Charles Hudson argues that venture capitalists get more credit for backing famous founders than quietly profitable companies. "Born unicorns" now start with billion-dollar valuations based on founder reputation alone, while strong performers without celebrity status stay invisible to investors and LPs.
Chapters
I think right now, if I said, what's more valuable to you as a fund manager, a company that is performing well that no one's heard of, or a company that is well known where no one has any idea if it will work, I would argue right now you get much more credit for being in a frontier research lab where nobody knows what the product is, but that the founders are noteworthy. And, you know, some of these companies are unicorns from day one because they start life at a billion-dollar valuation and you're like, oh, I'm this unicorn. I'm like, well, yeah, you invested at a billion dollars. Like it wasn't like you wrote it up. You invested a billion. Born as a unicorn. It was born unicorn, a bornicorn or whatever you wanna call it. And I think we have companies in our portfolio that are doing great, but they're either off theme, off trend, or the other investors in that cap table are not noteworthy. And I meet with LPs and they're like, oh, that's interesting. And then I'll tell 'em, oh, this other company we have, I have many questions about it, but it has these fancy investors as co-investors, and it has these fancy founders with these great backgrounds.