat.
(27:01):
And so we absolutely started building that outover the course of Fund two.
And I think that is about, number one, who arethe service providers you work with.
And so obviously a lot of firms, accountingfirms, fund admins.
So the first question is having people likethat that are reputable and top tier, because I
(27:23):
think that's a key piece of who you collaboratewith, and you have a lot of those when you're
building a firm.
You know, second is who are the people youbring on?
So as an example, you know, one of the earlyhires that we that we made after I had joined
was VP finance.
And so, you know, a, like, we gotta we had toget Dan out of the business of being the VP
finance.
He was doing everything prior, of course.
(27:45):
But then, you know, you know, our VP financecame out of, Vista Equity as an example.
So he's used to building and working withinstitutional grade organizations.
And as you go out and start talking toinstitutional LPs and managing their due
diligence process and things of that nature,it's a very complicated intensive thing versus,
say, some family offices where maybe it's acouple of conversations.
(28:06):
And so having people, and I think the rest ofthe team as well, who understand that world and
can be helpful in building out both helping usengage with those people and then building out
the technology as well components of thatinfrastructure.
There really is a real platform.
And so I think it's really every aspect of theorganization.
I think as well, a key question that we seeinstitutional LPs ask in the course of, say,
(28:31):
that fund, that early part of fund two is howare you thinking about building out the team?
Because they want to know, are you thinkingabout the team in a way that suggests you can
build an institutional platform or are you not?
And so I think that is really a big aspect ofit as well as you're making that transition,
showing that you've both thought about it andthen there's evidence that you're putting those
(28:54):
pieces in place.
And so that's, I think, really a lot of what itmeans to go in the institutional direction is
adding all of that infrastructure.
To your point, people understand how to engagewith that world.
And then on your other question about sort ofthis fund four and what's the reaction to that,
fund threes are interesting, right?
(29:15):
Because I think fund ones, people would say,are based on just who you are and maybe your
background, maybe your track record.
But people are taking a leap into the unknown,right, in some sense.
You've got a narrative.
They hopefully abide in the narrative, andthat's what they're investing into.
You know, fun two is, hey.
You did a bunch of interesting stuff in funone, but it's still really early.
(29:35):
But we sort of think that, like, those thingsmake sense to us and it's kind of working.
And so, okay.
We'll we'll lean into the narrative if you didwhat you said in fund one.
Fund three is an interesting one because you'remultiple funds in.
But to your point, if you're a seed or pre seedfund, probably like holistically don't have
DPI.
Because average time to one times DPIhistorically for a series A fund is seven
(29:59):
years.
So forget a seed fund, which is somewhat beyondthat.
Sure.
And so it's this interesting point where you'venow got a bunch of things that are in the
portfolio, but in terms of like real returnsthat you can point to, it's still way too
early.
And that I think is a challenging place oftenfor LPs or for fund managers and for LPs to
(30:21):
make that assessment.
And so I think that the couple of things arethere.
I think one of the most important things isthere are different LPs that invest in all
these stages.
And so I think part of it is, as you're havingconversations, figuring out, yeah, who are the
LPs that are willing to invest earlier on andwho are a good fit.
(30:42):
And for ones that say, hey, it's a Fund IV,that's great.
Build that relationship so when you get to FundIV, you're ready for it.
But I think that's also why it's incumbent toget to know LPs early.
Because if you get to know LPs at fund one andyou tell them what you're going to do and they
see you do it and they get to fund two or fundthree, they have much more comfort in what
(31:03):
you're doing because they've seen you overtime.
Right?
Just like when we invest in startups, it's wayeasier if we've seen a company and a founder
evolve over time because we know what they saidand we know then what they did.
It's always different if you're hearingsomebody tell the story retroactively.
And so I think it's for us, that's why even aswe meet people and they're like, hey, it's
gonna be the next fun.
(31:24):
You wanna find ways to build that relationship,keep them engaged, get them to understand what
you're doing.
That way when they get there, they have abetter perspective on what you're doing and
much more confident writing that check.
I think the other thing that we think a lotabout now is your point, okay, We've got
portfolio companies, and especially in a veryconvoluted time like this, right, where the
(31:47):
markets have done all kinds of weird things.
If you go talk to LPs broadly in the market,they will generally say, we don't know what to
make of venture funds marks or growth equityfunds marks cause, like, they're all over the
place.
So a big thing we think a lot about is how toget LPs to actually understand the underlying
performance of the companies.
Like, how are they actually doing?
(32:08):
Are they making progress since they invested?
Is that progress sustainable?
And I think that's the thing that in a funnyway, you would think that is an important part
of the conversation.
But I think especially in 'twenty one, 'twentytwo, LPs were just focused and the market was
focused on marks and markups.
And I do think that then that extra level of,hey, how do you help people understand the
(32:30):
actual underlying portfolio, which, you know,is kind of opaque.
Right?
Hey.
How are all these companies performing?
That, I think, is something that we think a lotabout and we found to be really beneficial.
Beneficial.
Once LPs really get a sense of the portfolioand they see, hey, this is how your companies
are really performing, we walk them throughthat, that makes a huge difference.
And so I think is the, I think to us how youbridge the gap between it's still early, but
(32:55):
we've got a lot of companies is being able towalk through how those companies are actually
building, performing, etcetera.
And then with you, it sounds like you guys havea really concentrated approach.
So when you're looking at companies, whatadvice would you give for sourcing and
screening, especially for high conviction fundsthat are definitely looking at, hopefully,
(33:18):
heavy hitter deals that are home runs.
What's kind of the advice that you would have?
And then just going deeper, you have highconviction, I'd assume you have to go much more
granular and really understand the industry.
So any advice on that in terms of just sourcingand screening deals?
Yeah, absolutely.
So I think number one, it's like have a developa real framework for how you think about what's
(33:42):
the right kind of business.
Because ultimately, you wanna have something toyour point that's pretty tight in terms of,
like, what's really the right fit for you as afund.
And for every fund, that box is different andthe sets of characteristics.
But I think it's especially in the pre seedstage, right, you see hundreds and hundreds of
companies a year.
And so the big part is how do you sort of sortthrough that to even figure out not only which
(34:06):
to ultimately invest in, but which to spendtime on?
Because you can't diligence hundreds andhundreds of companies to get to the answer.
You have to have a tight funnel to say, hey.
How do we go from one meeting to two to, like,really spend time on diligence?
Because that's the most important piece is howyou spend your time and opportunity cost of the
companies you spend diligence on.
(34:26):
So I think having that, like, really goodperspective of this is what makes a company
that that will get us excited that we believein is really important.
I think second is, you know, really sticking toit.
You'll meet tons of companies that meet 80% ofthat criteria or 90% even, right?
And I think and because there's so many smartand talented people out there, right?
(34:47):
There's no and that's the fun part of this jobis getting to meet all of them.
But and I think there's you you get tempted togo off and direct you know, to go spend time on
those businesses.
And ultimately, I think as we all reflect,like, ones that ultimately met all of the
criteria are the ones that worked out well andthose ones where you stretch sometimes they
(35:10):
work, sometimes they don't, but it's adifferent I think the hit rate is lower.
And so it's really making sure that you build atight perspective and you really stick to it
even when there are things that are temptingbut not quite.
Because, again, if you have a big broadportfolio, you can afford to have some of
(35:30):
those.
But when you have a more concentrated one, youreally want each one of those to be meaningful
and you really want, therefore, to have thehighest conviction you can.
I think then also it's, hey.
Who are the kind of founders you wanna beengaged with?
Because a big part of it as well is founderdriven and who are the kind of founders that
will push through and make those companiessucceed?
(35:51):
Because I think a big part of success is twothings, is perseverance because startups are
hard, and they almost always almost fail.
Even the big successful ones have all almostfailed.
And so it's how do you will you stick throughit?
Do you wanna stick through it?
And as the market changes, companies havechallenges, do you have the creativity to kind
(36:13):
of navigate through that?
Because I think staying in the game is soimportant.
And so for us, part of it to your point is,yes, getting deep on the business, deep on the
product, and having a perspective that this isa great place to build a business, this market
opportunity.
But the other part is, is this a founder thatwill stay in the game over the long term?
Because you gotta stay in the game.
(36:34):
Yeah.
And even in pre seed, there isn't much data duediligence either.
Right?
There's probably no financial.
So, you know, when you when you're going intopre seed, I'm assuming you're just really,
really going deep on the founder and theirnetworks and maybe their background talking to
their past customers, I'm assuming and probablypast partners that they work with, right?
(36:55):
Because I mean, at that point, I mean, pre seedand I had a really interesting discussion with
a fund that only does pre seed and what wasinteresting is they just they do pre seed
because just once you get to seed or series a,most of those deals, the ones that they're
looking at, the pool of deals that they'relooking at, most of them are pretty
oversubscribed.
Right?
The the rounds already closed.
So I guess if you're focusing on pre seed, anyadvice on refining that craft?
(37:23):
Yeah.
So I think I would actually look at it slightlydifferently.
I do think there's a lot of work one can do,not always on the company itself.
To your point, the companies that at PreCeedthat we invest in are pre revenue, pre prod,
maybe product, like pre metrics, all of So Ithink it's almost two things I would look at is
to say we look at it a couple of ways.
(37:44):
Number one, is the market they're in a reallycompelling market?
And so we have a framework of how we thinkabout interesting markets.
And so the first question is like, is it amarket that's the kind of market that we at
Destines think is a great place to go build abusiness for the next decade?
You know, number two is you go down a leveldeeper of, is this the right time to build a
(38:05):
business in that market?
Because timing matters so much in venture.
Right?
If you're early, as everyone says, same asbeing wrong.
And and then the question is, what areespecially like in a b to b context or if
you're solving a problem context, is thiscompany thinking about it the right way?
Right?
Because often the founder might say, hey.
We're not in market, but here's the product Iwanna build.
(38:28):
Here's how I think about the problem space.
And so you can actually go and say, okay.
If they're selling into whatever space, we cango and talk to you know, let's say the buyer is
making it up like the CTO or the CFO.
We can go talk to 20 CFOs in that target marketand just hear what their issues are.
Is the problem the company's solving actually atop three problem?
(38:50):
Is the is the way that they're thinking aboutsolving it a way that this person would buy?
If, like, they could magically solve theproblem, would this person buy it in a
heartbeat when they pay a lot of money?
Mhmm.
And so there's a lot that you can do toactually, at a very granular level, understand
markets and timing in the buyer universe tovalidate, I think, what teams are saying, but
(39:11):
also to feed that back in and say, hey.
Here's a bunch of data we've got about how themarket thinks about what you're doing and see
how those things line up.
And so I do think that there's a bunch of work.
I think that then the other piece that we lookfor is, you know, how are the founders thinking
about it?
Like, have they done that?
Are they super deep in the weeds of thisindustry?
Right?
Do they know all the ins and outs?
(39:33):
Have they really thought through, you know,the, you know, sort of like almost that sort of
five whys question that comes to that Toyota.
If you ask the why, why, why, have they gone sodeep in the business that they understand all
the angles?
And it doesn't mean they'll have the rightanswer, but it's just like they understand it
to a level where they're really trying get to,hey.
(39:53):
What's the right answer?
So I think all of these are things that we lookfor in addition to all the things you talked
about about founders, which are obviously, Ithink, really critical to the equation.
Yeah.
And then finally, with the with the nextquarter coming up, we're heading towards,
hopefully the holidays, When we hit November, alot of the fundraising, in my opinion, starts
(40:14):
to slow down, right?
Because you're getting into the holidays.
So what advice would you have for maybe forfounders and for VCs that are either looking to
get into their first close or even just kind ofclose out their funding round?
And what have you seen?
I've seen a lot more activity over the summer,like people at least meeting more and just kind
of much more than I think last summer lastyear.
(40:36):
So I think that's a good sign.
But I do feel that probably once we startheading like early to mid to late November,
most people will be wrapping up thosediscussions and probably punting them to to
2025, but wanted to hear your advice becauseyou're on both ends, right?
You're kind of seeing the the foundersperspective and and supporting them and and
(41:00):
also as an investor like deciding if you shouldeven invest in those companies too, right?
So, you're like, hey, wait a minute, maybe Ishould push these conversations off and close
this, you know, round with this founder inJanuary.
So, would love like you being an investorinvesting in companies and then just advice to
the founders and what you're seeing.
Yeah.
I mean, it's a really good question because theend of the year could be so tough.
(41:22):
That stretch between Thanksgiving and NewYear's can just be a black hole sometimes.
I think the reality is if you want to do afundraise in the course of this year or have
something that closes in early January,etcetera, you should just get going after Labor
Day.
I that, you know, I agree with you.
(41:42):
The summer's been busier for sure, but I thinkeven even with that, people often or everybody
comes back into the seat in September becauseinvestors are the same thing.
Like, people wanna get stuff done before theend of the year.
And so they're kinda coming back saying, hey.
Like, everything will slow down when I get tothe end of the year, and so I've gotta hit the
ground running.
And so I think, you know, if you're wanting araise, you should be on that cycle too of, like
(42:06):
and maybe it's not August, but, like, maybeit's right after Labor Day, get out there,
start that process, start having conversations,and really have the goal be to either get
something kind of committed, signed up reallybefore around Thanksgiving.
Or I think if people are engaged with you bythe time that December rolls around, they will
continue working on it.
(42:27):
Yeah.
You're deep in diligence and there's somethingthey're excited about, they're not gonna say,
hey.
I'm I'm like, it's holiday season.
Yeah.
I'm not going dark until January.
That's right, that's right.
It's more like people are reluctant.
It's harder to get people to dig into somethingbrand new in December just because everybody's
got, you know, family commitments, all thisother stuff comes up and everyone's aware it's
(42:50):
just so hard to then find the time becauseyou're also trying to spend time with others
and so on.
And so I would say that, like, you're a founderand you wanna do something this year, start
that process as soon as possible in Septemberjust to give yourself the most cycles to get
out there and get something, if not done, kindof deep into the deep into diligence by the
(43:13):
time, you know, Thanksgiving rolls around toput yourself in a position where you won't you
won't have to worry about that that Decemberstretch.
And then I think for investors, it's kind of Ithink it's sort of a similar question of being
sort of I think it's being cognizant of thefact that you are going to have other
(43:39):
commitments that go on in the course of thatperiod.
And just being thoughtful about, okay, if thereare things I want to dive into, like making
sure that it's a sort of a small number ofactivities that you're really going to have the
bandwidth for.
Because I think it's one of those whereeveryone ends up being busier than they think
(44:01):
with other stuff in the course of that periodof time.
And you want to make sure that if you dive intoit, you're really going to have the bandwidth
to do it.
And so being thoughtful about, okay, like, isthis a thing that, like, really makes sense for
me to dive in into now that I'm that excitedabout and think could be something that really
needs to happen in the course of like the nextmonth or so at the end of the year.
(44:21):
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, hey, Sean, this was amazing.
Really appreciate you being generous with yourtime and sharing all of your wisdom in less
than fifty minutes.
So really appreciate it.
And I personally learned a lot and this is ahuge value to the community.
So thanks for all that you do and thanks forbacking all these amazing founders as well.
Thank you.
Really appreciate that.
Great to have the conversation.
(44:42):
Yeah.
Likewise.
It was a lot of fun.
Take care and catch up soon.
Alright, take it easy.
Bye.
I think secondly, and this comes to yourquestion about funds two and three.
(00:03):
You know, building a fund is a long game.
Right?
You might meet LPs in the course of fund one,and then they might not invest for years later.
They might invest Yeah.
Fund three or four.
And a lot of it, I think, is LPs wannaunderstand, hey, do you have a strategy?
And then if you have one or you can actuallyexecute on it.
And if you execute on it, does it work?
(00:24):
And that can take a lot of cycles.
It could take a whole fund to see that.
But I think that, like, if you do those things,you're actually ahead of most people, which is
being able to deploy a defined strategy,execute on it, show that it works.
Like, that, I think, is the most importantthing to show that consistency of thought
across multiple funds.
(00:47):
Welcome to The Investor, a podcast where I,Joel Palofinkle, your host, dives deep into the
minds of the world's most influentialinstitutional investors.
In each episode, we sit down with an investorto hear about their journeys and how global
markets are driving capital allocation.
So join us on this journey as we explore theseinsights.
(01:12):
All right, excited to have my guest, IshaanSachdev.
He's a general partner at Dessian's Capital.
Ishaan, welcome to the show.
Thank you.
Great to be here.
Yeah, excited to really go deep on yourbackground.
We really enjoyed meeting you, as I mentionedearlier before we started and hearing about
your journey.
I think it'd be really valuable for thecommunity of LPs, GPs, angels that are on this
(01:36):
podcast to kind of learn a little more aboutwhat it takes to build a firm and what it takes
to scale a firm to where it needs to be.
So I would love to maybe start with youreducation.
I'll do a quick intro.
So again, Sean is a general partner atDestinence Capital.
And, you know, he went to school at HarvardBusiness School and then previously worked at
(01:57):
PSG.
He was one of the co founders and managingpartners of the MIT Alumni Angels of Boston,
and then also was a research associate atHarvard Business School.
So excited to just go deeper on yourbackground.
Tell me a little more about just your earlyeducation and, you know, what what made you
(02:18):
think about number one, into the investmentindustry, And then we'll go into kind of firm
building a little after that.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
So I so I was actually an engineer byeducation, and so I went to MIT for my
undergrad and did both an undergrad and amaster's in electrical engineering and computer
science.
(02:38):
And really for me, you know, I was in highschool as the first tech bubble was building
and unfolding.
I think it was just really amazing to see whatsome of these young, the time very young
founders were building and the impact they weremaking.
And so, you know, my initial, plan was to go bean engineer and then go, work for a start up.
(03:01):
And so, really, that changed over the course ofmy time at MIT and sort of happy to talk about
that and what led me into the investment world.
What was your favorite I'm an electricalengineer too by trade.
So what was your favorite class and what classdid you not like as much?
And I'll share mine too.
Oh, got it.
You know, so my favorite class was, computersecurity class, which was taught by Ron Rivest.
(03:24):
And Ron was he is the r in RSA security, whichis one of the original cryptography companies.
And, you know, I I had a I had a a teacher inhigh school who taught us things I think were
much very much off curriculum, and one thing hetaught us was the RSA, algorithm.
And so I had always been fascinated by that andby computer security.
(03:47):
And then going into college knew that Ron,luckily enough taught the intro security class.
And so that was by far my favorite class.
Yeah, remember, I worked in my first job, Imean, it was in the in the DoD industry.
So I would always get those RSA tokens, youknow, and I guess that's kind of one of their
key product.
(04:07):
So was he involved with RSA or was he just kindof one of the, you know, really respected
experts in security?
Yeah.
He was one of the co founders.
So there are three co founders.
And so the there are three co founders in theRSA or each of their, initials.
And so he's the R in RSA, and he was really is,you know, on the ground building the building
(04:29):
that business.
So did when he was he teaching kinda like afterhe retired or he was just kinda like an adjunct
faculty teaching while he was well, at whatentry point did you did you meet him?
So so RSA was already a going concern in a bigbusiness by the time I got to college.
And so I don't know the original sort of story.
I believe that he had been an academic alongwith, I think, the others, and they started it
(04:54):
in conjunction with being professors.
And so I think he had always been doing both.
That may not be, completely accurate, but thatwas my impression that he had been doing both
along the way.
And so he had been on faculty at MIT, you know,for for quite a long time at that point in
time.
And then what was your least favorite class inin your engineering curriculum?
(05:16):
You know, I think it was probably, it was theintro one of the introduction to electrical
engineering courses.
Courses.
So we we did both computer science, electricalengineering as a core.
Sure.
And I just remember the professor would writethese formulas that would literally go across
three chalkboards.
(05:37):
We still had chalkboards.
And I just realized that was not for me.
Yeah, that's what I resonate with the samesentiments.
Classes that I Because I mean, back then youhad to really just memorize.
So like the way that I got through calculus, Iwould essentially just memorize the formulas
and all the different steps and the sub steps.
(06:00):
And then, know, the test would be, you know,you sometimes we get like the old tests or kind
of, study guides, but the test was essentiallya derivative of what you studied in the
chapters.
So same way, I didn't really love that thatmuch.
My favorite class was I think it towards theend, when I was about to graduate, we had this
(06:21):
engineering economics course.
And at the end, we got to present a business,it was almost like a startup pitch.
And I just felt I was much more comfortablekind of working with people and collaborating
versus kind of being the lab expert behind thescenes hot wiring circuits and stuff or
creating circuits on a breadboard.
(06:43):
So yeah, totally agree with you.
Then tell me what happened after that.
So did you work in technology for some time?
I did not.
So actually, I actually went immediately intoinvesting after college.
So I did both undergrad and master's togetherin the course of five years.
And then really in my fifth year is where Idecided, hey.
(07:05):
I I didn't necessarily wanna pursue a career asan engineer.
Mhmm.
And I also along around that same time got veryinterested in the financial markets and in
investing particularly.
And I think just was fascinated by thisquestion of how do people make money in the
markets, started reading a lot about, you know,some of the more notable investors over time.
(07:26):
And it was just fascinating to see peopledevelop different strategies and so on.
And so I became really captivated by that.
And so I decided that after school, I reallywanted to go into investing and learn much more
about that role.
You know, with you having a technicalbackground like myself, what advice would you
give to people that are trying to get rightinto investing right after maybe an engineering
(07:47):
degree?
Should they supplement their electrical orcomputer science education with some finance
books or some coursework, or just kinda do someindividual reading on their own?
Yeah.
I think probably two things.
Like, if you know you're interested, I woulddefinitely do some additional coursework.
It would have Yeah.
Probably been great had I, you know, had Ifigured that out earlier on and and done more
(08:10):
earlier on.
But, certainly, I think there's a there's a lotof value in just getting exposure early on,
starting to really think about internalizethose topics if you know it's something you're
interested in.
And and plus, I think it's just a reallyhelpful way to figure out, hey.
Is this really a thing I'm interested in?
You know, I think second, the, the good partfor me at the time was that, you know, the
folks on on Wall Street, Wall Street wasgetting more quantitative and Yeah.
(08:33):
And not even in the sense of quant algorithms,but just mathematical because because fixed
income was becoming such a big part of WallStreet derivatives, all of these things.
And so they concluded, hey.
It's maybe easier to teach people who know mathfinance than the reverse.
And, historically, that's what they had donewas go recruit folks who had liberal arts
backgrounds and finance, backgrounds and andand bring them in.
(08:56):
And they said, let's just go and find thesepeople who really understand math really well.
And so I think Ben I got the benefit of thatbecause they were looking for engineers,
computer scientists, etcetera.
I think the other thing, you know, is the waythe world has moved, I think that now
technology is much more a part of trading andinvesting than it was when I was there.
(09:18):
And know, my sense is that whether it'strading, whether it's, you know, different
types of, you know, investing roles, like thethings I was doing, especially inside of a bank
where I was, you know, people who write codeand all of those things, it's much more a part
of the daily it's becoming much more a part ofthe daily job.
And so I suspect as well that if you've gotthat sort of computer science engineering
background, those skills are much more directlyapplicable in a way they they weren't back
(09:42):
then.
Sure.
And you have a unique experience too because Iwas looking at your background.
Looks like you managed, the process to selliPay, which was a portfolio company of Bain
Capital Ventures.
So how was that experience and what were someof the biggest things that you learned,
especially with your It
was great and maybe, you know, to sort of bringyour audience full circle.
(10:02):
So I went to you know, after, undergrad, I wentto Goldman.
I was a prop trader, invested in illiquid debtderivatives, which was a fascinating both place
and market to be, and then decided, hey.
I really wanna get back to working withtechnology and startups.
And then went into venture, came back to Bostonto work for Bain Capital Ventures and was
(10:23):
investing in fintech from seed through growth.
And then really got very excited about fintechin the course of that.
It was my first exposure to the space andsubsequently had the opportunity to jump into a
portfolio company in the fintech space, callediPay, as you mentioned.
And what iPay was doing, it was an investmentwe made with Spectrum Equity.
(10:45):
And really what they were doing was billpayment software suite selling into small,
medium, regional banks and make and movingupmarket.
And so this was the idea that, you know, nowyou can go to your bank's website, their
banking portal.
You can do all kinds of bill payment throughthat.
And this was and this was at a time when thebig banks started deploying that and then iPay
(11:05):
built that and was selling it into the rest ofthe market.
And so that was really what the business did.
I think, you know, in that sale process, Ithink what was fascinating to me was, you know,
number one, we talked to a large number offinancial services and other companies in the
space.
So both companies you would think are obviouspeople to acquire a business like that and many
(11:27):
that were not.
And so I think it was just really interestingto hear both how do these bigger companies
think about the market, how do they think aboutexpanding their product universe.
You know, you we had the opportunity to be inthe room with some of the most senior people at
some of the biggest payments companies in theworld.
And And so it's just fascinating to hear, like,what do they actually care about?
Right?
When it comes down to brass tax of, like, do webuy this company or not?
(11:50):
How is it that, they think about what mattersto them?
I think secondly, it was really interesting tounderstand how do you actually create value
through an m and a process.
Right?
Like, what's the way to do that in a way to getto the best outcome for the company, for the
employees, for the investors, and what are thethings that one can do to really put yourself
(12:11):
in the best place.
And I think we had a lot of really smart peoplearound the table on that, the board, etcetera.
It was a great a great learning experiencethere.
And then I think it was really interesting justto see where's the world headed.
Right?
And and part of the reason that people wereinterested in that business was where they
wanted to take their businesses in the futureand where they thought the world was going.
(12:31):
So I think that was also fascinating.
Yeah.
No.
I think that's totally important too tounderstand where everybody's incentives are.
And if you could make it where it's a win winfor everybody.
Right?
The founder has some type of path tax ofwhether it's whether it's cash or equity.
And then on the acquirer side, if there is anacquirer, if that's the outcome, how do they
(12:56):
get incentivized for investing in the companyand the multiples and you know, what what kind
of ways should they kind of think about how tohow to return capital to maybe their LPs as
well.
So, like, with that, you know, I see kind ofthis this adviser role that you took on over
the summer in DC.
(13:17):
So that seems like a really interesting role asthe summer policy advisor to the office of
capital markets.
So tell me a little bit more about thatexperience and some of the things that you
learned and maybe some of the interestingpeople that you met there.
Yeah.
For sure.
So I think you know?
So I was at Goldman for the very beginning ofthe financial crisis and so got kind of an
inside perspective on how the crisis wasunfolding, and so got got to sort of see that
(13:44):
from the perspective.
And then even after I left, really becamefascinated in the topic of how did this come
about?
You know, how did the financial crisis bothstart?
How then did it unfold and make its way throughall these Wall Street institutions?
And, you know, you look at all these reallylarge organizations and the idea that how do
they end up getting themselves into a position,where they were in such trouble?
(14:07):
And so it became really a passion area for methat I spent a lot of time thinking about.
And then going into business school, you know,knew, in the summer advisory role came about
because I was in business school and knew that,you know, I was interested in exploring that
topic further and thought, you know, maybe I'lldo research, maybe I'll find a professor to
work with.
And then, ended up meeting this group, officeof capital markets, and the office of capital
(14:31):
markets was created during the financialcrisis.
And, really, I think the interesting thingabout treasury was in the treasury department,
which is where where this group was set up,there really weren't markets people prior to
the financial crisis.
There were a lot of economists and lawyers andfolks like that.
And so one of the advisers to, the treasurysecretary and and to the administration said,
(14:54):
hey.
We really need to bring people from the marketsin to help us deal with this financial crisis.
Yeah.
He convinced one of the folks who was, Ibelieve, partner at Blackstone running their
financial institutions investing to come totreasury in the depths of the crisis and start
this team.
And the team was staffed by all kinds of peoplefrom, you know, from Goldman, Blackstone, like
(15:14):
those kind of places, but who understood themarkets.
And so they really advised on everything thatwas financial crisis related.
And so I got there sort of post crisis.
So this was in 2012, but they were stillworking on a lot of the topics that were going
(15:34):
that had come about because of the financialcrisis and also some new activities.
And so I think, you know, some of the thingsthat I got to spend time on were, you know,
number one, we looked at sort of Title IIresolution, which is how do you you know,
there's Dodd Frank created a a a part whichsaid there needs to be a plan to unwind a large
(15:59):
globally systemic institution like these largebanks if they get into trouble.
As we worked on certain aspects of that, weworked on certain topics related to derivatives
clearing, which was another part of Dodd Frank.
And so how do you prevent these derivativesissues from reverberating through the market?
We worked on, things that were relating to theJobs Act, which was different and unrelated,
(16:19):
but things that related to crowdfunding andbeing able to file S-1s confidentially, which
had come up and was already being implemented.
And so there was sort of a broad set of topicsthat I got to work on.
I think that what was fascinating to me was, A,the teams are it's very lean, right?
(16:40):
Like the group was five to seven people, andthe teams generally are lean.
This is not an organization with tens orhundreds of people in a given group.
And so these are small teams that are basicallyworking on these huge topics, which will impact
the entire market.
And I think that's really the interesting partis, you know, as somebody involved, the thing
(17:03):
the the things that you get to work on willhave a a market wide impact, where if you're in
an investment firm, you're very narrowlyfocused on your handful of investments.
So that scope is totally different.
The other thing that was fascinating is, youknow, there really is it's really a SWAT team
aspect of, like, whenever there's a crisis thatthat blows up, pretty quickly, somebody's got
(17:25):
to form an opinion that goes up to the treasurysecretary of whomever, and these are the, you
know, these are the groups inside that actuallyare forming that opinion.
And so it's some interesting mix of big longterm things that you're working on and then
also, like, reacting to crises that come up andtrying to figure out, hey.
What has unfolded?
And do we make or we actually have a response?
Sure.
No.
That's really helpful.
(17:46):
And then tell me what happened after that.
It looks like after that, you worked at PSG forsome time.
You got some really good growth equityexperience.
And then walk me through kind of the the originstory of Dessiance.
Yeah, absolutely.
So that's right.
So ultimately, I joined PSG.
PSG was at the time was called ProvidenceStrategic Growth, and it was the growth equity
(18:08):
arm of Providence Equity, the buyout fund.
And they were fully focused on software growthequity.
And really, the bread and butter of the firm atthe time was, growth buyouts.
And so this was, you know, investing in lightlycapitalized businesses, often hadn't raised
venture capital, were founder owned, and hadgotten to 10 or 20,000,000 of ARR, and we're
(18:30):
really looking for a partner to help them go tothe next phase.
And so would come in, buy a majority of thebusiness, partner with the founders, and then
help them with professionalizing, you know, goto market financial operations, more capital
for product expansion, m and a, all of thosekinds of things.
That's really what what PSG did.
And PSG has subsequently spun out of ofProvidence, and so they they shrank the name
(18:53):
from Providence Strategic Growth to PSG, but isnow a very large and global growth equity fund.
And then so Dessian, so really my partner, DanKemmerling founded Dessian in 2017.
And Dan had been a founder and in particular infintech.
And he started Dessians really to be the bestpartner to early stage financial services
(19:20):
founders with the idea that it was just gonnabe a focus on seed and pre seed investing and
lead only.
And so in other words, have a very concentratedportfolio of high conviction companies that you
spend a lot of time working closely with andreally helping those founders see around
corners because, as you know, financial serviceis pretty complicated, a lot of complexity that
(19:43):
is hard to understand if you haven't livedthrough it.
And so there's a lot of value that an investorcan bring.
And so, you know, to to roll things forward,Dan did fund one, his fund one as a solo GP.
And then we really met, in 2020 and started Ishould say we had met before, but we started
talking about my joining in 2020.
(20:04):
And really, as I was thinking about, you know,the longer arc of my career and what I wanted
to do for the the long term, you know, came tothe conclusion I really wanted to do three
things.
So I wanted to do fintech full time.
You know, ever since my time at Bank Capitalhad been my passion personally and
professionally, I wanted to go back early stageand really be doing pre seed and and seed
(20:25):
investing, and I wanted to help build the fund.
And so those are those are all the things thatDan was doing at Dessian's.
And so I joined him at the beginning of, of2021.
Now we're the two general partners.
We then, we then raised fund two subsequently,and now we're actually on to fund three, and we
built the team up since then.
So happy to dig into any aspects of buildingthe firm that would be interesting to your
(20:48):
audience.
Yeah, so we have a topic, we run this thingcalled the fund accelerator and one of the
topics that we talk about is kind of graduatingto fund two and fund three.
So what advice would you have for people numberone that are building the firm from scratch?
And your co founder probably has a lot ofwisdom on this, but then what do you think you
(21:09):
need to think about when you're ideating fundtwo?
And then what do you think and what have youheard from other LPs when you're thinking about
Fund two and Fund three and beyond?
What are the hot hot topics to really consider?
Yeah.
I mean, I think yeah.
The the zero to one certainly, Dan, has a greatperspective on.
(21:30):
I think the first piece is it's really hard.
You know, going zero to one just just like astart up, there's a ton that goes on.
I think that probably the biggest piece of itis building a fund and starting a fund is a lot
different than just being an investor at abigger fund or being an angel because you're
building a firm, and there's all the thingsthat go along with that.
(21:52):
So I think that's really one of the things thatprobably, you know, folks doing it for the
first time is is a surprise of, like, how muchother work there is to be done and
infrastructure to put in place and so on.
I think number two is it's really about, youknow, what what's the difference you're gonna
make in the market?
And I think that Dan's strategy is the samestrategy we've deployed ever since, and that's
(22:16):
a big part of, you know, why I joined was I hadthe same perspective on how to think about
investing.
But, really, it's there's a ton of venturefirms out there.
Mhmm.
Right?
And so and growth equity firms.
And so the question is, what are you doingthat's different?
Like, what's the new thing that you werebringing to the market?
Tons of smart people out there runninginvestment firms, but I think that the best
firms and the ones that break out really take adifferentiated perspective on how they're gonna
(22:41):
create value, how they're gonna invest.
And I think that is important both forcompanies you want to partner with because
those founders want to understand, hey, whatare you doing that's different than all the
other branding firms that they know?
And then also for LPs, right?
Like LPs want to know how are you differentthan all the other firms that are out there?
So I think really bringing a differentiatedperspective.
(23:02):
I think secondly, and this comes to yourquestion about funds two and three, building a
fund is a long game, right?
You might need LPs in the course of fund one,and then they might not invest for years later.
They might invest in fund three or four.
And a lot of it, I think, is LPs wannaunderstand, hey, do you have a strategy?
And then if you have one or you can actuallyexecute on it, and if you execute on it, does
(23:26):
it work?
And that can take a lot of cycles.
It could take a whole fund to see that.
But I think that, like, if you do those things,you're actually ahead of most people, which is
being able to deploy a defined strategy,execute on it, show that it works.
Like, that, I think, is the most importantthing to show that consistency of thought
across multiple funds.
(23:46):
And so I do think that's been a big part ofwhat we've done across funds one, two, and now
into three is it's the same strategy.
And we're able to show what we told LPs evenwhen I joined beginning of Fund two, we then
went out and did it and built the portfoliothat we told people we would build at the
beginning of Fund two.
We think it's working really well.
(24:07):
I think the other thing I would think a lotabout too is just, you know, as you're adding
to the team and adding partners and other folksis having great alignment, right?
I think that it's so critical that the peopleyou partner with as you go from one person to
two to three, that everyone is really signed upto do the same thing and has a belief in the
(24:29):
approach that the firm is following.
And I think that's where you and really trusteach other.
And I think that's where you see partnershipshave issues is when there isn't that alignment.
And so when you talk to LPs, the biggest thingthat they care a lot about in early stage funds
is, hey, who are the partners?
(24:49):
How do they know each other?
How do they collaborate?
How do they work well?
Is this a partnership they can see going on forten, fifteen, twenty years?
Because every fund could be ten to fifteenyears, right?
And so I think that part is super important aswell as you as you think about it.
And so I'll maybe pause there, but certainlycan talk more about, you know, the fund two and
(25:09):
three cycle and how that's evolved as well.
Yeah.
No.
I think that's really helpful.
And then, you know, if you can if you can kindago into two and three and kinda thinking
through that, maybe some of the KPIs, you know,so I met an LP recently that only invest in
fund four.
And the reason why is because fund three isreally when they might start seeing some DPI at
(25:31):
that stage.
So they kind of meet funds that are kind of inthat stage because from some of their previous
vintages, they might start to determine ifthere is the possibility for that because
they're thinking more long term.
So what's your reaction to that?
And then what are some of the thought processesthat you've been thinking about for, you know,
fund two?
There's a lot of pieces to it's like,obviously, a lot of fund managers when they get
(25:54):
to fund two, their infrastructure is much moresophisticated sometimes, as well, They may be
moving off of the fund admin that they wereusing previously and they're now going to a
more institutional grade.
So are there any other levers that you'reseeing to kind of that you've seen kind of
trigger amongst your peers to kind of move intomore of an institutional grade mindset and
(26:18):
strategy to kind of deliver that experience totheir LPs?
Yeah, absolutely.
I think it's a great, two great questions.
So I think we will tackle the last one first.
But I think there's and sometimes I would saythis, there's a bifurcation.
Like there are people who wanna buildinstitutional grade firms and there are people
who don't.
And there's not like really a right answer.
(26:38):
They're just different approaches, but you'retotally right that depending which direction
you wanna go, you build your firm differently.
And so there are people who say, hey.
We just wanna be a small team of partners.
We wanna make investments.
We don't really wanna grow fund size.
We don't really care about being institutional,etcetera, etcetera.
And they don't need to necessarily build out alot of infrastructure.
For us, we wanted to go institutional, we knewthat.
(27:01):
And so we absolutely started building that outover the course of Fund two.
And I think that is about, number one, who arethe service providers you work with.
And so obviously a lot of firms, accountingfirms, fund admins.
So the first question is having people likethat that are reputable and top tier, because I
(27:23):
think that's a key piece of who you collaboratewith, and you have a lot of those when you're
building a firm.
You know, second is who are the people youbring on?
So as an example, you know, one of the earlyhires that we that we made after I had joined
was VP finance.
And so, you know, a, like, we gotta we had toget Dan out of the business of being the VP
finance.
He was doing everything prior, of course.
(27:45):
But then, you know, you know, our VP financecame out of, Vista Equity as an example.
So he's used to building and working withinstitutional grade organizations.
And as you go out and start talking toinstitutional LPs and managing their due
diligence process and things of that nature,it's a very complicated intensive thing versus,
say, some family offices where maybe it's acouple of conversations.
(28:06):
And so having people, and I think the rest ofthe team as well, who understand that world and
can be helpful in building out both helping usengage with those people and then building out
the technology as well components of thatinfrastructure.
There really is a real platform.
And so I think it's really every aspect of theorganization.
I think as well, a key question that we seeinstitutional LPs ask in the course of, say,
(28:31):
that fund, that early part of fund two is howare you thinking about building out the team?
Because they want to know, are you thinkingabout the team in a way that suggests you can
build an institutional platform or are you not?
And so I think that is really a big aspect ofit as well as you're making that transition,
showing that you've both thought about it andthen there's evidence that you're putting those
(28:54):
pieces in place.
And so that's, I think, really a lot of what itmeans to go in the institutional direction is
adding all of that infrastructure.
To your point, people understand how to engagewith that world.
And then on your other question about sort ofthis fund four and what's the reaction to that,
fund threes are interesting, right?
(29:15):
Because I think fund ones, people would say,are based on just who you are and maybe your
background, maybe your track record.
But people are taking a leap into the unknown,right, in some sense.
You've got a narrative.
They hopefully abide in the narrative, andthat's what they're investing into.
You know, fun two is, hey.
You did a bunch of interesting stuff in funone, but it's still really early.
(29:35):
But we sort of think that, like, those thingsmake sense to us and it's kind of working.
And so, okay.
We'll we'll lean into the narrative if you didwhat you said in fund one.
Fund three is an interesting one because you'remultiple funds in.
But to your point, if you're a seed or pre seedfund, probably like holistically don't have
DPI.
Because average time to one times DPIhistorically for a series A fund is seven
(29:59):
years.
So forget a seed fund, which is somewhat beyondthat.
Sure.
And so it's this interesting point where you'venow got a bunch of things that are in the
portfolio, but in terms of like real returnsthat you can point to, it's still way too
early.
And that I think is a challenging place oftenfor LPs or for fund managers and for LPs to
(30:21):
make that assessment.
And so I think that the couple of things arethere.
I think one of the most important things isthere are different LPs that invest in all
these stages.
And so I think part of it is, as you're havingconversations, figuring out, yeah, who are the
LPs that are willing to invest earlier on andwho are a good fit.
(30:42):
And for ones that say, hey, it's a Fund IV,that's great.
Build that relationship so when you get to FundIV, you're ready for it.
But I think that's also why it's incumbent toget to know LPs early.
Because if you get to know LPs at fund one andyou tell them what you're going to do and they
see you do it and they get to fund two or fundthree, they have much more comfort in what
(31:03):
you're doing because they've seen you overtime.
Right?
Just like when we invest in startups, it's wayeasier if we've seen a company and a founder
evolve over time because we know what they saidand we know then what they did.
It's always different if you're hearingsomebody tell the story retroactively.
And so I think it's for us, that's why even aswe meet people and they're like, hey, it's
gonna be the next fun.
(31:24):
You wanna find ways to build that relationship,keep them engaged, get them to understand what
you're doing.
That way when they get there, they have abetter perspective on what you're doing and
much more confident writing that check.
I think the other thing that we think a lotabout now is your point, okay, We've got
portfolio companies, and especially in a veryconvoluted time like this, right, where the
(31:47):
markets have done all kinds of weird things.
If you go talk to LPs broadly in the market,they will generally say, we don't know what to
make of venture funds marks or growth equityfunds marks cause, like, they're all over the
place.
So a big thing we think a lot about is how toget LPs to actually understand the underlying
performance of the companies.
Like, how are they actually doing?
(32:08):
Are they making progress since they invested?
Is that progress sustainable?
And I think that's the thing that in a funnyway, you would think that is an important part
of the conversation.
But I think especially in 'twenty one, 'twentytwo, LPs were just focused and the market was
focused on marks and markups.
And I do think that then that extra level of,hey, how do you help people understand the
(32:30):
actual underlying portfolio, which, you know,is kind of opaque.
Right?
Hey.
How are all these companies performing?
That, I think, is something that we think a lotabout and we found to be really beneficial.
Beneficial.
Once LPs really get a sense of the portfolioand they see, hey, this is how your companies
are really performing, we walk them throughthat, that makes a huge difference.
And so I think is the, I think to us how youbridge the gap between it's still early, but
(32:55):
we've got a lot of companies is being able towalk through how those companies are actually
building, performing, etcetera.
And then with you, it sounds like you guys havea really concentrated approach.
So when you're looking at companies, whatadvice would you give for sourcing and
screening, especially for high conviction fundsthat are definitely looking at, hopefully,
(33:18):
heavy hitter deals that are home runs.
What's kind of the advice that you would have?
And then just going deeper, you have highconviction, I'd assume you have to go much more
granular and really understand the industry.
So any advice on that in terms of just sourcingand screening deals?
Yeah, absolutely.
So I think number one, it's like have a developa real framework for how you think about what's
(33:42):
the right kind of business.
Because ultimately, you wanna have something toyour point that's pretty tight in terms of,
like, what's really the right fit for you as afund.
And for every fund, that box is different andthe sets of characteristics.
But I think it's especially in the pre seedstage, right, you see hundreds and hundreds of
companies a year.
And so the big part is how do you sort of sortthrough that to even figure out not only which
(34:06):
to ultimately invest in, but which to spendtime on?
Because you can't diligence hundreds andhundreds of companies to get to the answer.
You have to have a tight funnel to say, hey.
How do we go from one meeting to two to, like,really spend time on diligence?
Because that's the most important piece is howyou spend your time and opportunity cost of the
companies you spend diligence on.
(34:26):
So I think having that, like, really goodperspective of this is what makes a company
that that will get us excited that we believein is really important.
I think second is, you know, really sticking toit.
You'll meet tons of companies that meet 80% ofthat criteria or 90% even, right?
And I think and because there's so many smartand talented people out there, right?
(34:47):
There's no and that's the fun part of this jobis getting to meet all of them.
But and I think there's you you get tempted togo off and direct you know, to go spend time on
those businesses.
And ultimately, I think as we all reflect,like, ones that ultimately met all of the
criteria are the ones that worked out well andthose ones where you stretch sometimes they
(35:10):
work, sometimes they don't, but it's adifferent I think the hit rate is lower.
And so it's really making sure that you build atight perspective and you really stick to it
even when there are things that are temptingbut not quite.
Because, again, if you have a big broadportfolio, you can afford to have some of
(35:30):
those.
But when you have a more concentrated one, youreally want each one of those to be meaningful
and you really want, therefore, to have thehighest conviction you can.
I think then also it's, hey.
Who are the kind of founders you wanna beengaged with?
Because a big part of it as well is founderdriven and who are the kind of founders that
will push through and make those companiessucceed?
(35:51):
Because I think a big part of success is twothings, is perseverance because startups are
hard, and they almost always almost fail.
Even the big successful ones have all almostfailed.
And so it's how do you will you stick throughit?
Do you wanna stick through it?
And as the market changes, companies havechallenges, do you have the creativity to kind
(36:13):
of navigate through that?
Because I think staying in the game is soimportant.
And so for us, part of it to your point is,yes, getting deep on the business, deep on the
product, and having a perspective that this isa great place to build a business, this market
opportunity.
But the other part is, is this a founder thatwill stay in the game over the long term?
Because you gotta stay in the game.
(36:34):
Yeah.
And even in pre seed, there isn't much data duediligence either.
Right?
There's probably no financial.
So, you know, when you when you're going intopre seed, I'm assuming you're just really,
really going deep on the founder and theirnetworks and maybe their background talking to
their past customers, I'm assuming and probablypast partners that they work with, right?
(36:55):
Because I mean, at that point, I mean, pre seedand I had a really interesting discussion with
a fund that only does pre seed and what wasinteresting is they just they do pre seed
because just once you get to seed or series a,most of those deals, the ones that they're
looking at, the pool of deals that they'relooking at, most of them are pretty
oversubscribed.
Right?
The the rounds already closed.
So I guess if you're focusing on pre seed, anyadvice on refining that craft?
(37:23):
Yeah.
So I think I would actually look at it slightlydifferently.
I do think there's a lot of work one can do,not always on the company itself.
To your point, the companies that at PreCeedthat we invest in are pre revenue, pre prod,
maybe product, like pre metrics, all of So Ithink it's almost two things I would look at is
to say we look at it a couple of ways.
(37:44):
Number one, is the market they're in a reallycompelling market?
And so we have a framework of how we thinkabout interesting markets.
And so the first question is like, is it amarket that's the kind of market that we at
Destines think is a great place to go build abusiness for the next decade?
You know, number two is you go down a leveldeeper of, is this the right time to build a
(38:05):
business in that market?
Because timing matters so much in venture.
Right?
If you're early, as everyone says, same asbeing wrong.
And and then the question is, what areespecially like in a b to b context or if
you're solving a problem context, is thiscompany thinking about it the right way?
Right?
Because often the founder might say, hey.
We're not in market, but here's the product Iwanna build.
(38:28):
Here's how I think about the problem space.
And so you can actually go and say, okay.
If they're selling into whatever space, we cango and talk to you know, let's say the buyer is
making it up like the CTO or the CFO.
We can go talk to 20 CFOs in that target marketand just hear what their issues are.
Is the problem the company's solving actually atop three problem?
(38:50):
Is the is the way that they're thinking aboutsolving it a way that this person would buy?
If, like, they could magically solve theproblem, would this person buy it in a
heartbeat when they pay a lot of money?
Mhmm.
And so there's a lot that you can do toactually, at a very granular level, understand
markets and timing in the buyer universe tovalidate, I think, what teams are saying, but
(39:11):
also to feed that back in and say, hey.
Here's a bunch of data we've got about how themarket thinks about what you're doing and see
how those things line up.
And so I do think that there's a bunch of work.
I think that then the other piece that we lookfor is, you know, how are the founders thinking
about it?
Like, have they done that?
Are they super deep in the weeds of thisindustry?
Right?
Do they know all the ins and outs?
(39:33):
Have they really thought through, you know,the, you know, sort of like almost that sort of
five whys question that comes to that Toyota.
If you ask the why, why, why, have they gone sodeep in the business that they understand all
the angles?
And it doesn't mean they'll have the rightanswer, but it's just like they understand it
to a level where they're really trying get to,hey.
(39:53):
What's the right answer?
So I think all of these are things that we lookfor in addition to all the things you talked
about about founders, which are obviously, Ithink, really critical to the equation.
Yeah.
And then finally, with the with the nextquarter coming up, we're heading towards,
hopefully the holidays, When we hit November, alot of the fundraising, in my opinion, starts
(40:14):
to slow down, right?
Because you're getting into the holidays.
So what advice would you have for maybe forfounders and for VCs that are either looking to
get into their first close or even just kind ofclose out their funding round?
And what have you seen?
I've seen a lot more activity over the summer,like people at least meeting more and just kind
of much more than I think last summer lastyear.
(40:36):
So I think that's a good sign.
But I do feel that probably once we startheading like early to mid to late November,
most people will be wrapping up thosediscussions and probably punting them to to
2025, but wanted to hear your advice becauseyou're on both ends, right?
You're kind of seeing the the foundersperspective and and supporting them and and
(41:00):
also as an investor like deciding if you shouldeven invest in those companies too, right?
So, you're like, hey, wait a minute, maybe Ishould push these conversations off and close
this, you know, round with this founder inJanuary.
So, would love like you being an investorinvesting in companies and then just advice to
the founders and what you're seeing.
Yeah.
I mean, it's a really good question because theend of the year could be so tough.
(41:22):
That stretch between Thanksgiving and NewYear's can just be a black hole sometimes.
I think the reality is if you want to do afundraise in the course of this year or have
something that closes in early January,etcetera, you should just get going after Labor
Day.
I that, you know, I agree with you.
(41:42):
The summer's been busier for sure, but I thinkeven even with that, people often or everybody
comes back into the seat in September becauseinvestors are the same thing.
Like, people wanna get stuff done before theend of the year.
And so they're kinda coming back saying, hey.
Like, everything will slow down when I get tothe end of the year, and so I've gotta hit the
ground running.
And so I think, you know, if you're wanting araise, you should be on that cycle too of, like
(42:06):
and maybe it's not August, but, like, maybeit's right after Labor Day, get out there,
start that process, start having conversations,and really have the goal be to either get
something kind of committed, signed up reallybefore around Thanksgiving.
Or I think if people are engaged with you bythe time that December rolls around, they will
continue working on it.
(42:27):
Yeah.
You're deep in diligence and there's somethingthey're excited about, they're not gonna say,
hey.
I'm I'm like, it's holiday season.
Yeah.
I'm not going dark until January.
That's right, that's right.
It's more like people are reluctant.
It's harder to get people to dig into somethingbrand new in December just because everybody's
got, you know, family commitments, all thisother stuff comes up and everyone's aware it's
(42:50):
just so hard to then find the time becauseyou're also trying to spend time with others
and so on.
And so I would say that, like, you're a founderand you wanna do something this year, start
that process as soon as possible in Septemberjust to give yourself the most cycles to get
out there and get something, if not done, kindof deep into the deep into diligence by the
(43:13):
time, you know, Thanksgiving rolls around toput yourself in a position where you won't you
won't have to worry about that that Decemberstretch.
And then I think for investors, it's kind of Ithink it's sort of a similar question of being
sort of I think it's being cognizant of thefact that you are going to have other
(43:39):
commitments that go on in the course of thatperiod.
And just being thoughtful about, okay, if thereare things I want to dive into, like making
sure that it's a sort of a small number ofactivities that you're really going to have the
bandwidth for.
Because I think it's one of those whereeveryone ends up being busier than they think
(44:01):
with other stuff in the course of that periodof time.
And you want to make sure that if you dive intoit, you're really going to have the bandwidth
to do it.
And so being thoughtful about, okay, like, isthis a thing that, like, really makes sense for
me to dive in into now that I'm that excitedabout and think could be something that really
needs to happen in the course of like the nextmonth or so at the end of the year.
(44:21):
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, hey, Sean, this was amazing.
Really appreciate you being generous with yourtime and sharing all of your wisdom in less
than fifty minutes.
So really appreciate it.
And I personally learned a lot and this is ahuge value to the community.
So thanks for all that you do and thanks forbacking all these amazing founders as well.
Thank you.
Really appreciate that.
Great to have the conversation.
(44:42):
Yeah.
Likewise.
It was a lot of fun.
Take care and catch up soon.
Alright, take it easy.
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.