How I Invest with David Weisburd - E46: Atul Rustgi of Accolade on What is LP Value-Add and Can it Lead to Alpha?

Episode Date: February 29, 2024

Atul Rustgi sits down with David Weisburd to discuss his role as a GP & LP, the paradoxes of selling and building relationships in VC, and the strategy of focusing on funds under $100 million. They also delve into including biotech as a diversification strategy, the importance of blockchain and crypto exposure, family office investments, and the challenges and rewards of raising a fund during a market downturn.

So at the GP level, very simply put, we try to be a sounding board. Calls on nights and weekends where the GP might not be comfortable bringing the topic to the broader LP base or the LPAC initially can be anything around portfolio issues, maybe partnership dynamics, LP dynamics. You just want to be a thought partner, a sounding board. So that's one big thing we do at the GP level. Second, we'll make LP intros. If one of our GPs wants to diversify their LP base, we've been more than willing,

and we've done this a number of times, of introducing our own LPs that want direct access to our GPs wants to diversify their LP base, we've been more than willing, and we've done this a number of times of introducing our own LPs that want direct access to our GPs. And the GPs really appreciate that because one, we've vetted them that they're a trusted LP, but they appreciate that we're willing to open up our LP base to them. You know, third thing we do at the GP level is. For more ideas on how to raise venture capital in this market, make sure to subscribe below. Welcome to 10X Capital Podcast. Thank you very much. Happy to be here.

You've been at Accolade for 16 years, but tell me about the evolution, how you came to be an LP at Accolade. It was a very random walk. I worked at McKinsey before here, and one of my colleagues joined another fund of funds while we were working together. That really just opened my eyes to the whole endowment foundation world, the fund of funds world. And I thought it would be just a great place to be at because you get to see so many different strategies, sector stages. And I thought just intellectually it'd be fascinating to be part of. I knew nothing about venture investing, PE growth investing. I knew nothing about fund of funds, but I learned on the job. And I joined at a very interesting time. I joined in 2007. So for like the first year, the world seemed pretty normal. We were fundraising like normal, allocating capital like normal. And then the credit crisis hit. And then the world obviously changed from the private markets perspective. But it was a great learning experience. And so, yeah, I've now been here 16,

17 years. Love it. You almost started at the very bottom of the market. You mentioned there was learnings in between in 2008. What exactly did you learn? Did you overlearn? More than anything, this job has taught me patience because even when you invest in a fund, you know, it's not like a sporting event where you get the score, you know, two, three hours later. I mean, when you invest in a venture fund or even a PE growth fund, it can take five to 10 years to really know if you made the right decision and what the returns will be. My time is really allocated between finding new GPs and GP relationships and also fundraising. Even on the fundraising side, that's a very patient business, particularly in a down market. I mean, there are many people in 08, 09 that I started having a relationship and dialogue with that didn't come into our funds

until five, 10 years later. So I think starting at the bottom, being humbled and just, you know, really have to hustle and work hard was a great starting point. If you think about during COVID, funds were raising on a yearly basis. Due diligence was, you know, very quick. I got the time in 08, 09 to really understand the industry, really understand GPs and really understand, you know, how I thought the industry worked and how we would play in that. You mentioned you're also build relationships with LPs because you're fund-to-funds. I think a lot of GPs forget that, that you also have your own LPs. Tell me about your sales process from start to finish. I don't pitch people. I have a conversation with them. I talk about who we are,

what we do, why we do it. And I'd like to believe it comes off very genuine, where you're not getting just a standard sales pitch, you're getting my opinion. And if that jives with you, if it resonates with you, those types of folks are interested in what we're doing and we'll invest. When I first started off, it was very robotic, very, I think, rigid because I really didn't understand the industry perfectly well. And now 16 years where I truly do have opinions, it's much more of a conversation with LPs. And I'd like to believe that resonates better. One of the paradoxes of selling is that it's much easier to sell when you don't have that need, when you don't have that scarcity.

You know, talking to LPs is not just when you're fundraising. You know, we cultivate these relationships off cycle. And those sometimes are the best because they know you have nothing for them to invest in. So it truly is a conversation. And I think that really helps build those relationships. Tell me about the product market fit for who should be in a fund like Accolade. So a lot of people feel like it's based on size, that if I'm above a certain size, you know, 500 million, a billion plus in AUM, that I should just go direct. I believe the metric should be, do you have the right access? And do you have the right

bandwidth to get that access? You know, if you're a small entity and you can get access to the best funds, then go direct. And if you have the team and bandwidth to do it. If you're a multi-billion dollar entity and you don't have the right access. Let me push back on it a little bit. VC is known as an access class, not an asset class. But I think that primarily comes down to the known, you know, the Sequoias and the Founders Fund. But at the early stage, it's not just about access. A lot of LPs could get access. It's about

being able to pick the winners. How much of investing into emerging managers is about access versus how much of it is about wherewithal and bandwidth? With emerging managers, many of them are raising very small funds, $50, $100 million in size. And even though they're emerging, if they have, you know, good track record, good pedigree, a good thesis, they're hard to get into. And many times, if you're not in fund one, the access gets even harder. So even with the smaller funds, more emerging funds, you know, finding, getting access to the right managers can be difficult. And many of these stay small. I mean, we have a number of funds that have been sub-hundred for multiple fund cycles. So they might let in one new LP.

You've been at Accolade for over 16 years, which is amazing. Tell me about how the entire industry has evolved over 16 years. I mean, it's just much bigger, more depth, you know, very broad. I mean, when we started, when I started at Accolade, you know, seed wasn't even a thing, you know, there were a few hundred firms, you know, now there are thousands of firms, seeds, you know, there's so many seed funds out there and there's just a lot more focus on it. I mean, when you go through the nice run we've gone through since 08 to 2021, a lot of people are just now more focused on it because they underperformed their peers if they had no

venture allocation. Even in 2021, we were getting cold emails saying, I have no venture exposure. You know, can we talk? And these are literally cold emails going to our info at accoladepartners.com address. So I think there's just a lot more eyes, a lot more dollars, way more funds. It's much more efficient and competitive than it's ever been. By some counts, there's up to 3,000, 4,000 emerging managers, although that's contracted in the last year. How do you process that many a firm? Our thesis is let's focus on funds under 100 million in size where they're getting high ownership. And that can be anywhere from 10 to 15%. That is a nice filter to allow us to focus. And so why do we do that? I mean, we did an analysis that if you look at the top 5, 10 firms,

they quite regularly, every fund cycle can get 5 to 10 unicorns. That allows them based on their fund size to get 3x net funds. If they were getting one or two, the math just does not work given their fund size. And then we looked at the premier seed funds and they're getting maybe one to two unicorns every cycle. So there, what the math that works from our perspective is if you have a smaller fund size under 50, under a hundred, where you're getting 10 to 15% ownership, you know, one to two unicorns can get you not only just a 3x fund, but a 5x net fund. And we've been fortunate to see, you know, 10x funds, 20x funds in our portfolio. Can you walk me a little bit through that math?

If you have a billion dollar exit and you have 5% ownership, again, assuming no dilution, we know there's always dilution, that only returns half of $100 million fund. Now, if your goal is to get a 3x net or a 5x net, you need six of those or more. Now, you could get a deck of corn. It doesn't have to just be a billion, but just the math gets harder and harder. And so from our standpoint, to make the odds in your favor, assuming you're a credible GP with a good track record, good deal flow, you're optimizing your chances of having a great fund by having a reasonable fund size with high ownership. It also allows you to have consistency over fund cycles, right? So yeah, maybe one fund, you find a company that's 5 to 10 billion, then you have like a 5 to 10x fund, but is that repeatable? Can you do that in fund two? So you have some LPs that say it only matters power laws.

It only matters about that one company that goes to $10 billion. A more nuanced view, which is kind of that one fund will get you 2x your fund, but you need the other 2x from your other, you know, 20 companies and together you'll get a 4x. Do you see kind of the fund portfolio working together to achieve a 3, 4, 5x? It can vary, right? I mean, we've had some funds where it literally is one or two companies drive 90% of the value.

And you have others where it's exactly what you described. You know, one or two companies might get you two to three X and then the rest of the portfolio through just modest exits will get you to that, you know, four to five X level. So it's not one way or the other. It's, you see both of those. You have a very concentrated strategy of roughly 14 to 15 managers per vintage.

What's the strategy behind that? It's exactly the same approach as we look at small funds and ownership, right? You want individual companies to move the needle. And at the fund to funds level, we want the same thing. So our strategy typically has 15 to 20 line items, each one of our fund to funds. And we just did the math on what it takes to move the needle. If you do the math, that's about four to 500 companies in the portfolio. And if you're concentrated, not only do individual managers and funds move the needle, but individual companies. And our second fund to funds, the top 10 companies return more than paid in capital.

So more than the whole fund, just 10 companies out of 500. In our third fund, they returned almost three times the fund out of, again, 10 companies out of 500. And so if you're concentrated, not only do individual funds move the needle, but individual companies do. I think LPs have an inefficient obsession

over diversification via fund to funds. You mentioned you have 14 to 15 managers. Let's say even at the minimum, they have 20 funds. That's roughly 20 companies per fund to funds. You mentioned you have 14 to 15 managers. Let's say even at the minimum, they have 20 funds. That's roughly 20 companies per fund of 300. You're probably closer to the 500 that you mentioned. We've tried to be very disciplined on our fund size too. You know, particularly during COVID,

we had way more interest than we thought was optimal. And so it took self-discipline to say, we're going to cap this fund based on portfolio construction. So yeah, I mean, the beta has been nice over the past 10, 15 years. Alpha is even better. So I mean, that's what gets us excited. You mentioned the evolution from fund one to fund two and fund three. From a purely alpha standpoint, let's not talk about diversification and let's not talk about career risk. Would you rather have a fund of just all first-time funds given kind of

the positives and negatives? And what are the tradeoffs between investing into first time funds versus second and third vintages? I don't think you'd want to fund a fund of funds of just all first time funds because there is a persistence in the market. So if you had success, that success feeds on itself where you get increasingly better deal flow. You're also just a better investor by fund two and three. Like you've made a lot of mistakes. You get more and more pattern recognition. So for us, we try to have a nice balance of emerging funds, yet established ones.

I mean, there's some firms we're with, like Excel and Andreessen, that we've been with them, you know, five to 10 funds. There are pros and cons to both. Warren Buffett is famous for saying that the real cost of investment is this opportunity cost. And we think about risk return a lot, right? I mean, you only have 24 hours in a day, you have a limited amount of capital. Where's the best place to put that?

The pro emerging manager venture camp would say the symmetry is in the venture capital camp. So you might get kind of smoothed out returns on the growth side, but on the early stage, you will get those 5, 10, 20X returns that you mentioned earlier. To get above a 5X on the PE growth side is rare. We've seen it. We've experienced it. But it's very rare. Whereas on the venture side, there's more of an ability to do that.

What about biotech? Have you guys looked at biotech as another way to diversify and or generate alpha? Yeah. So it's a part of our portfolio. So our portfolio construction typically is 75%, 80% tech, and then the balance is healthcare. And the healthcare can be a mix. On the venture side, it's very much biotech life sciences. On the PE growth side, it can be healthcare services or healthcare IT. So yes, that does provide a nice diversification, both again, from a liquidity standpoint, the IPO market and biotech can be very different than traditional tech. Let's jump to LPGP relationships. You mentioned it's good for GPs to build a reservoir of goodwill with LPs. Obviously you have your own LPs as well. What did you mean by that? Well, look, this is a relationship business. And so, you know, it's very important that both parties feel like you're in a very good partnership.

So we think it's very important for, you know, GPs to build goodwill with LPs. Also, you know, there's going to be bad times within, you know, a firm's history. And so, you know, having that partnership where both people feel valued, I think is very important because it can get you through the downtime. We also do that, right? I mean, we do a lot to make sure that we kind of can separate ourselves from other LPs so that there's goodwill from their side as they're raising subsequent funds. They might be oversubscribed. And just to ensure our ability to get our pro rata, many times we get super pro rata in subsequent funds. So look, this is a relationship game. It's not transactional. I don't think GPs should try to extract every ounce of value from LPs, nor should

LPs try to do that from GPs. You you know there should be a great kind of constructive partnership between lps and gps over 12 15 years there's probably been probably going to be 10 or 10 or 12 like different power shifts through different market cycles somebody asked me a question recently like what if what are you learning from your managers in this environment and i said i learned a lot more during covet i learned how they acted and when money was free, what was their pacing? What type of valuations did they pay? What discipline did they have?

How did they treat us? And now we're in a very different market where fundraising is very tough. And so both sides remember how- Yeah, and I'll ring that bell. In our pre-interview call, you mentioned some of the other value adds that you talk around around vendors and being a partner anchor. Talk a little bit about that.

We want to be more than just a source of capital and be a financial partner. We like to be a thought partner, a value add partner. And from the investing side, that helps because one, you can actually help the portfolio. But two, as I mentioned earlier, as these firms raise subsequent funds, and many times if you pick right, they're oversubscribed and you want to maintain your allocation or increase it on a percentage basis, we do try to add value. And I like to describe it, we add value at the GP level, but also at the portfolio level.

So at the GP level, very simply put, we try to be a sounding board. You know, calls on nights and weekends where the GP might not be comfortable bringing the topic to the broader LP base or the LPAC initially. It can be anything around portfolio issues, maybe partnership dynamics, LP dynamics. You just want to be a thought partner, a sounding board. So that's one big thing we do at the GP level. Second, we'll make LP intros. If one of our GPs wants to diversify their LP base, we've been more than willing, and we've

done this a number of times, of introducing our own LPs that want direct access to our GPs. And the GPs really appreciate that because one, we vetted them, they're a trusted LP, but they appreciate that we're willing to open up our LP base to them. Third thing we do at the GP level is provide deal flow. Also, we'll make reference calls for them. If they want us to talk to a company or an LP, we will do reference calls on their behalf. You were mentioning best practices, particularly for emerging managers. They might not know what best practice is for back office, et cetera. And so given we've seen hundreds of firms, we've vetted out who we think the best vendors are. We will basically hand that over to them and say, based on our assessment and our history, these are the firms

you should be talking about. We'll make introductions ourselves to them to help accelerate the process. And so we can help accelerate their process from being emerging to institutional. What might take one or two funds to get to, we can help get them there at the beginning of a fund or by the middle of the fund. So those are things we do at the GP level. At the company portfolio level, we'll make customer intros, we'll make intros to recruiting talent, and they appreciate that. You've been in this business for 16 years. Certainly you've had some opportunity costs. You've been able to join other industries.

Why are you so passionate about being an LP in VC funds? The one thing that's kept me doing what I'm doing is just the team I have and the people I work with. You know, I've known my colleagues, again, there's been no turnover at the partnership level. We've been together now 15 plus years. I just love working with the people I work with. Throughout my whole career, even before I always picked projects or places based on the people. So full stop, that's the number one reason. But on the industry side, it's just, we're at the forefront of innovation. We'll continue our interview in a moment after

a word from our sponsor. Most businesses use up to 16 tools to hire, manage, and pay their workforce, but there's one platform that's replaced them all. That's Deal. D-E-E-L. Deal is the all-in-one HR and payroll platform built for global work. Smartest startups in my portfolio use Deal to integrate HR, payroll, compliance, and everything else in a single product. Focus on what you do best. Scale your business and let Deal do the rest. Deal allows you to hire, onboard, and pay talent in over 150 countries, from background checks to built-in contracts.

You can manage the entire worker lifecycle from a single and easy-to-use interface. Click the link in the show notes below to book a free, no-strings-attached demo with Deal today. You know, we see things years before the general public does. I mean, even things like blockchain, we were looking at, you know, in 2016, 17 and 18, way before it became mainstream. And so, you know, it might sound crazy what you're looking at and seeing when you talk to your friends and family about it, but you're, you're really seeing the best part of, you know, the U S and the world at hand. Like you're seeing technical innovation.

You're seeing just this great energy of people trying to solve big problems. And it's really rewarding when you see them succeed. So I just I love this job. You're in venture, private equity, growth, biotech and crypto. Tell me at a high level. And this is all in like a specific it's all in one vehicle, like basically a separate vehicle. So our blockchain investments are in a vehicle? Separate vehicle. So our blockchain investments are in a separate vehicle. Got it.

Healthcare is throughout the venture and PE growth side, but blockchain is a separate vehicle. We thought about putting it into our other fund of funds, but we thought, and this was back in 2019 when we decided to raise something dedicated in the space. And we understood that there was a lot of pushback and not a lot of people understood what blockchain was. So we didn't want to deter people from our other fund to funds where they knew, I mean, it's almost rinse and repeat. We haven't changed the strategy of those. We didn't want to introduce something new. And we're like, if somebody really does want blockchain, then they can invest in the blockchain fund to funds. Is there any rational reason not to have one to up to 5% in blockchain crypto as a personal

portfolio strategy? I'm biased, but I think everybody should. I tell all my friends and family, you should have some exposure. We believe, again, we could be wrong, but we hope we're right that this is the next wave. I think between blockchain and AI, these are the two next big waves of innovation over the next 10, 20 years. So I think you should have exposure to both. I'm not saying back the truck up, but I think it's reasonable to have 5% exposure there.

I mean, if it does a five to 10 X, it will be nice. It'll be meaningful. And I do think these are two areas that will compound over the next 10, 20 years. So I think it will even do better than that. So I think it's reasonable. I think people get into this analysis paralysis where they're like,

should I put 90% of my money in crypto or should I not do it at all? And I think the rationale- Just start with 5%. Yeah, 5% tops. Honestly, even 2, 3% exposure into something obviously like a Bitcoin or Ethereum or the Yon would return your fund many times over,

return your first- If you're an individual, I think just doing Bitcoin ETH is very reasonable. That's like buying the FANG stocks, right? If you want to take higher risk with higher upside, then you invest in the private markets. But 5%, if it goes to zero, you'll still live another day. And if 5%, again, is a 5X or 10X, it's going to move the needle for you. So I think it's reasonable. So let's back up a little bit. You mentioned you do LP intros. So you basically will anchor and or invest in a fund and do LP intros. Is there a planned obsolescence? Are you basically saying, hey, you know, California pension fund, you're going to give me $100

million over five funds. And then at some point, you're going to go direct. How do you provide value to your LPs without putting yourself out of business? That's a great question. I think that's the biggest concern people have when they go down this path. That has never happened to us. And the big reason is they, again, value that partnership, that we're an extension of their team. So they might view us as like the core of their allocation,

but they can build direct access around us. So if we do our job right, that we should not be, they should not pass on us, that they will value our partnership and view us as an extension of their team. And that's been the case. I also look at it as a portfolio strategy. So you'll have people that may be 20% that do that, probably not the best people to have in your life that they're thinking purely be zero sum. And then, you know, they'll have 20% that'll increase your allocation 10, 20 X, and then you'll have a bunch of two, 3Xs in terms of an LP profile.

Another way to look at it, again, as I mentioned earlier, for a typical, say, endowment or foundation, public markets or equities is the biggest part of their portfolio. Venture might be 10, 15, sometimes it's less percent of their portfolio. We have a 16-person firm. It'd be hard to hire 16 people based on their budget, right? So, you know, this is a much cheaper way to outsource or to extend your team, but get great kind of coverage in this space. So I think even from a mathematical financial perspective, you know, we're a good investment. If you view us as an extension of your team, one that can help you gain direct access over time. I think the most expensive investment a family office could make is a direct on

cap table investment in a startup without 20 years of experience understanding what's adverse selection. Yeah. You mentioned reference calls. How many reference calls are you doing? And are you doing LPs, GPs? Are you doing portfolio companies? How do you rank those?

And how many reference calls do you do for a new manager, new relationship? I would say the biggest category within reference calls is with other LPs. But in terms of official reference calls, it's mainly with the emerging managers as they're building their LP base. And, oh, you know, we can do like a dozen of these, if not more, for an emerging manager. You know, David Rubenstein famously said asset management is about delivering average results with a great customer service. By relying on LP reference calls, are you not over-indexing on LP management and not actually alpha? Ideally, you should do both, right? I mean, and not LP is the same LP. Some LPs, you respect their opinion. Other LPs, you might not. I have a group that I really trust that I think are contrarian, opinionated, insightful. I value

their opinion much more than I might some others and then i agree with the founder side you should talk to you should you should get a nice mix you know some of the top companies some of the bottom ones some that are difficult some that are easy to talk to like you just want to get a holistic picture so you mentioned anchoring funds you guys are known for for being large checks sometimes 25 to 50 percent of the fund what's the largest 50 we've i don't think we've i don't think we've done 50 but we've definitely gone over 50% of the fund. What's the largest? Not 50. I don't think we've done 50, but we've definitely gone over a third of the fund. Okay. 25 to 33% of the fund. What's the largest checks you guys have written today? This wouldn't be for an emerging manager, but we've written over 100 million to a fund.

And is that a spinoff? How would you classify that? Or is it just a fund three, fund four? That was, yeah. It was like fund three, fund four? That was, yeah, the fund, it was like fund three or fund four where we wrote that size check. But, you know, we do have the conviction by fund two or fund three to write 50 plus million dollar checks. Absolutely. Well, that's value add by itself. What makes you want to re-up on the fund?

And where is it difficult? Where is it kind of on the fence? What factors are you determining whether to re-up into fund two or fund three after you invest in fund one or fund two? In fund two, you really can't judge, I think, the individual companies in the portfolio. We have this running joke here, you know, after two, three years, the companies that you thought would be drivers, 10 years later ended up not being and all of a sudden other companies became drivers. So we are not smart enough to say, you know, this company is going to drive returns after a year or two. I think what we really focus on is, are they on strategy? And we judge their portfolio construction, right? So are they doing what they said they were going to

do? And then equally, so have they been a good partner? So if that's all there and fund two is a reasonable fund size, we tend to re-up in fund two. But really, again, focus on the partnership, the portfolio construction, the strategy, just are they doing what they say they were going to do without any major blow-ups. So typically we are coming into fund two. It's by fund three, you can start really assessing the portfolio. One thing I think I mentioned to you before this call was in this environment, not all marks are equal. And so just because you have a great mark on a company or a fund, we try to go in a little bit deeper and say, OK, this company is valued at a billion dollars. What are the revenues? Right.

Because maybe you're not marking it down. What non-quantitative factors are you looking for on a re-up? I would go back to the partnership part. You know, have they been transparent? Have they been communicative? You know, do they listen? Just have they been a good partner? And penultimate question. how much is market timing? Do you absolutely just discount market

timing and just look at you're going to be time diversified? Or does that factor into your decision making? Look, from our side, it's hard to time, mainly because each one of these fund of funds we raise, we deploy over two to two and a half years. And if amazing managers come to market during that time period, we're going to commit to them. Now, if that means when we come back for our next fund of funds and it's a bad market, so be it. I mean, our third fund of funds, this is the fund of funds I joined Accolade on, Accolade 3. We started raising that in 07 in the credit crisis. It took us like two years to raise that fund. That fund's now sitting at over a 5X net fund of TVPI. And so look, buy low, sell high.

If you can get through that down period and raise your fund, it's a great time to be raising. Do you find like a positive or a negative correlation between easy to raise? 100% 100%. Not 100, 100, but pretty damn close. Yeah. I mean, you know, there are going to be some funds that were raised in 2021. I mean, we don't know who they are yet, but I bet you there'll be a number of funds in 2021.

You'll be thankful you get your money back or a small return on it. So, yeah, it's just pure supply and demand. If there's a lot of money, valuations go up and it's just hard to get a return on that. So the best time to raise isn't a down market. Even if you're in a quote unquote great seed company, but the valuation is $45 million or $50 million, it's very hard to build a portfolio of that versus if you're coming in at $15 million. Valuations matter. I mean, I know a lot of late stage companies, if you invest in them, and even this number is high, like pre-COVID, you could get into them at like 30 to 40 times revenues. During COVID, those were trading at 80 times revenues. And now to grow into that 80 times revenues just, and now to grow into that 80 times revenues, you need pristine growth over

like a three to five year period. And, you know, growth has slowed down both in the public markets and tech and even the private markets in tech over the past year or two. So the price you pay does matter. We'll get right back to the interview, but first to stay updated on all things, emerging managers and limited partners, including industry trends and insights on how to raise LP capital, please subscribe to our newsletter powered by Carrier Labs, a full-service content marketing firm that's partnered with us on the newsletter. Visit 10xCapitalPodcast to subscribe. That's www.10xCapitalPodcast.com. Thank you. What do you wish you knew when you started at Accolade 16 years ago? Patience. It takes a long time in this

asset class to understand the landscape, to understand how the fund math works, to know who's on first, second base. I mean, it took me a few years to get there. Again, luckily I had time because we were in the great financial crisis, but I just wish I could have mentored myself or just give me advice on, you know, this is what, you know, these are the frameworks to think about. Have there been mentors that have kind of provided, you know, that have accelerated your career that you'd like to highlight? Yeah. I mean, one, I would just say my colleague, Joelle Caden. I mean, she had been doing this for, you know, 10 years before I joined. So she's been a great mentor, but, you know, also people like Brijesh Jivarathnam at Adam Street. He was actually

the gentleman I mentioned earlier that joined a fund of funds before. I've been trying to get him on the podcast for a couple of months. Hopefully, he's like an older brother to me. He's like an older brother. And so, and I know you like you've worked with Michael Kim, you know, like, I think he's great. So yeah, I mean, people like that, that you can really lean on and be honest with and just, you know, ask dumb questions, you know, have, you know, really contrarian conversations like people like that. I just have been great to have around. What would you like our audience to know about Geotel or Accolade or anything else you'd like to share? We love what we do. I think we are a contrarian firm. Like, yes, you know, venture gets a lot of the attention of what we do, but this PE growth strategy we do is actually a pretty big part of our strategy. And not many people do that.

I think that's a very interesting, amazing risk return. You know, we're very early into blockchain. So I think we like to go in places where other people are not looking. And if there's a good risk return and a way to generate outsized returns, you know, we'll do that. So I think, you know, we're not trying to be the biggest, baddest firm in the world. We just want the best returns. Do you think for LPs, your fund size is also your strategy? Yeah, totally. I mean, if we were raising a billion dollars, we wouldn't have 15 to 17 line items. We would have 30. And that changes the math, I've told you. And so I think your fund

size is your strategy. Well, Atul, this has been absolutely enjoyable and very informative, action-packed episode. I really appreciate you jumping on the podcast and hope to meet up soon.