I have been on a long road trip to meet investors and entrepreneurs abroad including, Sri Lanka, the US and Switzerland (besides many in India) over the last month. The schedule does not get any better for the next few weeks, so I am very disappointed that I am not able to write as much as I would like, but nonetheless, this is an important point that’s been brewing in my mind for the last few weeks.
Entrepreneurs the world over are changing one very important aspect of decision making – the pace and speed of it.
I spoke to over 135 investors in 15 min to 1 hour conversations (some in a group of 5-8 over dinner) over the last month to figure out that investors the world over are now under immense pressure to make decisions quickly. That was not the case a few years ago.
(P.S. I did read the PG piece on startup trends, so if he’s asking investors to move even more quickly than they are, he’s asking for a LOT, which I suspect most individuals are not ready to sign up for).
A few years ago a typical angel investor (individual, investing their own money) took 1-3 meetings and a month to make a decision to invest in a company. A venture capital investor (professional, investing other people’s money) would take longer, 3-5 meetings and at least 2 months. Then the legal paperwork and negotiations began post the “verbal commitment”.
Now it is not unusual to hear investors in the US taking 1 meeting and 60 minutes to give a verbal commitment and 15 days to funding. In India, that number is changing to 3 meetings and 45 days to funding.
Most investors have 3-5 top criteria and a subset of 5-7 sub criteria for every opportunity they evaluate. The criteria is usually entrepreneur, market, product, traction, exit potential etc. The sub criteria for market, as an example might be a) Size b) Speed of adoption c) Competitive landscape d) Pace of change in that market etc.
I am very intrigued by the sub criteria for entrepreneurs. Since I operate at the very earliest of early stages, putting money or resources when there’s just an idea, with very little or no traction, it becomes absolutely important to make sure you back the right folks.
Since I am on the plane a lot and have a new kindle I get to read a lot as well. I have been reading these books and research pieces to understand how to be a better judge of people when time is limited and the stakes are high.
a. How to read a person like a book
b. Cognitive decision making – a mathematical model
c. Thinking fast and slow
I have built a 21 criteria list for evaluating people quickly (well, quickly compared to the fact that I was not doing it at all before) and I am trying to figure out over the next year, which criteria matter and which ones dont.
Before you think this is too many criteria, let me tell you that most sophisticated investors have mentioned to me that they use between 35 and 50 verifiable and “soft” criteria” and keep tweaking their top 5. Some of these criteria can be a simple yes or no and others require you to ask specific questions. The most cultured investors, who bet lots of money have a cognitive sense of evaluating every word spoken by the entrepreneur and putting them into buckets while evaluating if the criteria they are looking for are met or not.
I am not ready to reveal the criteria since people will game the system, but I am now able to process those better. My evaluation takes now about 20-30 minutes to process each individual after I have a chance to meet them for 30 minutes. Usually I do this when I have some downtime – during commute, running, etc.
The most amazing revelation to me personally has been that nearly 30-40% of my “gut instinct” on people dont match my criteria. I used to pride my people selection based on gut feel a lot more before. Let me give you an example.
I met a really smart entrepreneur in Sri Lanka. who had thoughtful answers to nearly 7-8 very difficult questions that I had, and was articulate, concise and honest. When I went back to my evaluation checklist (which I have documented on my phone), I found that I had overlooked a few important questions and decided to talk to him the next day to ask him more questions. He stumbled on them all. Then I realized he had been asked by many folks the same 7-8 questions that I asked before, so he answered them with aplomb, but questions which he had not encountered before flustered him immensely. I dont have a problem with people not having answers to questions, but he seemed genuinely confused.
I think this field of rapid cognitive evaluation is going to see a lot more research and work being done.