Contrarian vs Consensus: The Nordic VC Playbook (Stine Sørensen, Alliance VC)

I always make the argument of now I work with healthcare technology, right? And there the base systems and the integrations, they are so difficult. So even in Denmark we have five different systems. I think definitely we can create closed loop systems that can do these kind of a little bit more visionary kind of thinking but, but I don't think it's something that you, we will see roll out in the next three to five years.

Welcome to VCE fm. Today we're joined with Stina Mugu Turonson. She's a partner at alliance vc. One of Nordic's work leading early stage funds focused on AI. Stein's journey into venture is anything but typical. A repeat founder and operator, she spent her career at the intersection of deep tech and human impact. From imaging and health tech to AI driven innovation. She's known for challenging the defaults of venture and a world obsessed with Silicon Valley contrarianism. Stein argues that Europe census driven culture plays by a different set of rules. And while most people debate who joined startup board, she asked the tougher question, what when should a board member actually leave? Today we'll dig into both the contrarian versus consensus looks into the Europe's AI boom and why rethinking boards could be the healthiest move a founder makes. So welcome to the show and then Peter's here also. Welcome Peter.

Thanks John.

Before we begin, do you want to like explain your background?

Sure, yeah. So as you said, I started as a founder and operator myself. So my first company was in the imaging space. So for consumer technology that I call acquired and then I sort of ventured into medical imaging. So still working with pixels but in a medical setting, so to say, which is obviously a little bit more difficult. There's a little bit more requirements to those and in that I obviously sort of also got to work with VCs and attract capital myself. So I sort of knew a little bit from the other side of the table what kind of investor I was hoping to meet myself. And that's a little bit what I now a couple of years later is trying to build myself with alliance vc which is a Nordic VC firm. Came out of Norway, then ventured into Sweden and now I joined as a partner two years ago heading up the Danish part of alliance vc. And yeah, so now we just did the first close of our first fund or my first fund just before summer. So it's still a little bit early days on that side. But I have portfolio of my own personal investments and I've also been scouting as well. So I have a portfolio of eight companies and myself as well. So it's also something we discuss a lot is obviously when the market is changing is how do we make decisions and how do we come together and how do you build conviction. And I think this was sort of was brought up the idea of how do you look different even on a European side, and especially in the US as well, of how do we actually make these decisions. Right. And I think it's a. An interesting thing. And I can also already say that I don't necessarily have the answer, but I have at least done some thinking around it.

Okay, we'll get into that in a minute. Can I ask you, is it okay if I ask how large the fund is? Roughly, yes.

So we did a first close of 40 million euros and the target is 100 million euros.

Okay. And this is your first fund. This is not the first fund for alliance vc, right?

No. So for some, it's a front four for alliance as a brand. For two of my partners, it's Font three and for one is fontwo, and for me it's Font one. I'm obviously also the newest to the team and representing the next generation, so to say.

Well, congrats. Let's just highlight a couple of your investments and then let's dive into the topic of the show. Some of your favorite companies are. Well, 1 is 1x Tech, right?

Yes. I mean, obviously I can't take the sort of the pride of having done that investment, but it's, it's obviously out of the Norwegian team. So One X is. Is within humanoid robots. It actually came out of a little village in Norway up in the mountains.

Okay.

And nobody would have thought that that that kind of big company would come out of. Of that little village, but they have actually just flipped to San Francisco and, and there's more than 200 people there, and I think there's 200 people still working in. In Norway as well. So obviously humanoid robots is a little bit of what's on everybody's mind and where we see some very interesting things happening. And again, going to. How did we decide to invest in this kind of company? I think my partner, he told me that we rejected their proposal like five times. And so it took some time before we built the conviction because it was obviously way ahead of things, but with the right time and the right people around, and we obviously came to a consensus around investing in One X. And now it's obviously also a very valuable company in our portfolio.

Yeah, that's awesome. Peter and I have a friend here in Utah who's in stealth mode. But he's making operating systems for robots or that's what he wants to do next. And my thought was yesterday was if I, if I quit everything I was doing and I had to team up with someone else, it might be that, that startup.

Yes. And I have also done a personal investment in. And so they call them also themselves for operating systems for robotic software, but that's more industrial robots and robotic arms and those things. Because if you look at the software and general industry, it is actually very much old school systems and legacy systems that we see in the interface and the software. Even the UI is, is old school. So we will see the next generations of both sort of industry robots, but also humanoids and those things is, is, will go through a lot of change, I would say. So I, I definitely also think that joining that space would make good sense.

Yeah. Do you think we're seeing the, the genesis of silicon based life forms with robots? That they'll become like self aware and independent thinkers?

Well, you should never say no, but I think I always make the argument of now I work with healthcare technology, right. And they are the, even the, the base systems and the integrations they so difficult. So even in Denmark we have five different systems in five different regions that can't even communicate. And, and I always say that I don't think that the such thing will happen anytime soon when you don't have things that can even communicate and share data together. Right. So, so yes, I think at some point but, but I think we have to. I don't like the, the way the vision is put out today. I think you will see it in some closed areas and you would see it in, in certain aspects of things. But I don't think that something that's very general abroad just applied in society, so to say. So I think definitely we can create closed loop systems that can do these kind of a little bit more visionary kind of thinking but, but I don't think it's something that you, we will see roll out in the next three to five years.

What do you think Peter? Are robots going to be the next silicon based life form or the first?

I definitely will have a very interesting place to play in our day to day lives. So yeah, I don't know if I fully believe in the idea of like silicon based life forms per se, but I do think that they will bring a certain level of intelligence and automation to our lives and I'm excited to see what it looks like. I think you know, I would be one of the first people to sign up to have a robot help me with all my household chores. I mean, that sounds amazing. If I could offload a lot of that so that I have more time for things that are more value, creative, more interesting, more fulfilling in my life than doing the laundry or washing the dishes.

Exactly.

So yeah.

And you could be the. You can act as the more intelligent form of life.

Well, go to the gym for me, Stein.

Sorry?

Will it go to the gym for me? The robot?

For sure. I mean, anytime. And you can at least lock your data, so your Strava. Whatever kind of data you need, I guess it can do that on your behalf.

It could be my lifting partner.

Yes. Also because it is very strong. Right. So in that way it should be good for that.

Okay, what about superside.com.

So obviously, in terms of creating marketing materials and automating all of those, I definitely think that. So, so what was interesting with this company was, was obviously that this came before the AI wave was really hitting. So they have been. They had a very early start in both having the data, the workflows, the integrations, the understanding of, of how you were working with this. So, so they have obviously been going for transformation in order to also meet the demand for all these kind of tools. And, and so in that way that has, that has really been. In some cases it was maybe even too early, but then they obviously were ready to hit the ground running when all of the AI applications came out. So they have benefited heavily from that. So that's also a company in our portfolio that we're very proud of, even though it's more of a niche company. So to say they don't get as much attention as 1x because it's more of a, as a more futuristic kind of product. This is just getting your work done. Right.

Are there any companies in your personal portfolio or deals that you've done so far that you are excited about?

Well, I mean, so, yes, but they're still. So, so I mean, when I did my business angel investment, it was obviously very early.

Yeah.

And. And they still need to, to mature in some way. So. So again, going. And I think that's the discussion about, you know, consensus and Contrarian is, you know, how much can you believe in an early stage? And I've even seen some pivots and some even, you know, merging with two other companies. I would say I have a company, it's a very niche, but there is a huge opportunity and they started out with almost just prototyping a product. So this is about patient safeties. To MRI scans and it's very niche and it's not very interesting, but when they made it, they had a hospital said, if you can do this, we would like to buy this. And so they obviously started out with servicing a hospital system which is I have done this myself and it's very difficult to start out with them actually just wanting to buy it. And so they did that. But then the problem was that the product wasn't very big, it was a small product. And then they have been working on how could you enlarge the scope of the product and become more visionary over time. And I think that is an interesting way to go to market. So it's not necessarily so much about the product itself, but then obviously when you didn't start, when you are integrated into the systems at the radiology departments, then you can also much easier actually expand from there. And that's what we have seen now. So I hadn't heard from them from six months and all of a sudden they had a really good projection towards one million euro revenue and they're only one and a half years old or something like that. So I think that's something I'm very excited about because all of a sudden I didn't hear from them and then they came back and they had done really well. So I get excited about those things. But that's not necessarily like solving massive futuristic problems, but it's more like also being very tangible and hands on and actually trying to monetize from some of these opportunities and then enlarging the product scope from there because it's always easier from the inside and when you have paying customers. Right.

I don't know. I think having a company that can get in and sell to what's traditionally a very difficult customer to sell to, like day one is super interesting. Right. And to your point, this incredible land and expand strategy.

Yeah. And I can say that was a little bit what I failed at in my own startup. We were just so focused on building the hardest technical problem we could think of and that was to make a diagnosis on the behalf of a human. Right. And that doesn't sell overnight. So yes, it is actually a sort of a modest way of getting your startup off the ground. Right.

It's like they say, you know, first time founders focus on, you know, product vision, all that stuff. And second time founders think a lot about distribution.

Yes. They need to prove that somebody wants to buy this and if they haven't proved that within a year, they just close it. Right.

Well before we get into the Next question. What was the why? Because a lot of people want to get into alliance or not until I'm sure a bunch of people want to get to alliance vc. But what was the why of why alliance came to you and said, you're our person?

Yeah, so when, when alliance reached out to me, I was actually very hesitant. So because I was not, I was thinking I should do another startup. So I wasn't really ready for it. So I guess I have. I also been scouting for equity ventures and obviously that ranks you among those that has already been preselected to, to maybe look out for interesting companies. And then obviously as some of my other partners, they have been there for, for quite some time and they have more financial background. And we can also see that we need a little bit broader diversity of perspectives, so to say around the table. And as I had just left my company as an operator or as a founder, then that obviously also was quite applicable to sort of complimenting the people around the table at Alliance. So I think that was why they reached out. I was very reluctant because I was thinking for me, VC has always been a little bit of the dark side, so to say. And so. But what was really great was that meeting Norwegian people, that's very much down to earth and it's very close to sort of the foundry ecosystem. And we don't have that many employees at alliance, so we actually only partners. And the deal is that we have to do our own work so that we try to promise that all founders will meet a partner in the first meeting so we can make decisions very fast and we can maybe give them some feedback or connect them to some, so we can also be helpful. And so, so we really tried to live by that. And that was very attractive for me as a founder because that was exactly the kind of investor I would have liked to, to meet in, in the first meeting. And the kind of thinking of going about that you also have to do the work yourself. So we, we obviously that doesn't scale massively, so we don't do that many investments, but we really try to stay close to the portfolio that each partner has so that we can be helpful. But we also know, and that comes back to some of the other things we just, we should discuss here is actually also how much time do we spend with the portfolio and when do we know when it's time to pass on your portfolio and don't necessarily stick around the table, in the board or wherever you want to go or be. So also knowing when is the time to sort of pass on the company to people that has better expertise than yourself. So I think we're very focused on bringing the value in the period of amount of time that is needed. And then we pull back and we watch and cheer for the good portfolio companies.

Okay, well, let's talk about contrarian versus consensus investing. This is something that Peter and I have talked about a lot. We talked about some of our VC friends and like, how they've picked deals. And Peter often says, at least tells me, he says if, if it looks obvious, then it's not going to be the portfolio return, you know, the, the deal that provides the return.

I don't know. Do you want to say anything, Peter, to that one?

I don't know. What do you think? Do you agree? Disagree? I mean, I think there's, there's two sides of looking at it. One is just like John said, like, if everybody thinks it's going to be a great idea, then the price gets bid up super high, lots of competitors enter the space and it's really hard to generate like a true, you know, disruptive company and fund returning investment. Contrarily though, like, you also need companies to be able to raise more money and so you need some level of consensus around like, yes, this is an interesting idea and so that they can raise more and more money and grow and get really big along the like, you know, the blitz scaling playbook that a lot of companies have operated with over the last several years. So I can kind of see, you know, conflicting things where it's like you want to be contrarian, but maybe not too contrarian unless you're a big enough fund that you can just push that thing into success, like maybe a founder's fund. But the rest of us, you know, don't, don't manage billions and billions of dollars. And so there has to be some level of consensus.

I don't know.

What do you think?

Well, I think it's difficult, right, because I think it's also a question of portfolio management. So I think that, so now we just opened our new fund and I think we have to begin with for the next 12 months, we, we have great room to be contrarian and we can sort of try and put some bets on places where we've seen, make sure we put it in different industries and areas and maturity of the companies. And so I feel that right now, because we just opened, it's a good time to be contrarian and to sort of put your bets out there. And then obviously you then need to look for what is then growing and what is meeting the expectations. And then obviously we've also allocated quite some money to follow up on those, so, so that it matures over time and obviously becomes more and more hopefully consensus rather than contrarian. But I think in order to have the big winners, you need to have guts or taking the risk of being a contrarian because otherwise it's so difficult. But again, those who always stand up and say I was the first investor in this and that obviously we know they made a lot of money, but that also only happens every 10 years or something like that. Right. So you also have to do quite a lot of bets. But I still do think that VC is not about making fewer mistakes, it's about finding the right ones. And that speaks to contrarian behavior. But there is actually a good thing, as I see it, at least in the European market compared to the US and that is that we have a lot of small niche markets. So for instance, Denmark, I mean, it's good to look at Denmark from an outside perspective, but for me it's like I can also make a little bit more consensus decisions. But it looks extremely contrarian from your perspective. Right. And that's because I know the people. It's very easy to verify it's not as small as it would be my cousin, most likely, but almost. Right. And that you have knowledge in the market dynamics and those things. So two things that's really big in Denmark is life science and energy. And there is a lot of talent, there's a lot of B2B business, there's a lot of things. So a contrarian decision that will look very weird from the eye to could be almost consensus in Denmark. And that's a little bit what we believe in, in alliance, as we are present in both in Norway, Sweden and in Denmark, that we need to be very close to the market. And then I think us make look like we are contrarians in a bigger perspective, but we feel that we are maybe a little bit consensus. But the good thing is there's not so much competition. So in that way we, we can, we can act as contrarians in a safe space, so to say, because it's a small market. Does it make sense? But, but I think that's, that's at least how we discuss it. And obviously we try to make the benefit out of that and, and to find the, the best ones. And that could look as a contrarian, but it almost feel too comfortable in, in, in this case.

Coming from Scandinavia. So a lot of people, at least outside of Scandinavian, believe that, you know, view Scandinavia as a fairly homogeneous culture. And so I'm curious, like, one, do you believe that? And, and two, like, how does contrarianism, like, fit within that culture? Right, where maybe there are pressures around conformity over contrarianism 100%.

And, and, and so, yeah, I. It is looking from the outside, obviously looking very homogenous. And I think there is. We are also in the bigger scheme of things. But coming from here, there is always things, you think that, you know, it's very different and they can do very different things. We have different perspectives of how we want to work and how we want to do things. And I think that can make it look a little strange from the outside. But I do think that's because I work across Nordics. We see great difference in the Norwegian and the Swedish market. And for some that would just be the same kind of thing. And we look the same, you know, anyway, so you can tell who's who.

Right.

So I think it's also about leveraging these small differences because that's when you can actually get the talent. You can understand the markets before you can scale. But I normally say that as soon as they have gotten an investment from alliance, they need to leave from here because it also gets too nice and too comfortable and it gets too homogeneous, as you say. So I think it's what builds the foundation and what gives the great quality and the way we look at things. But we need to build it, we need to scale out of here relatively fast because otherwise it's too protected in some way and that's not enough, at least for a venture case. And that is an asset class. Right.

And your focus is on scaling out versus moving out.

So. Yeah, I mean, it depends who you ask. Right. So most politicians, both in Norway and Denmark and in Sweden, they obviously want the companies to stay because then they pay taxes. They also have employees and all of those things. But reality is that there are some mechanisms where you actually need to leave. I would say that what I have seen works quite well is so RD and talent is actually much cheaper in the Nordics. It's also because there is a lot of health benefits in society that's free. So there's a lot of. There's a lot of things that you actually save in order to have your company here, but the commercial side and the product development and the international scaling, that definitely needs to happen elsewhere. So I have really seen that there is a good way to keep your R D in the Nordics and then obviously build all of the product development and especially the commercial side of it, so I can't remember the exact ratio, but a lot of the R and D and research that was behind OpenAI actually came from European universities, but nobody ever believed in it. It was not. It was impossible to commercialize. Right. And I think that puts the perfect picture of why Scandinavian or European countries, they need to. They can build and they can do R and D, but we need to leave. Right. So. So I think ideally a little bit of both. Some US investors then obviously would like companies to flip because you also need the IP and everything to be in the us and then that's a good discussion. But. But it's not for me to decide of what a company wants to do as a vc. I would like them to succeed in order of whatever it takes. But. But obviously it's also easier to manage a portfolio that has some activity in the Nordics.

But.

But that's not. We. We don't decide those things.

You were asking a question, Peter, before I cut you off.

Oh, I was just going to say that I've always felt like. So we, we were investors in Spotify and Klarna and I always felt like the, the fact that Scandinavia is kind of homogeneous actually gives them like this. Really. And you even kind of mentioned it, right. Kind of this safe place to build and they can build and achieve like some level of real scale that then becomes this incredible launching pad to go to other countries and, and have kind of that base. I don't know. Do you, do you think that's accurate or is. Is that kind of a false perception of mine?

No, I definitely think it's accurate and I think it has become more accurate with this, you know, having the success of Spotify and Klarna and those Skype in the early days and those things, because that creates the flywheel. So you have the. They come back with the money. Right. So you also see that all of those who then went to the US or elsewhere, they also coming back and they start starting to rebuild the ecosystem. And that's exactly what you want, right? Because you need the talent, you need the money that has some sort of a risk profile to it as well. So. Definitely. And the more of those we can have, the more strong the Nordic ecosystem would also become. And so really now, recently, Daniel Eck, he left Spotify, right? And everybody's just hungry to see what is next because we just want him to stay. We want him to be part of the ecosystem. He's a, he's a royalty in Sweden. Right. So in that sense, it's exactly what we want. And that's also why I'm very eager to see some of these Series A companies that come out of Denmark and Norway and 1x as well. I mean, that creates so much to the flywheel of the Nordics. That is exactly what we need to stand on top of. So 100% and then coming back because it's a little easier, you know, everybody, it's a bit more of a safe space. And if everything goes wrong, not much actually happens. You. The worst thing I always said that as a founder is that you just have to get a real job. So that kind of. I mean the, the unemployment rate in, in Denmark right now is 2.3% or something like that. So it's. If there's actually a shortage of people here. So that's the worst thing that can actually happen. So in that way it also gives a different attitude towards building companies. Right.

It's funny you say that because when we launched our first fund, it was very scary. Right. Because you don't know if you're going to be able to raise money and build a fund. But that's what I told myself is like, well, I guess the downside is I'll just have to get a normal job and that's not so bad.

Exactly. And if that's the worst thing, then I'm here to build companies or build funds or whatever to try to take the risk. Right, Right.

I read something recently that kind of along these same, these same thoughts. The author was basically saying like capital today is pretty much a total commodity. Doesn't always feel that way when you're fundraising, but, you know, probably fairly accurate when you think about how much money is flowing into venture and that the only true thing that differentiates or that a firm can do to differentiate is having courage and conviction on deals. Any thoughts on that? Is do you think commodity is. Or capital is commoditized? I feel like maybe it is in Silicon Valley, but that might be a different story in Europe.

I definitely think it's a different. I mean, as you said, it's difficult to raise a fund. Right. So. And you put a lot of effort and a lot of risk into actually trying to do that. And you put your entire personality into it as well. Right. So it doesn't feel like as such a commodity, but looking at the bigger markets and everything. Yes, it is. But. But if there is also another maybe add to it where it feels more as a commodity and that is we have seen lately that is it, is it 75% of all venture capital goes into 35 very large funds. And for those, I guess that is exactly applicable, that that's, that the capital is just a commodity. Right. But for the rest of us, who, who the rest of the, of us that had needs to fight for the last 35% of the venture capital that's put out there, then I think it's very different and we have to sort of also be even more courageous and we have to take even more risk in order to prove that we are here and we can identify the next winners and we can do those things. Right. But I also do think that with the smaller ones we are closer to the companies and there I also think, and I take that very serious of that. I think we have more of a role to play in order to actually help the companies to succeed with our previous backgrounds and with the network that we have and what we do. So I also feel that the, the commodity is not capital, but it's also maybe in some way expertise or network in some way. Right. So, so that's at least how I see it. But I do feel that the rest of us that has to fight for a very small pocket of money is hard work and not. It doesn't feel like a commodity for me at least.

Sure. So we'd love to double click on this idea that you've talked a lot about around how long should a board member be on the board? When is it time to roll off? Why do you think that? We really rarely talk about when board members should leave, even though it's often a harder problem.

Yeah, well, I mean, I think it's, it's, if you look at things that is changing. So, so there's a lot of movement now in sort of the entire industry and things is happening much faster, companies is happening much faster and all of those things. And that also shows that is faster than we actually think. The expertise that you surround yourself with come becomes redundant earlier than you think. So, so, and, and a board seat has, has, has normally had a tendency to think that that's something that lasts very long. And historically you, you sit on boards for quite some time. So, so I think that this is the beginning of that. We need to make ourselves a little bit more open towards can these things change faster where it doesn't necessarily look bad on the company. Right. So, so, so that also that they can change the, the amount of or the, the, the exact expertise that they need. Because I, I fundamentally believe that execution is, is when you invest in early stages is very, very important. And the More people you can have around you to actually fuel that. Then, then you also set out to, to become successful, I would say. But then also acknowledging that some board member that you had and that expertise and when you have unlocked that nine months later you need something else. Right. Then it's new challenges, new problems, new markets, new products. I don't know. So. So for me it's just about opening up the discussion around what is it that we default think a board member should do. And then it's sometimes an awkward discussion to have because I have tried it and I have had my own board and I have also been, I sit on, on quite a few boards already and I just think it's very healthy to ask every time you leave the board if that you have contributed with something valuable or. And if they have the right people in the room and that we're not necessarily so good at. And also as investors. So even though you have legal right to sit there, I still think that founders should think of that. That can also be changed because the legal right is only there because it was put in writing. So you can also think of that if you do your next financing round or if you actually need different capabilities around the table. You also can openly ask the question, is this enough for us to succeed? Right. So I just think it's time to also, with all of the men and requirements and the speed in the market and AI technology and all of those things, we also need to fundamentally question is the board that is, that is sort of the heart of the company to some extent also set up to actually act toward that with that speed. So to say. Right.

Do you think about the difference between an advisor and a board member? Because I think some people would push back, some venture investors would push back and say, well, it's not really the place of the board member to be providing a lot of, you know, strategic or executive support to the, the founder. Our job is more to, you know, hold the founder accountable, protect the shareholders, that sort of thing. And a lot of VCs as you know, right. Are resident to give up their, their board position because it allows them some level of protection. Protection and control over their investment.

Yeah. And obviously then you would have a legal discussion how that is defined. But fundamentally you have information rights. So fundamentally you can always look into things and see how things is going on. I feel that most of that governance, you can easily handle that by email. So it's approving budgets, it's approving plans and those things. And I also seen a shift in what's actually happening in the boardroom is, is discussing visions and is it more about where do we, what are the challenges that we need to overcome and where do you need help with those things. And I believe at least the more you can approve and the more you can do of pre work over email before you meet in the room so we would have time to discuss these things is exactly the kind of oversight or the control that you would like to do. So personally I'm not so nervous for that will go away because you will always have right for information as a shareholder. Right. But, but I do think again that investors should also ask themselves of how do they spend the right time in, in doing this and what is it actually that the company needs. And yes then you can also have advices and, and they're obviously also really great. But you do still have a legal right and you have more of a role, active role to play because you have stake in this that you I also think you can drive the company in the right direction. So, so yes I think advisory board is very great but they only pick up the phone when you call them. Right. So they are there to sort of just give advice so to say. Whereas also those who sit on the board have much more at stake and I think that also gives a very different dynamic. And that's also why I'm thinking that there is sometimes more better ways to just step aside and cheer rather than trying to keep the control or trying to ask the questions that doesn't necessarily benefit the company so to say. So I'm not saying one or the other. I'm just saying I really think that in these times it's very healthy to try and, and, and think a little bit about that on how you act in these positions. Because I, I, I see the sometimes the, the, the less you you speak to them the, the more I think that they are executing.

Right.

And that's exactly what you want obviously when they be they venture on to sort of a series A and series B and those you obviously also have much bigger objects. So this is also in the earliest stage of a company where we need to execute. And that's fundamentally what I believe in. So how do you set the scene for that? And there I sometimes just don't think a board with a lot of people sitting around the table trying to just control the company is exactly what it needs. So that's a little bit what I'm trying to sort of open up for if there could be other ways to do that. And I've just seen that those companies that is executing really well, they don't need much help anyway.

Times. Right, that's right. That's right. The best, the best deals I've ever been in are the ones that need the least amount of my help and the place I spend most of my time is the ones that are struggling.

Right, exactly. But, but I also think as an investor is like. And again, if you don't hear from them, then I trust that it's because they are busy doing things. But I also think that you as the quality you have as an investor is obviously also how much do they, they call you? And not only because it's. They're in deep or something like that, but it's more like that's that it's also what I can contribute with and I put a pride in. And when founders call me, it's also because I have something that they need and I would rather they call me than I call them because for me it's more about. I would ask how is it going or what happened with this thing and numbers and things and these trivial questions. Whereas they would call me. They would, they probably have something we need to solve quite fast. So I also like to value my, myself as an investor as how much do they contact me? And sometimes it's a bit just small things, luckily and not big things.

So I'm curious, when you roll off of a board as a board member, are you giving up the firm's seat or do you replace yourself with somebody like you may, your firm retains the seat, but you put somebody in that you think is more, more strategically helpful that may not be a member of your firm. Right. Might be a venture partner or a advisor or what have you or something.

Yeah. So that, that really varies a lot. Right. So one thing is that if it matures quite a lot, then we would maybe turn it into an observer seat so that we can join if we need. So obviously as you said, you still would like to have some sort of a sense of how it's going and then where is things heading and if it's much later on, then you will also see that early investors, they then together hold one seat and then that can take turns. Let's say we are three early stage funds that gets one seat together and then we can take turns in filling up that one seat and then obviously there is more later on. Or if it's, if it's a series B and beyond, we will, we could also just step out so we don't. I mean whatever it takes for the company to succeed. I mean, I also think that that one of the great milestones of a company is if they raise a big Series A or B round. And. And for that I also think that I. I have not, so to say personally had a lot of experience with Series B rounds. So I also don't think that I have much to contribute with and I would trust that investor. So I also think it's. There is time to leave and to stand on the side and cheer for the rest of the way. But, but obviously you would always have the information rights. But I also think that you also need to know when you dismissed in some way, if you can say it like that. But, but so yeah, I think it's very. It's very different depending on the company and what kind of money they raise and where they hit. Right. Because also if they are flipping to the U.S. for instance, I don't think I have much to do there because. Because even though I had a company in Texas, I don't think I am the most clever person in the room for these kind of operations. So I would very much trust a US investor to do this. Right.

Yeah.

So, yeah, I think it's also a matter of trust actually that if the company has come so far, then it's just about hoping for the best at some point also. But sometimes you see especially for those that does really well, there's also a little bit of a FOMO and a thing of that you like to stay on. But I also think it's about to know when you can't help them anymore and then you continue to have a good relationship with the founders as well.

Yeah, it's kind of checking your ego. John, I'm curious what your perspective is for more of the founder operator side of board members. Like what's their role? And do you like this idea of them swapping out? Because maybe there's something there too around, like. No, I like having this person with me along the ride for the long run. Right. I don't know. What are your thoughts?

I think as a founder you always want to control the deck in your hand. Right. Like you want to control the cards, like what's happening. I think most board members, it's very hard to like control or swap or find better fit. As I look at my own career, I wonder if I would have had board members if it would have held me more accountable as a founder. I think that's probably the biggest. I think that the moments where I perform the best is where I'm under the most pressure. And when you don't have a board who can remove you, it sometimes changes the entire tone of the company. It's like the silent whip.

I think it's also very important to distinguish between where you as a founder you own the majority of the company and whereas what is the voting rights? What are the dynamics in the board? So I think that's very important. But I also think that sometimes swapping one or two persons out of the board, something entirely new can happen. And if you should think of that a board is an asset to a startup and to a company in order for them to succeed, then I also think that the dynamic there could be a little different. But obviously you take some risk and in changing those because they do have voting rights and there are obligations in those things. But I still think as long as you sort of hold some sort of the majority of the company among the founders, I also think you have a lot to win in that sense. But also just thinking of that the board member is, you can always kick them out, so to say, especially the external appointed ones. And not knowing this, every those who is appointed from an investor side, you can always ask for somebody else. If it's a big VC firm, there is a lot of people there. And I also think a founder should be very open about that. You could actually ask for that person to be replaced. So it's also just an invitation to founders to think of that the board is not necessarily a static thing. And I think the dynamic should also be sometimes that the invention of the board comes most often from VCs meaning that it's the VCs that wants to boards. So if you didn't show up to a board meeting and then the investors is not really prepared or they ask stupid questions, I also think that the founder should know that you can always put that back to the investor and say you are the one that wanted this. So I'm expecting that you come here fully prepared and that you know all of these things. And I sometimes think founders forget that kind of dynamic, that they didn't invent this, but they have to do all the work. Right? Obviously for good reason. But I also think that there is just some of the mindset around this. I think founders should also be a little bit more open towards to see there can be other ways to go about it. But yeah, I mean I can also say I've sat on some boards for quite some time because I've had the founder's perspective and I always was favorizing the founders. So that made me stay for quite some time. And in the end I had to say that I think it's time for me to leave now because it has grown out of my sort of expertise, so to say. But so in that way, John, I fully hear what you say, that that's the comfort and the security and that there are people that will have your back. Right.

How do you advise a founder to ask a board member to be replaced without offending the board member?

So I'm glad you're asking because I thought a lot about that and I think there's a very strong, specific way to do so, and that is assessment, a general assessment of what kind of competences do you need for the next 12 months for the company to succeed. And there you just list all of the companies that you or the. The qualifications that you need. You. You then have. Do you have the qualifications in the founding team? Do you have it as advisors? What do you have in the board? And you decide on which com, which competences do you want in each place and then you can assess the board members. And most often because you want a. A board member to leave is because they don't hold the com. The competences for the future, so to say. So I think that you can go very strategically and objectively towards this with assessing competences and perspectives on this. And so in that regard, I actually think that is the best way to start that kind of conversation. But I also think that again, as a board member, as I said before, I think you're also obliged to ask the founding team or the management team is, do I bring what you need and is it the best to spend a use of our time, so to say. So I do think it goes both ways. But also in boards you also have where you do reviews of how did it go and these things. And I think that's an invitation to also reflect on is it time to leave? I would also say that as a founding team, you can also use the chair to start, facilitate this discussion. It's obviously a little uncomfortable, but I think that's exactly what you have a chair for, is to ask. Start asking that kind of question of how do you see your role in the future for this, especially with what is ahead of us next 12 months sheet is for me the best thing to start that conversation.

Yep. I also think if you can hold the board members accountable in advance, it's not way that like it creates the, it creates the tone. This is what you're supposed to do. This is what I'm expecting from you versus it just Being a random convo and.

Exactly. And so bringing it up, being like, I don't think you fit anymore, that has never really been a good way to do it anyways. Right. But I also think in the sense of that if they're really good at communicating around what is ahead of us the next 12 months or 24 months, then it also is very visible of that if you hold the competences, then from a general perspective, I also think that the. The boards I'm on and where I contribute the most with my expertise is obviously also where I have a great time. So I also think it's about also thinking of where is it you actually spend your time wisely. That's obviously maybe a little bit more difficult to sort of realize that yourself. But I would say that that also comes very natural. And when you have that discussion, if you don't contribute so much, I also think it's natural that you afterwards can actually see that that was right. I hope so. At least.

Those are all very, very solid points.

Yeah.

Well, as we're about to wrap this up, are there any other topics or points you think we should cover or bring up?

What's that for me as we're about.

To wrap up this podcast? Because we're about. At the hour. Mark, are there any point, any other topics you'd like to cover?

No, I think we touched upon it in terms of. It's difficult in these times. Times where you have to make contrarian decisions and you still have to make them succeed. And then there's a lot of things that can influence that. So. So I think. I think it's a. It's. It's difficult and it's a. It's a little lonely these times to be the contrarian because you have to take a lot of. You have to take a lot of risk. But I also think there's a lot of opportunity there. So. So I'm happy to stay a little bit on that side and, and help in the best way I can. So. No, I think we came around it very well.

I think just bringing it full circle. You know, we talked earlier about some of Alliance's top deals that today seem obvious, but at the time were anything but right. Both superside and 1x and like the level of conviction that was required especially for a robot company before anybody was talking about robots. I think, you know, it comes back to that whole idea of like, yeah, if you want to be. You want to be contrarian early, but hopefully in something that becomes consensus because that robot company is going to need a lot of capital to achieve its long term vision.

Right, exactly. And I think it's the thing, I don't know where I read it, but I think it sort of sums it up that you need to build a non consensus company, but you need to speak to a consensus way to investors. Right? Yeah, so, so I think that's also a little bit of how you do it and how do you communicate around it so that you say the right things that investors want to hear, but you still do the non consensus part.

Right.

So I think that's put quite well that that's, that's how founders should go about it. Learn to speak the VC and still do the great things they're doing.

Right.

And rest assured that they're onto something.

Yeah, yeah. And you know, look, I mean, everybody likes to tout the winners, but there's a lot, you know, being contrarian means that you're going to have a lot of losses too where you don't get it. Right. And you know, I think that's one of the things that's, that could be challenging to get comfort with, but is, you know, just a big part of being a VC and being.

I have a, I have a founder that, that went bankrupt, but I still believe so much in him that I had lunch with him the other day and said, please tell me when you come building your next company, because I still believe in him. So I also think that even though it didn't go well, I still think there is some contrarian perspective there. So in that way you can still believe in the people, right?

Yep. I think that's honestly one of the things that I love about venture and startups and entrepreneurship is that there is room for mistake and failure in a way that doesn't exist in other areas of society. And there's always an opportunity to, or there's at least more of an opportunity to fix your mistakes, get back on your feet and try again.

Exactly.

Stein, it was so wonderful to have this conversation with you. Thank you so much for joining us.

Well, thank you. It was my pleasure.

You're, you're amazing. And if you want to learn more about what Stein is doing, you can go to alliance vc. And if someone wants to get in contact with you, what's the best way through the website, through.

Yes, I try to answer all my emails. It doesn't work all the time, but yeah, so you can reach me at stina, at alliance vc. So yeah, I try, but.

All right, well, thanks. Thanks everyone.