Logan Bartlett: WTF is Happening at Growth Stage Investing? | 20VC #920

1. 0:00 – 2:45

   Logan’s background

   1. HSHarry Stebbings0:00

      (reversing beeps) Three, two, one, zero. You have now arrived at your destination. Logan, this is such a joy to do. I remember years and years ago, and you don't even remember this, I remember everyone saying to me at a drinks party, "There's this young associate. He's amazing. He's amazing. You've gotta meet him, Harry." And they pointed to you. And this was way back in the day when I think you were at Battery. Um, and we met years and years ago. You came on the show then. I'm so pleased that you're back. So thank you so much for joining me again.

   2. LBLogan Bartlett0:32

      Of course. I'm glad to be here. I actually do remember that. We were at the, uh, I think Mattermark was hosting a party at Saster, uh, and this would have been probably 2015 or something. So way back when, but coming full circle. I want you to know that you were the only podcast I did, uh, from 2015 until, whenever we did that, 2015 to 2022, the beginning of 2022. And now I do a podcast all the time, every week. So I want you to know that for a long time, you were my first, you were my only.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings1:02

      I mean, I was your podcasting muse. I'm so thrilled. Um, so-

   4. LBLogan Bartlett1:04

      That's right.

   5. HSHarry Stebbings1:05

      ... tell me-

   6. LBLogan Bartlett1:06

      (laughs)

   7. HSHarry Stebbings1:06

      ... for those that didn't listen to that show where I was like a BBC newsreader, um, how did you make your way into the world of venture and how did you come to be a partner at Redpoint, obviously, today?

   8. LBLogan Bartlett1:15

      Yeah. Totally. So, so, uh, I kind of found it accidentally, which, um, I, you, you hear people today talk about, uh, when I talk to young kids in college or whatever, they're, they're so purposeful about what they wanna do and they wanna go after venture and get into tech and they're very specific about the firms they wanna work with. I didn't even know what venture was until I was 23, 24, or something, and I, I actually... It sounds silly and this, this couldn't happen today, but I did investment banking out of undergrad, uh, ended up at a small boutique investment bank doing software advisory, and, uh, I worked alongside, um, the, the Vista Equities of the world and the TA Associates, the JMIs, uh, and actually got some exposure to folks like Battery, Xcel, Bessemer, uh, Redpoint. So, uh, I actually raised my hand and said I wanted to go over to one of those (laughs) places. Uh, most of them said, "No," or, or, "Who are you?" But, uh, I actually had a handful of interviews, one of which was Redpoint, one of which was Battery. Uh, Battery gave me an offer. Redpoint did not. Uh, I, (laughs) I went over to Battery. I was there for six years and, uh, the Redpoint folks kind of stay on, stayed on top of me, and, uh, they wanted to correct the error of their ways in not making me an offer when I was associate. And so I went over, uh, to Redpoint, I guess it was December 2019, and joined, uh, at the beginning of 2020, and I've been here ever since.

   9. HSHarry Stebbings2:36

      Expensive error, Redpoint.

   10. LBLogan Bartlett2:38

       That's right.

   11. HSHarry Stebbings2:39

       Uh, but they won in the end, baby. Uh, I do wanna ask, and, and again, fuck it, off schedule. Battery, it's a phenomenal

2. 2:45 – 4:20

   Takeaways from working at Battery Capital

   1. HSHarry Stebbings2:45

      institution as well. Um, takeaways from there. Are there one or two big takeaways where you're like, "That really shaped how I think about investing"?

   2. LBLogan Bartlett2:53

      Yeah. It's funny. I mean, uh, literally, like, Redpoint turned me down and, uh, and then all that happened in between them hiring me back as an equal partner and, uh, (laughs) and, and, uh, turning me down was my experience at Battery. I think Battery in general, one, they're awesome people, uh, two, they just very, um, they're very prudent about returning money to their limited partners and consistently delivering great returns. And they do that across a bunch of different strategies. So there'll be, there'll do early-stage venture, late-stage venture, they'll do growth equity, they'll do, uh, growth buyout-type opportunities, they'll do lower mid-market buyouts where they add on, uh, acquisitions to it and, and leverage with debt and all of that. And so I think, honestly, what Battery does best and what I internalized most was just how to evaluate investment opportunities in general, right? It seems sort of, uh, pedantic in some ways in that, that, that should be the job in its entirety, but, but because they look at so many different things, it was very much a, uh, a, a, a mash, mashup of a bunch of different styles of investing with everyone aiming just to be a good investor and deliver great returns to the limited partners. And so internalizing those different styles and understanding there's a bunch of different ways to make money under a single umbrella I think was something that, um, I, I really appreciate today in, in looking at different investment opportunities.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings4:16

      Now speaking kind of looking at investment opportunities today, we spoke beforehand about,

3. 4:20 – 6:40

   Is is true that now is the best time to be investing?

   1. HSHarry Stebbings4:20

      you know, what is, uh, venture today and what are VCs doing in some respects today. Uh, everyone tells me now is the best time to be investing. Um, interesting. (laughs) Um, funny when, when you have a tequila and you're not speaking to the LPs, they say something different. But, uh, talk to me. How do you assess the state of the venture landscape today, and is it really the best time to be investing, Logan?

   2. LBLogan Bartlett4:42

      I, I... It's up there for the best time that, uh, I've seen in my career. I, I think there was probably that stretch in 2014, '15, '16 that not a lot of people knew that software was going to be a big thing. Uh, and so that was certainly a, a, a great time to be investing as well, particularly when you saw the multiple appreciation that occurred over the next, whatever, six years. Uh, but right now, I, I think it is in that there's been a recalibration of price, and from entrepreneurs, what they're ultimately looking for from, uh, potential board members, investors on their cap table, all of that, that that money isn't just money, that there are some other things that come along with that. And so I, I've never been more bullish about the different trends that are going on in the overall tech landscape right now, be that software, digital transformation, or fintech, or some of the stuff going on in healthcare. We're even seeing some pop-up of, uh, of, of different consumer type companies (laughs) , which it's been a little while since we've seen, but, uh, but companies like BeReal or whatnot, we're even seeing some of the consumer businesses pop up again. And so I'm really enthusiastic about the opportunity set, and price is a little bit more rational than what it has been. So I don't know best ever, but it's certainly, uh, a fantastic time to invest right now, particularly when compared to the last two or so years.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings6:05

      As a pre-seed investor in BeReal, I now feel like Jason Calacanis with Uber in this moment. Uh, (laughs) what a knob, right?

   4. LBLogan Bartlett6:11

      It's a, it's an amazing business. I, I, uh, yeah, I, I started hearing about it six months ago and it's one of those things, I'm mostly B2B software, but occasionally you hear about something and you're like, "Man, I really wish I wasn't so focused on what I do because this sounds great." Right? And it seems like they've just executed absolutely phenomenally.

   5. HSHarry Stebbings6:29

      I- it's an incredible business. I do wanna ask you, you said about price recalibration there. Honestly, I'm not seeing it at all. In seed and A, nothing's changed, 'cause

4. 6:40 – 9:00

   Are prices recalibrating?

   1. HSHarry Stebbings6:40

      all of you guys, have cut, and girls, have come down earlier, and so actually, you're almost seeing price inflation at the pre-seed and the seed with the migration of growth funds earlier. So help me out here, how are you seeing prices recalibrate?

   2. LBLogan Bartlett6:54

      Yeah, well, I, I think it's a funnel, right? It kinda goes to how public markets end up, uh, flowing through to private markets in general, and so obviously we've seen it in the public markets. In the private markets, late stage privates right now, we're not seeing a ton of repricing, but we are seeing when, when they're making investments, it's typically converts into the IPO at some discount or something like that. We're seeing some, like, structured terms associated with it. Then there's this big gap where there aren't a ton of deals getting done right now. That's the series C, series D, maybe a little series B stage. And so what you are seeing is there's a dearth of opportunities that even exist right now because those companies have raised so much capital and have such high post, uh, last money post-round valuations that you're not seeing them go out there and fundraise right now. Instead, they're kind of waiting to grow through or wait for the market to normalize in some way. And so what does that mean? Well, you're seeing a bunch of people, uh, say, "Hey, well, we would have invested," I don't know, "$200 million at a $2 billion valuation. Well, instead, now we're gonna invest $20 million into 10 companies," right? And so take that same $20 million and invest it across the board, and so that's squeezing the earlier stage groups more and more. And I assume, as you're seeing, it's, it's pushing down into the seed, pre-seed part of the house, 'cause ultimately there are a finite number of these opportunities. I think at the earlier stages, people can really talk themselves into, hey, the difference of four post versus six post versus 12 post really isn't gonna matter, so let's just put this money to work, and if it works, we'll be able to put in far more capital later on. And so I think that while it might be 100% difference in price between four million and eight million post, you're not seeing the level of, uh, financial rigor and analysis that you probably would at the later stage, which, to your point, probably leads to some inflation that's actually occurring at the earlier stages.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings8:53

      I've got two questions listening to you there. And again, so glad you had 12 minutes with this gadget, otherwise this would be very confusing for you. Uh, you

5. 9:00 – 11:51

   Should founders be raising money right now?

   1. HSHarry Stebbings9:00

      mentioned there about kind of the dearth of Bs, Cs and Ds 'cause people are all kind of retreating with their cash deposits, um, are you advising founders now to not go out and raise? 'Cause for me, I'm like, you cannot align your fundraise to macro markets, because six months time it could be worse than it is now. 12 months could be even worse. If you need to raise, just fucking raise.

   2. LBLogan Bartlett9:21

      Yeah, you know, right now is particularly weird, and I think it's most weird for those series B folks, where, to your point, seed, series A, it's mostly business as usual. Maybe it's a little higher at the earlier stages, maybe it's a little lower at the series A stages, but in those two buckets, I think it's, you know, game on and ultimately people are investing. Series B is kind of the weird one, series C maybe to a lesser extent, where, where there aren't a ton of data points out there in the market for what these businesses are worth, right? And so there aren't a lot of comps, there aren't a lot of people that are actively making the market for these potential investment opportunities, and so while I think that if you go out right now to raise or if you went out two months ago to raise, you might ultimately get a far higher price than you would two months from now. Ultimately, the market was kind of reeling in such a way that there's people that are doing a bunch of different things. Some people are saying they're actively investing, but they're not, you know, they're kind of wasting your time. Some people are actively investing, but they're actively investing at, you know, 50% below what you think you're worth. And then there are some people that are saying, "Hey, the market was this a month ago. It, uh, in my mind it's still this today." Right? And so I think what happened over the last couple of months is you were just seeing while the market could have been higher from a price standpoint, you were seeing a lot of founders kind of get jerked around, uh, with regard to valuation, with regard to whether or not people were actually actively investing. And so my only advice in potentially holding off, and I agree with you, if you have the luxury to, uh, if you don't have the luxury to go raise, like, um, having capital is a prerequisite for success at all, and so, uh, I would go raise if you need it. If you're afforded a little bit more of a time horizon to wait, I've encouraged most of the founders that I work with maybe wait till after Labor Day, maybe wait to sometime a little bit later in the fall. Uh, I think we're starting to get to back to the point that, like, everyone's in market, everyone's willing to make investments, everyone is within some zone of what valuations are worth, and so I think that leads to just a much more efficient fundraising process and ability not to say, "Hey, this person's at 500 post and this person's at 200 post, and so how do we even make a decision?" But instead, actually pick the partner that you wanna work with, and usually these people are gonna be within some bound that hopefully you're able to get everyone to kind of march in line and pick the, pick the person you think is actually gonna be most, most helpful to you as a, uh, as a founder.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings11:50

      I'm actually questioning

6. 11:51 – 15:44

   Is now the time to be aggressive in concentrating capital?

   1. HSHarry Stebbings11:51

      myself here, Logan. I'm looking at myself going, "Okay, I've got a portfolio of what I think is very good assets. Harry, what are you doing? You should be much more aggressive in concentrating capital at relatively low prices, given the fact that they would take additional money at this stage. You should be concentrating capital into winners and being very aggressive about it."... but I'm not, 'cause I don't quite know where the knife's falling and I don't wanna catch a falling knife. How do you think about the level of aggression with which you concentrate capital into existing portfolio, given the moderated pricing?

   2. LBLogan Bartlett12:23

      I think it's a function of stage, right? And so, to some extent, if, uh, at the later stages, you have to be very beholden to what public markets ultimately are gonna be willing to pay.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings12:32

      Hm.

   4. LBLogan Bartlett12:32

      And we saw a dislocation that existed at the later stage versus, uh, the public markets that occurred over the course of the last couple of years. And it certainly has existed to, uh, in a meaningful way in the last six months, where we're still seeing businesses get done at, uh, or we were this summer, seeing businesses get done at 200 times, 300 times ARR, when the public markets were saying, like, "At best, you could trade at, I don't know, 20 times forward revenue or something." And so, at the later stages, you need to be careful there, because ultimately, that's where liquidity is going to come from in some of these high flyers. At the earlier stages, I think if you have businesses that are working and it's a low enough absolute valuation, and you need to think through what your blended cost is gonna be and what your portfolio concentration makes sense and all of that stuff that are kinda the fun level construction things. But I actually think it is a great time to be doubling down into the winners, or just providing them more runway, because ultimately, hey, if you get in a business at 50 post and you really think it's gonna be an important company, it's gonna be a great investment whether or not you put in more at 55 or 70 post as well. So, I, I would be doing that, with some pragmatism associated with fund construct and absolute valuation, blended cost, all that stuff.

   5. HSHarry Stebbings13:45

      Can I ask, I often hear about managers say, "We're gonna spray and pray optionality at the early stage, and then we're gonna concentrate capital into our winners and really build our ownership." I guess it's lovely in theory, but building ownership in the best companies, truly the best companies, is very difficult to do. Do you think that it is possible to really build ownership in your best companies when you have the best multi-stage funds hunting them harder than ever?

   6. LBLogan Bartlett14:09

      I've seen some folks do it really well. I think, um, Sequoia's always done a good job of this. I think Founders Fund has done a good job of this. I, I think one of the, the people that do it well don't view, uh, the, the initial investment as a call option on later investment opportunities. They instead view it as, "Hey, we've made this investment, and if it works, then we're gonna treat it like it's a full investment, like we're on the board, whether or not we are. We're gonna give it the full support of our partnership, all the portfolio services we may have, all of that stuff. And then if the opportunity arises that, uh, it's really working, then we're gonna lean in and provide them more capital." Uh, the ones that don't do it well are the ones that really view this as out-of-the-money call options, and if, if, if the opportunity presents itself, we're gonna try to get sharp elbowed and box out other groups. And I've yet to see that really work. It might work for one round, but then you really piss off the founder and the round construct and all that, and then they go out of their way to make it not work at later stages. So, I, I'm kinda mixed. There are some groups that do this really well, um, and then I think there are a lot of groups that are a little sloppy with it.

   7. HSHarry Stebbings15:15

      The challenge with that is then you have to be super good at picking.

   8. LBLogan Bartlett15:18

      That's right.

   9. HSHarry Stebbings15:18

      If you're gonna take that very active role, you need to pick well.

   10. LBLogan Bartlett15:22

       That's right, yeah. You have to hold a really high bar there, 'cause it is, I mean, at the end of the day, our only constrained resource, o- oftentimes is time, right? And so, (laughs) if you're, if you're gonna be treating the small investment like it's a big one, then, uh, it, th- then you can be really upside down in terms of if that business doesn't work, how much you invested just from a time cycle standpoint into that company.

7. 15:44 – 18:00

   VCs have gotten lazy

   1. LBLogan Bartlett15:44

   2. HSHarry Stebbings15:44

      So, our biggest asset is time, and when we chatted before, you said VCs have gotten lazy over the last two years. Um, what did you mean by this, Logan?

   3. LBLogan Bartlett15:54

      I think, um, the laziness occurred because there were a bunch of, uh, people... I, ventures, venture has been a pretty cottage asset class, right, for the last, whatever, 30 years, and it's been institutionalized more in the last, you know, five than it had in the previous 25, in my opinion. And so what, what you, what you saw were a bunch of people that were SASS, uh, maybe software investors, or maybe they were early to fintech, or maybe they got lucky with one consumer company that hit it big, and they confused the fooled by randomness of being at the right place in the right time with them actually being good investors. And I think we saw a whole vintage of people that, that sort of fit this bill and they, they came of age in, I don't know, 2005 through 2015. And founders came to them, right? And founders pitched them in a meaningful way, and founders asked, or begged them for capital to support their business and their ideas. And there wasn't this tension that existed between buying and selling that I think, uh, i- is healthy in the ecosystem in general, where, uh, entrepreneurs are looking for both capital, but then also looking to pick who they wanna work with, right? And investors are also looking for who they wanna invest in, what ideas they believe in, but also earning the right to invest in those opportunities. And so there is this tension that I think is healthy in the ecosystem. For a very long time, it was 100% on the side of the investors where the power existed. The last two years, I think it moved all the way to the entrepreneurs. Now we're back to a little bit of an equilibrium. But you've seen a lot of people retire in the last five years, right?

   4. HSHarry Stebbings17:32

      Sure.

   5. LBLogan Bartlett17:33

      Uh, a lot of very famous investors retire, and I, I don't blame them at all, 'cause the game on the field has definitely changed and it's far more competitive than it was in their day. And you're chasing around people trying to earn the opportunity to invest, and when you came of age when people showed up at your door and gave you a month to respond, uh, I, I think it's probably pretty jarring to be chasing around founders or, you know, sending DMs or begging for intros or all that stuff. And so, I think

8. 18:00 – 21:15

   Where is Redpoint being challenged today?

   1. LBLogan Bartlett18:00

      there was a group that got very rich, very fat, and very happy, and ultimately decided it made more sense to take a step back than to try to adjust to the game on the pl- on, on the field.

   2. HSHarry Stebbings18:09

      So, when you're in a multi-stage fund like you are with Redpoint and you're sitting thinking, "Huh, why are we getting challenged?" what does that conversation look like? Is it...... another multi-stage fund, Andreessen, Sequoia, Founders Fund, you name it. Is it, huh, Josh Buckley and Lachy Gruber eating our lunch? Is it, huh, the Harries of the world are taking media in a different way? Like, where is the competitive element that you guys go, "Yeesh, shit"?

   3. LBLogan Bartlett18:34

      Yeah, I mean, I think it's all, right? It, it's, it's ... I, I think the venture capital world that we live in today is, uh, uh, i- is more akin ... We went from a generation ... And I, I've made this analogy, that we were in the generation of broadcast television, right, where there were only a handful of channels. And what you were ... The TV you were making was what was most broadly appealing to as many people as possible, and so you made Happy Days and I Love Lucy and all that stuff, right? Then we moved to the cable news, uh, era, where there was some level of personalization, right? There might have been ESPN or Fox News or CNBC or MSNBC or whatever, MTV. There was some level of personalization, but it wasn't super personalized to each individual. And now in this era of streaming wars or TikTok or whatever you want to call it, everything's hyper-personalized to every ind- uh, individual entrepreneur. And so if you want an early stage FinTech-only fund to support you, QED is out there, or Ribbit's out there, right? If you want, you know, the preeminent brand that exists, uh, with the, the biggest, uh, access to capital and all of that, that firm's out there. If you want the, the, the firm that's gonna leave you alone and give you as much capital as they possibly can, that firm's out there. And so I think, uh, I think all of these different forces ... Like, if you're looking for any one thing out of a potential, uh, i- investor, there's gonna be a firm or a person that services that, right? And so what does that mean for us? Well, I, I think it means that each individual at Redpoint has to stand for something and be known in some way, shape, or form for what it is that they do to help rise above the noise. And then I think we need the sum of the parts of Redpoint to be greater than any of the individual, uh, and so coming together so that the brand actually stands for something. And when people think about it, R- Redpoint actually means something to them beyond any individual, right? And so the accumulation of the individuals, the accumulation of the brand, the accumulation of the companies we've been involved with actually stands for something, because that's the only way we can cut through the noise of all the specialization that exists out there. And it's not gonna work every single time for every single entrepreneur. We don't need any one individual thing to necessarily carry the day, but we do need the sum of our parts to be greater than who we're competing with. And so that's where we really focus, is to make sure we have a suite of services or a suite of personalities or a suite of domain expertise that makes us rise above the noise and makes us win that individual hand-to-hand fight. And we're not always gonna beat you or Lachy or Buckley. We're not always gonna beat Sequoia or Founders Fund or Andreessen, but we need to win our fair share of the great opportunities that exist out there. And so that's what I wake up every day kinda thinking about.

   4. HSHarry Stebbings21:14

      We

9. 21:15 – 23:40

   Branding: Personal vs. Company

   1. HSHarry Stebbings21:15

      said we'd have a discussion, and I'm trying more and more, Logan, not to be like, you know, just, "Yes, you're right, and I agree." I think that that two competing strategies of individual partner increased brand and fund increased brand sum of parts, I think that's actually idealistic. And what I mean by that is, actually, I think you either go in the partner-led star routine, which is like your Mark Suster at, um, Upfront-

   2. LBLogan Bartlett21:38

      Yep.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings21:38

      ... it's your Alexa Hanie at 776 style, or it's your all-in-unison Sequoia. I think you could say Benchmark. I mean, obviously Bill's got a bigger brand on social, but generally the brands are pretty heavy hitters all across, uh, largely built through track. But I think it's like, it's idealistic to try and do both at once. Do you not think?

   4. LBLogan Bartlett21:59

      Uh, uh, I, I think it's idealistic to try to do both at once in that, like, inevitably you're gonna be pulled in one direction or the other, right?

   5. HSHarry Stebbings22:07

      Yeah.

   6. LBLogan Bartlett22:07

      And, and you can look at where people kinda pick. One quick test of where people pick a, uh, orientation of individuals versus, uh, versus the firm is like, where do blogs reside, right? Do blogs reside on someone's own Substack or someone's own domain, or do they reside on the firm's website or the firm's Medium or the firm's Substack? And there's definitely, uh, gray areas that exist between the two, but ultimately, I think there, there are some firms that have done a really good job of elevating the brand of individuals along with the brand of the firm. I think Andreessen's done a great job of this. Now, the, they ... Andreessen Crypto you don't think of as the same way of And- z- yeah, Andreessen Enterprise, right? You don't think Chris Dixon or Martin Casado or David George in the same way that you do Marc Andreessen or Ben Horowitz or Jeff Jordan. And so m- maybe, maybe that's an exception to them, or maybe, um, there's something unique in the way that they've done that. But I think ... Uh, the way I think about it is, how much accumulating, uh, benefit exists between the before the at sign and the after the at sign on the email address, right? And I just want to make sure that both of them mean something and that both of them mean more every day than it did before. And so logan@redpoint.com, I, I want to make sure that Logan means something more than it did the day before and that redpoint.com does as well. Um, where the pendulum exists on that spectrum, uh, I think it's gonna change for every individual, for every firm, and all of that. But I think we're at least striving to have elements of both that are important for us.

   7. HSHarry Stebbings23:39

      Yeah,

10. 23:40 – 27:28

    Should VCs be marking down their books today?

    1. HSHarry Stebbings23:40

       no, listen, I, I totally agree, and I like that in terms of before and after, 'Cause honestly, you know, we mentioned like competition and things that worry us. Things that worry me right now is actually the amount of GPs that are maintaining book value despite (laughs) th- the book value not being what it is. Let's be clear.

    2. LBLogan Bartlett23:57

       Yep.

    3. HSHarry Stebbings23:57

       And we all know they're not. And I tweeted this today, and I got quite a lot of hate actually, probably unsurprisingly (laughs) . Um, but I basically said, "Hey, it's a chance to build trust. Actually mark down your book and be very clear with your LPs about what really is in the portfolio and what its true value is." Do you agree that we're not seeing the markdown, and how do you think about that transparency on markdown of book?

    4. LBLogan Bartlett24:17

       I was having a conversation with an LP yesterday a- about this, interestingly. And, uh, to some extent, it's... Well, again, it goes back. It's a function of stage initially, right? And so, what is a series A worth in today's environment versus what it was, uh, you know, six months ago or nine months ago? And you could argue based on performance, it should be written up potentially, right? If the company's 15Xed in the last, whatever, 18 months, then you could say, "Hey, should we write this up altogether?" Um, a- at the later stages, I do think there's a handful of these businesses that, uh, if you're holding at the last round price, uh, that (laughs) you're probably being a little superficial in your analysis of, like, what that business would be worth today in the public markets. I do think that there's an important, um, uh... It, it is an important part of the flywheel though of how you go about this, and not just with discretion, broad-based, kinda writing everything down across the portfolio 15%. Or if you're gonna do that, being very, very transparent and upfront with your, uh, limited partners about how you're doing this. Now, some people are going to be very incentivized to say, "Hey, can you please keep your marks where they are?" A fund to fund, for example, because that helps us go raise (laughs) our money, and we don't really need you subjectively and artificially writing down your marks just based on your own analysis today. We would prefer you not do that. Some other people might be overexposed to venture because these marks are at a high level right now, and their public books come down, and their private book's still sitting high. And so they're saying, "Hey, can you take this down or take a little bit of pressure out of the system? Because we still wanna be re-upping with managers, and we can't if our target was 12% venture and now we're 18% venture," or whatever it is. And so, I think that it is, i- it is some level of delusion. If you actually believe that all of these companies are worth what they were worth six months ago, then, uh... A- and you're saying that with a straight face to your limited partners, then I think you're losing trust, right? A 100%. I don't think you can be a prudent manager and look every person in the eye and say, "Hey, this is worth exactly what we thought it was worth six months ago." That just doesn't make sense to me. The, the construct by which you write down these investments or how to think about the holding value of these investments and how you, uh, go about communicating how you're adjusting these things, I think just doing broad-based write-downs of late-stage companies, I don't know. I- I think ultimately there's probably some nuance in there. I will tell you, in talking to this LP yesterday, I've seen more... They said they saw Q2 as the big reckoning for people taking it down. But even then, there were still a handful of people that didn't. And so, they're expecting it to kind of flow through to the end of the year. But even still, I mean, i- i- is that actually an accurate reflection of what the market's worth? It's hard to say. These are very illiquid private, uh, valuations, right? And so, until these things are in the public markets or until they trade hands, uh, it, it's really hard to put the price to any of this stuff. And so, just having a disciplined structure of how you're doing it, I think, is more important than actually taking down the marks

11. 27:28 – 29:45

    Did you lose price sensitivity after 2021?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett27:28

       themselves.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings27:29

       Can I ask you, everyone last year, they, they invested faster and they invested with less price sensitivity. I- I being one of them. Uh, did you?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett27:38

       No, I didn't. I only... No, I'm, uh, of course, yeah.

    4. HSHarry Stebbings27:41

       (laughs)

    5. LBLogan Bartlett27:41

       I, I, you know... Hey, I-

    6. HSHarry Stebbings27:43

       (laughs) That was so embarrassing for me.

    7. LBLogan Bartlett27:44

       Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah.

    8. HSHarry Stebbings27:45

       No, no, just you, Harry.

    9. LBLogan Bartlett27:46

       How did you do that, Harry? I'm sorry. Uh, y- you're really showing your age here. No, I, uh, I think... Listen, uh, anyone that invested last year lost some level of price sensitivity. Now, did they lose price sensitivity? I don't know. You know, that's for everyone to decide on their own. Um, I, uh, for sure changed the underwriting framework by which, uh, we were evaluating companies, not in terms of what we thought they could be. Our, our simple underwriting framework for growth at Redpoint is 3 to 5X with 10X plus upside, right? And we were, we really wanna be investing in things that we think can be perf- uh, can be important, longstanding public businesses. And so, by that definition, uh, we, we kept the, the framework the exact same as we always had. Now, when you're underwriting to a 3 to 5X with 10X plus upside, and things are trading at 30, 40, 50 times in the public markets, uh, inevitably there's gonna be some level of price sensitivity that adjusts, right, to the new state of the public markets. And so, in that regard, for sure, like, we didn't have the same price sensitivity that we had had a year or two years before, mostly 'cause the public markets had changed what, what things were worth. Uh, I think the good news, or at least what allows me to sleep at night, is, uh, I... While I wish that I invested, uh, at today's prices last year, there isn't a single investment that I wish I had back, right? And so, that keeps me optimistic that maybe the 10X plus upside case that we underwrote too, if things go right, maybe now that's 5X, 6X, 7X on some of these investments. But they still have that outsized hail opportunity that they should be great important companies for us, if we picked correctly. So, i- inevitably there's gonna be price pressure and returns are gonna compress i- i- altogether, but pretty proud of the portfolio composition that was built out last year for us, even if some level of price sensitivity was lost throughout.

12. 29:45 – 33:25

    Why do Outcome Scenario Planning?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett29:45

    2. HSHarry Stebbings29:45

       You mentioned the 3 to 5X though with 10X upside. That instantly correlates, obviously, to outcome scenario planning. The one qu- learning that I have from doing the memo, which is a show where we study hyper growth companies, is that you always underestimate how big your winners will be, consistently across all of them. Twilio, great example. Would any of... I would never put Twilio anywhere near where it is today. Never. And so, you always are led to say no by outcome scenario plans, I find, uh, and underestimate them. So, why do you still do them? And is it not dangerous?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett30:18

       Yeah. No, I definitely think it, uh, it can be dangerous. At the end of the day, there's only a single outcome, right? And what is it Annie Duke said in her book Thinking in Bets? Calls it resulting when you end up looking back on, based on the result, and having that inform the decision.

    4. HSHarry Stebbings30:32

       Mm-hmm.

    5. LBLogan Bartlett30:32

       I ultimately think, um, in terms of the probability of waiting, uh, I think that there is no certainty by which we, uh, I can make decisions. I don't know for other people. But, uh, ultimately I sort of view that there's a, uh, there's a spectrum of potential outcomes that can exist, uh, in some world in the future. And ultimately, there's only gonna be one of those outcomes that- that ends up being the actual one. But at the end of the day, you have to take in all these disparate inputs and think through, uh, what the likely outcome can potentially be. And sometimes you're wrong in it far out seeds the, uh, the outcome that you actually thought was most likely, and so therefore were you wrong in your probability weighting or was it, was it a, uh, outsized outcome that actually ended up occurring that existed on the very far end of the distribution scale? Um, I tend to think about just making the best risk adjusted return that you pot- potentially can. Sort of like playing blackjack and you can see the dealer's hands on the other side, and while you can, you can split, you know, whatever. You can split 10s when the dealer's showing a six potentially, and that could work out for you, or you could, uh, end up holding and staying where you are, and that could work out for you. Sometimes you make the right decision based on the information you have with the wrong outcomes. Sometimes you make the wrong decision and get the right outcome. One of the best investments in my career was an investment in a company called Braze, and they were called Apway at the time. I remember really haggling with them. It was like 18 months of haggling with them on and off over price, about whether or not we would pay 90 post, 100 post, 110 post, 120 post. Today it's a $5 billion public company, right? Did any of those things matter? No, they didn't. Like none of those things would have determined whether or not they were a good investment or not. At the time, I was convinced that the most likely outcome was that it was gonna be a $300 or $400 million acquisition by Salesforce or Adobe or someone like that. And so I felt like I had to be really disciplined on the entry price because it just seemed like such a long tail opportunity that it was gonna be a public company. Now clearly, I was wrong there. How did that inform me going forward? (laughs) Uh, well, it's definitely informed my, if you want to be in the company within the margin, just find a way to get into it and don't get too hung up on the $10 million here, $10 million there. But I can't say that that was the only outcome that I thought could occur, that it was inevitably destined to be a $4 or $5 billion company. I don't know. I sort of think the world has enough randomness in it, and enough, like probabilities that I find comfort in trying to come up with the likelihood that something's gonna happen, even if it's false precision.

    6. HSHarry Stebbings33:24

       Often in the

13. 33:25 – 34:48

    Do you have an ownership requirement?

    1. HSHarry Stebbings33:25

       early stage, we hear about ownership sensitivity. "I need 10%. I need 15%." When we think about a 3 to 5X requirement with a 10X upside, do you have an ownership requirement or it merely a multiple on dollars?

    2. LBLogan Bartlett33:37

       Multiple on dollars. I think typically, I mean, obviously it's easier to own 10, 15, 20% plus of a business and have those returns end up generating the 3 to 5X with 10X plus upside. But we've been fortunate enough to be involved in companies like Stripe and Twilio and Snowflake and DraftKings and, uh, SentinelOne and a bunch of others that have been just really, uh, far hit home runs and so when those ultimately happen, uh, they can far out seed the ability of owning 12% of any individual company. So we really focus on the- the outcomes more than the percentages at our stage. I know our early stage team spends more time thinking about ownership.

    3. HSHarry Stebbings34:19

       You mentioned Braze being the biggest win. Incredible company, incredible founder. I think you learn a lot from your biggest miss or your biggest mistake. Um, you know, mine was most importantly that actually the market is more important than the founder, and what I mean by that is if you are in an untenable market, even the best founder will not be able to get out. Like, truly untenable. Social, political unrest, currency destroyed. One of these situations can absolutely tank a company, no matter how good the founder is.

14. 34:48 – 37:18

    Logan's Biggest Miss

    1. HSHarry Stebbings34:48

       Emerging markets company. (laughs) Um, my question to you is, when you think about your biggest miss or mistake, what is it and how did that change your mindset?

    2. LBLogan Bartlett34:57

       I think at the, at the growth stage, uh, to some extent, I have, uh, at times gotten hung up around the individual machinations of the market at that moment in time, rather than looking far off in the future and just saying, "Yes or no, do we think this will happen? And yes or no, will this be the company to do it?" And so while we were fortunate enough to be an investor, uh, in Snowflake at Redpoint, I remember back at Battery looking at the opportunity and just thinking, "Hey, it just..." The customer calls at the time were kind of raw about the business and- and how well the cloud was actually working. Amazon and Redshift seemed like such a formidable competitor. Who ever wanted to compete with Amazon on their home turf, which was AWS and- and what we thought was Redshift and EC2 at the time. Like, why would you make that investment? That seems like something that you're jumping into a sh- you know, shark filled waters there. And, uh, and I think what, what, what I learned from that is one, if you look far enough in the future, do you think something is inevitably going to happen? And in this case, the cost of compute and the need for performance was just so apparent that Redshift wasn't gonna be able to meet that need, that there was gonna be someone else standing up, coming in and doing it. And if we had looked at the founding team and the infrastructure they built, I think we would have looked past...... the individual customer feedback, a data point here, a data point there, that said, "Hey, this is still not quite ready for prime time," and instead focused further downfield and said, "You know what? We think in the long term, this is all gonna work out," and made the decision to invest. And so, that's informed a handful of investments for me, where if something just feels like an inevitability and you might be a little early on the, the tack or on the market, we're talking months or maybe years, not decades, then it's worth just getting on board if you think the company's gonna be the one to execute on it. And so, I, that's, that's really informed, uh, a handful of investments I've made, is just, if you feel like it's inevitable, get on board because, you know, i- uh, the details

15. 37:18 – 42:10

    Have you ever lost faith in a founder?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett37:18

       can be figured out along the ride.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings37:20

       Have you ever lost faith in a founder, Logan?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett37:23

       Uh, I have. The specific instances that it, it's happened most are typically, um... I haven't had an instance that I totally misread a founder, uh, to the negative on the way in. It's typically been, um, some window of opportunity was missed to execute on the, uh, t- the business that I, I felt like the company could have been. Um, and so, in those individual... or I guess it's one specific instance where this occurred, uh, it's i- i- a- it felt like it could've been a really, really, really big opportunity, uh, and company that was built, but because of some e- execution decisions along the way, um, it didn't-

    4. HSHarry Stebbings38:08

       Do you-

    5. LBLogan Bartlett38:08

       ... ultimately prove out. And-

    6. HSHarry Stebbings38:10

       Do you c- do you, do you communicate that to the founder? This is one thing where I often struggle, which is like, okay, you lose faith. Do you say, "Logan, I'm really sorry. For these reasons, I actually don't believe that you have what it takes to lead this business anymore"?

    7. LBLogan Bartlett38:22

       (laughs) I have yet to have that specific conversation with a founder. Uh, in the case that I'm, I'm thinking about, uh, there was a board member, uh, who, who ended up leading the charge on that conversation. And, uh, ultimately, I think the opportunity passed by anyway. And so, it was kind of neither here nor there, uh, in this, (laughs) in this specific situation. Inevitably, if I, if I'm afforded the, the luxury of doing this for a long enough time, I, I'm sure that's a conversation I'm gonna have to have. And, um, I- that's kind of where it comes down to trust and building relationships with, uh, with the founders that you work with, that, uh, I, I found the people that at least I like working with are very pragmatic a- and understanding of themselves, that, uh, if, if I'm seeing it, there's probably a path to, uh, them also seeing it as well. Uh, I, I never want to be the one that's in there replacing the CEO if they also don't agree that there might be an opportunity for a better person to step in. Um, I, I just don't view that as, as something that's, uh, something that's a core part of the job. I think founders are sort of the lifeblood of what we get to do. And, uh, and so regularly replacing founders, I, I just don't view as an ethical thing that I want to be a part of. But if, there, there are ways of soft diplomacy, of convincing founders to, uh, to... that, that maybe that's the right path through enough data points and conversation. So, that's the hope, that's the tact I hope I'll be able to take.

    8. HSHarry Stebbings39:55

       So, I agree with you, but the role of the board is technically, uh, I think it was Brad Feld said it on the show, to hire and fire the CEO.

    9. LBLogan Bartlett40:03

       Yeah.

    10. HSHarry Stebbings40:03

        Simple job. Like, when you think about your role as a board member, how do you view your role then if you don't want to remove the C- not want to, but if you're not willing to ever remove the CEO? And how has it changed over time? You've changed. How has it changed?

    11. LBLogan Bartlett40:17

        Yeah. Um, I, I, so I don't view, uh, the role, uh, uh, my role as a board member necessarily to hire and, and fire the CEO exclusively. Um, I, I think that, uh, that's certainly an element and can be a part of the job. But the very literal, if ever you're going to the votes, uh, that, uh, are, "Hey, do you have the power to get something done?" with re- regard to removing the CEO, barring something, uh, that is totally, uh, ethical or cataclysmic for the business, um, I think if ever you're going to the votes and using your role as a board member to oust the CEO, something else has broken down along the way in the journey and the relationship you built with, with the founder and, and the rest of the board. Uh, so I, I don't know. I mean, Brad, Brad has done this a lot longer than I have, and, uh, I'm sure he's been in a lot more of these situations in which this has been totally necessary on behalf of either existing investors or on behalf of other, uh, employees at the business. Um, but that's, that's not how I wake up every day in thinking about my role. I view my role as being... earning the right, uh, to be a trusted confidant to the CEO and the executive team. And I, I very much, uh, view all those words as important, earning the right to be a confidant. And if, if part of that ultimately involves helping the individual to see that there might be a better path for the business going forward, for their employees, for other investors with someone else at the helm, then I, I hope to be able to use that soft diplomacy to get it done. I, I'm sure there'll be a date in which I will need to use my board power to, uh, to, to vote against a CEO. I'm thankful that it, that it hasn't happened yet, and I certainly don't hope to

16. 42:10 – 43:13

    How many boards are you on?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett42:10

       find myself in that, in that situation anytime soon.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings42:13

       My friend, how many boards are you on?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett42:15

       Uh, five.

    4. HSHarry Stebbings42:17

       When does it top out?

    5. LBLogan Bartlett42:20

       I've seen people go up to 15. I don't think that's a pragmatic thing for myself. Uh, I think that the way that I want to be able to do it, I think it's probably eight to 10 is what-

    6. HSHarry Stebbings42:32

       Yeah.

    7. LBLogan Bartlett42:32

       ... the people I've admired have been able to scale up to, something like that, uh, and still be, um, active and pragmatic, uh, uh, uh, about their relationships with the, the people they work with. Uh, it, it's somewhat of a function of what other responsibilities you have, right? Are you running a podcast? Do you, uh, manage the relationship with LPs? Do you manage the junior team? Do you manage the support staff within the org? I think there's a bunch of other considerations that come into play. And if your only job is investing and being a board member, then I think you can scale a lot more. Uh, I, I happen to have a lot of other stuff all on my plate as well. And so (laughs) uh, I don't know exactly where my number is. We're not there yet, but, uh, it's something I'm definitely cognizant

17. 43:13 – 46:08

    What is the single best board you’re on?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett43:13

       of.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings43:14

       What is the single best board you're on? Who's the single best board member you work with? And what makes the best board the best board?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett43:21

       So, uh, so a bunch of different questions there. Uh, uh, the most, uh, fun I have regularly on a, on a board right now is, uh, with, I, I would say Crossbeam, uh, mostly because I just really like the people around the table. Bob Moore, the CEO, is fantastic. Uh, uh, and Matt Turk is a very good friend. He led the series A. Andy McLoughlin from Unqork led the seed. And then we have a fun group from Andreessen Horowitz is well involved. So I think as a group, we just have a lot of, uh, a lot of fun together of the boards I'm on right now. Uh, the best single board member I've worked with... Neeraj Agarwal was my mentor at Battery. He was fantastic. Um, two that I've really appreciated, uh, getting to know are, uh, Rob Ward from Meritech, just-

    4. HSHarry Stebbings44:08

       Mm-hmm.

    5. LBLogan Bartlett44:08

       ... is very similar to Neeraj in style. He has a ton of gravitas and, uh, is able to handle the, the, the soft diplomacy with CEOs in a very tactful and smart way. The one that I've internalized the most from, uh, and that I just have infinite amounts of respect for is Eric Vishriah from, from Benchmark. Um, Eric and I worked together on the Amplitude, uh, board and now we have a new company, AcuityMD, together. And, uh, Eric is just A++ as a board member. And, uh, I, I-

    6. HSHarry Stebbings44:40

       Wh- wh- wh- wh- why is he A++? I, I'm sure he is. I don't have the luxury of sitting on a board with him, but why is he so good?

    7. LBLogan Bartlett44:46

       He, uh, I think he has the right level of, of empathy and passion and he knows, uh, he knows the inside out details of the companies he's, he works with. He knows the right altitude to talk to the different entrepreneurs. And you just know he genuinely cares and all this stuff is coming from a very good place. So he's willing to spend as much time as you want as an entrepreneur with you, uh, on all the problems that you have. He's willing to roll up his sleeves and be helpful. But he's also not only gonna be a pushover and not only gonna be your friend. He's gonna push back when he thinks you're wrong and he's gonna help you learn from not just your own mistakes, but all the things that he's seen in his career as an operator or his career as an investor. And I think just his ability to synthesize all that stuff down and speak to people at the, the right level with the right tone is just, um, unlike anything I've really seen before. And so I, I, I've learned a ton from him and, uh, wish I could spend, uh, you know, as much time as possible kinda learning from the style that he takes to operating with these companies.

    8. HSHarry Stebbings45:54

       Logan, I could talk to you all day, but I wanna move into a quick fire. So I say a short statement, uh, and then you give me your immediate thoughts. About 60 seconds per one. I'm gonna bring in some other stuff here 'cause there's so much that I wanna pack in. But just roll with it. It's fine. We edit. Beautiful.

18. 46:08 – 46:38

    Logan’s favourite book

    1. HSHarry Stebbings46:08

       Uh, ready?

    2. LBLogan Bartlett46:09

       Do it.

    3. HSHarry Stebbings46:10

       Favorite book and why? What should I read?

    4. LBLogan Bartlett46:13

       Uh, I, I absolutely love Team of Rivals, uh, about Abraham Lincoln and how he assembled his cabinet. I think there's a lot of applicability, uh, to, uh, really successful CEOs I've worked with and their ability to, um, have a bunch of different conflicting personalities, styles, opinions, and ultimately synthesize down what is the most insightful, uh, decision for, in Lincoln's case, the presidency, and the CEOs I've, I've worked

19. 46:38 – 47:20

    What is going to happen to crypto?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett46:38

       with, the business. And so I, I learned a lot from that book.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings46:41

       What the fuck is gonna happen to crypto?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett46:44

       (laughs) I think there's some value to be had in the crypto ecosystem. Uh, I don't think it's to the tune of $25 billion or whatever was put out last year from the venture ecosystem. I think there's a handful of use cases. I don't know what number that exactly adds up to. Uh, speculation and, uh, and gambling seems to be a, uh, decent enough use case. You throw in NFTs and I, I think there's some value there. And then some of this cross-currency border exchange related stuff, I think there's some utility there. I don't think that's nearly commensurate with the amount of money that's gone into the ecosystem. And so I think we're gonna see a lot of zeros pop

20. 47:20 – 48:48

    Why do B2B marketers suck?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett47:20

       out of, uh, of the vintages of these crypto funds that we've seen recently.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings47:25

       Why do B2B marketers suck, generally?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett47:28

       Because if you're... (laughs) because if you are good, uh... If you cared about marketing and you were really good, you would go into consumer 'cause the budgets are much bigger and you get an opportunity to be much more creative and come up with things like Super Bowl advertising and all that. So if you were really good about, uh, marketing in general, you would pick consumer. If you really care about B2B, you'd probably go into sales or product because oftentimes that has much more budget or influence within these, uh, these organizations. And so what you're left with with B2B marketing is typically people that fell into it from some way, shape, or form, and then there's three different buckets typically of B2B marketers. There's sometimes brand marketing or PR, there's product marketing, and then there's demand gen. And ultimately, not all of those things are gonna be exactly what you need, uh, as a company. And so not only are you getting picked over for all the quality people, but then it's also often down-selected to specific skill sets that aren't totally transferrable. And so you end up just having to pick one of three, but you can't get all three. And so it just ends up being a very limited pool of people that go into it that are talented.

    4. HSHarry Stebbings48:35

       ... or they become CEO 'cause they're brilliant storytellers and they can inspire, and I see that a lot too.

    5. LBLogan Bartlett48:40

       Correct.

    6. HSHarry Stebbings48:40

       I think of like K- Kit Bodnar at HubSpot. This guy's a born CEO. Like, I-

    7. LBLogan Bartlett48:45

       Yeah.

    8. HSHarry Stebbings48:45

       ... I wa- I wanna fund his company. Sadly, he's CM

21. 48:48 – 50:51

    Why you shouldn’t pay for PR firms

    1. HSHarry Stebbings48:48

       of HubSpot, but, uh, I, I totally agree with you there. Um, tell me, why shouldn't you pay PR firms or consultants as you get going?

    2. LBLogan Bartlett48:56

       I think it's one of those things that you just need to in-house. Ultimately, uh, every industry is gonna be bespoke, uh, in terms of your ability to get out there, get reach, get message, and, uh, paying a PR firm to go about doing it, one, they're gonna have a whole bunch of clients that they're, they're horse trading on who goes where, and two, over time, it's gonna benefit you much more to build these, uh, longstanding relationships with the reporters that are on your beat and give you an opportunity to tell your story yourself early on. And you know what? It probably is gonna mean that people don't really care initially when you're telling your story, but at least you're going about figuring out, one, who the people are that care about your industry, two, what message even kind of resonates, and it gives you a much quicker iterative feedback loop where I see oftentimes early stage founders think about the PR side of things and they just dump it over the, the line and give it to the PR agency. The PR agency goes out, runs around, does a bunch of stuff they don't really have visibility into, then they come back and say, "Oh, sorry, it didn't really work out." And there's no iterative cycle or relationship development that's been built at all in that f- in that funnel. And so even if it doesn't work, you're much better in-housing it than, than throwing it over to someone else and having them give a, you know, probably not their best performance in trying to get you placement.

    3. HSHarry Stebbings50:14

       I think this is one massive mistake I always see founders make. They say, "This press release is dog shit. Who did it?"

    4. LBLogan Bartlett50:19

       Yeah.

    5. HSHarry Stebbings50:19

       And they're like, "Oh, we just gave it to the PR firm." Why was this, "Oh, I just gave it to the PR firm"? If this was a cool piece of product, you wouldn't just say, "Oh, I just gave it to an outsource house in wherever." You would do an enti- you would build it, you would spend time on it, it would be an art. Why is it like a whatever, the release? It fucks me off so much.

    6. LBLogan Bartlett50:36

       It needs to be a core competency of what you're gonna do, and ultimately it's kinda taking a shortcut because you don't think it matters, but if you're gonna build an important company, it is gonna matter. And so, you should only really do stuff that you think are gonna be needle movers for you, and I just think PR

22. 50:51 – 51:48

    Hardest element of Logan’s role at Redpoint

    1. LBLogan Bartlett50:51

       can be one of them.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings50:52

       I totally agree with you. Uh, tell me, what's the hardest element of your role with Redpoint?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett50:57

       I think right now it's, uh, it's just managing the, uh, the market that we're in today and trying to figure out, um, where the best investment opportunities exist and what valuations ultimately are going to be worth in the end state, and making sure we're picking correct between... w- the difference between the A businesses and the A+ companies.

    4. HSHarry Stebbings51:17

       Yep.

    5. LBLogan Bartlett51:17

       Uh, that requires a level of discipline, uh, it requires a level of, uh, ability to win, it requires a level of patience, uh, in- in making sure that we're holding the bar really high a- and willing to say no to stuff. And so that, in this market right now where things have, have ground fairly to a halt at at least the stages we play in, in series B and C, it just requires a lot of patience and, uh, a lot of willingness to not have FOMO, not feel like we're missing out on opportunities,

23. 51:48 – 52:57

    Most impressive crossover fund

    1. LBLogan Bartlett51:48

       and instead we're gonna wait for the great ones to, to come across our desk.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings51:52

       What crossover fund have you been most impressed by?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett51:59

       Um, oh, well, I guess, I guess the, if I were to say pure crossover fund, I've, uh, I've really, uh, admired what, uh, the folks at Coatue have done in terms of building their brand and awareness at the, uh, the late stage growth market. I think that they've done a lot of, a lot of amazing stuff. I think in pure growth, uh, I- I just have infinite amounts of respect for, uh, Sequoia's growth fund, the folks over at Meritack, a- and the guys over at Iconic.

    4. HSHarry Stebbings52:29

       Great.

    5. LBLogan Bartlett52:29

       Uh, I think that all those groups do a really good job picking, and, um, I- I- I want to beat all of them every single day, and I wish them very poorly, but, uh-

    6. HSHarry Stebbings52:39

       (laughs)

    7. LBLogan Bartlett52:39

       ... I have a lot of respect for what they're doing and a lot of friends at those places. And so, uh, I know when we're going head-to-head in an opportunity, you can't go wrong if, if a founder picks to work with them and, and they all do a very good job of picking, uh, to be in great companies. And so I- I- a lot of respect for

24. 52:57 – 54:18

    Which crossover fund is most in trouble?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett52:57

       the, for the game on the field we play against all those firms.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings53:00

       Which crossover fund's most in trouble?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett53:04

       I think the crossover firms, uh, that are most in trouble are the ones that got into the market hot and heavy over the last two years and didn't necessarily have the history of delivering outsized returns, uh, over a long period of time at their existing shop. And so, I think that there's a few that you can think of that people spun out and maybe started new funds, uh, or went really, really big, uh, over the course of the last two years and brought in a whole bunch of new LPs, and I think anyone that either doesn't have their existing track record of the last, whatever, 10 years, uh, attached to the name of their existing firm, or anyone that scaled, uh, well beyond what they had, you know, in the prior five years in the last two years, I think anyone that fits that bill is probably gonna have a, uh, is gonna have a little bit of a reckoning here right now. I'm surprised, honestly, we haven't seen more firms move to the family office model. I think it's kind of a function of how much money exists in the ecosystem right now from all the different, uh, pension plans, but all the different foreign sovereign wealth entities out there that you haven't seen some of these people have to close up shop and say, "Hey, we're just gonna manage our own money going forward." But I

25. 54:18 – 55:59

    Most underrated angel investor

    1. LBLogan Bartlett54:18

       keep waiting for that to happen. I think it, I think it's bound to happen at some point here.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings54:22

       Who's the most underrated angel, you think?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett54:26

       I, uh, in terms of the most underrated angel, I, I have a ton of respect, uh, I, there, there's a handful of folks that are really well known, uh, and so I'll, I'll skip, uh, you know, the, the names that, uh, people typically talk about all the time. The one that I just have infinite amounts of respect for is, uh, my podcast co-host, Zach Weinberg, uh, and, and Nat Turner, and what they do over at Operators. Um, they, it's their own money, uh, they're very long oriented, and they have such a, uh, pragmatism by which they approach investing and the types of people that they wanna work, work with. And so, whenever I talk to them about a potential opportunity, it's not just a, something about a big market size or something about someone else investing. It's usually something very specific about the individual entrepreneur, and something very specific about their insight. Zach had a great, um, a great insight that I've kind of internalized, is that the best founders can, can tell a very high level story about their business, but also can drill down very deep into all the nitty gritty specifics about their opportunity, about their company, all of that. And I think that type of insight, I just get out of him all the time, and it really amazes me that he's able to take some very specific insights and bring them to a, a, a part of the market that I just view as such a black box and such an art. And to know that there are people like that, like him out there, that really have these set of core principles that they operate with, that, uh, that, that lead to the investments,

26. 55:59 – 57:34

    Have you ever had a company go bust?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett55:59

       I just think is really impressive, uh, for me to see.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings56:02

       Have you ever had a company go bust, and what was the biggest learning?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett56:06

       I haven't yet. Uh, now, we've been in a eight-year bull run since I've been investing. I, I was on a board of a company that had to do a full recap. I had inherited the board. And I, I've thought about this. I, I give the founder a lot of credit, 'cause actually after the recap, he was able to, uh, turn it into a really successful outcome for all the people that participated in the, in the recap. I think the, uh, the thesis that was wrong at the point of the original investment was, uh, was ultimately, it was a little too beholden to, uh, trends associated with Google, Facebook, Amazon, some of these big players. And you dance with elephants, and there's a real risk that you get stepped on. And so, I, I, I, I wonder at the point of investment if that was actually one of the real internalized probabilities that could happen, or if that was something that, that snuck up on, uh, on the, the, the investment team over time. What, what I'll always tell our team internally is, "I, I really don't care if something goes wrong, uh, in an individual investment. That's gonna happen. But it can't be something that we didn't have written out in the investment memo before." We have to know the entirety of the potential risks, to the extent we can, on the way in, uh, and do all the work so that we understand that, so that we're at least not surprised by things when they ultimately do

27. 57:34 – 59:47

    Logan’s most recent publicly announced investment?

    1. LBLogan Bartlett57:34

       hit bumps along the way.

    2. HSHarry Stebbings57:36

       Logan, hit me. Final one. What's the most recent publicly announced investment and why did you say yes and get so excited?

    3. LBLogan Bartlett57:42

       So, uh, Acuity MD was the, uh, was the most recent investment that I, that I said yes to. Uh, the seed slash series A was done by Eric Vishria from Benchmark. I did what was called the series A, it was more like a series B. Uh, what got me most excited about it was, it was in this underserved market that had an opportunity, uh, that the founders recognized to bring tech and specifically CRM and targeting. Uh, so they operate within the medical device space, and so what they're building is something akin to ZoomInfo plus Salesforce for med devices. And these founders had that unique insight that this actually maybe wasn't a big enough market as a, as a standalone of any one of those two, but combined together, if you could bring these two things to market, then it actually could be a really big interesting, uh, interesting opportunity. And so they had that insight, and then the founders are just so tireless and thoughtful in their approach of building product and recruiting and building this company. Uh, the CEO, Mike, was a swimmer, and you can just kinda tell, I, I, I think swimmers in general are kind of crazy to begin with, that they put their head down for hours a day and don't talk to anyone and just put one arm in front of the other while you kick. There's a level of discipline that that requires, and I use that as an example of just how disciplined and thoughtful he is, and, and the tireless nature by which he works. And so, it was a big market, a great founding team, and honestly, uh, I, I think that there's not gonna be a ton of venture-backed competition going into this space. And so, I think they have the right to win and the right to earn a lot of these customers' trust, and ultimately turn this into a really big vertical market a la Veeva, a la ServiceTitan, a la Procore, and a bunch of those other successful ones that we've seen in the public markets. So, a really exciting opportunity that, um, you know, we're really fortunate to work with.

    4. HSHarry Stebbings59:34

       Logan, I've loved doing this. I so appreciate you, uh, not reading the schedule very much before. Otherwise, you'd be totally fucked. But, uh, I can't thank you enough. This has been so much fun, so huge thanks, my friend.

    5. LBLogan Bartlett59:44

       Awesome. Thank you for having me. We'll do it again in another six years or so.

Episode duration: 59:48