I have no idea what A16Z's returns for their LPs are across their funds, but this could literally be right out of a movie script.
**SCENE**
GENERAL PARTNER is chatting with potential LIMITED PARTNER
over cocktails.
LP: The fund you're raising... the thesis, it's...
interesting. You've done a great job with your last
three funds. But I've read similar things from
Andreessen's team that make me think they have a
better grasp of the space - wouldn't my money be
better invested with them?
GP smirks and calmly reaches towards MARTINI GLASS,
casually picking the toothpick, olive still attached,
between her thumb and index fingers. She places the olive
between her teeth to the side of her mouth, grasps, and
pulls the olive off the toothpick in one swift motion.
She carefully places the toothpick in a napkin, stares LP
in the eye, and pauses just a moment before aggressively
biting down. She finishes chewing without breaking eye
contact.
GP: Ah. Yes, they do market themselves as visionaries.
It's completely intentional. They're fantastic at
marketing, PR, and brand building. In less than a
decade, while generating very unimpressive returns,
they've built one of the strongest VC brands in the
world. They're phenomenal at it. They do it so well
that they make it look easy, but it's not at all.
LP: So if I'd like to make money...
GP: You got it. How much are you in for?One of the most prominent managers local to me (worth $150-200m, probably one of the wealthiest people in my country) only has one senior manager, apart from that...just grads. The product is terrible but is designed for a certain market that is growing rapidly and is naturally doing very very well. This is true of all of the largest fund managers local to me: always distribution first, thinking about who is going to buy, and what they care about (i.e. US pension fund, superannuation, etc.).
Even worse, I have come across more than one manager who was clearly very +EV but either couldn't raise money or went out of business because they weren't selling the right product at the right time. Most good managers do stay in business but not all. And if you don't have good distribution, you won't survive no matter what returns you have.
Why? My current theory is that people have rigid ideas about how to make money. Profit doesn't matter: it is about validating an idea or opinion of themselves. I suspect that the VC world is no different. I know nothing about a16z apart from their "reputation": very influential, whizzy VC firm, and very safe intellectually. They are the archetype VC firm, this is what VC investing is, you can lose money but you won't lose face.
It's ultimately content marketing for a16z. If Chris Dixon wrote this same article—e.g. "Here are all of the best things I've said"—then it would come off as arrogant or ickily self-promotional. But having someone else write it allows the author to praise the ideas without the same stigma.
I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but it's interesting how well the content comes across when the base idea ("writing about smart things our partner was right about") is the type of marketing companies/VCs _want_ to actually say but social norms prevent.
The article itself is an example of the advice within the article. A "good idea that people think is a bad idea."