20VC: What It Takes To Raise A VC Fund & Investing in First Time Fund Managers with Michael Kim @ Cendana Capital

Michael Kim is the founder and Managing Partner of Cendana Capital, a fund of funds which invests in seed VC funds. Michael has many of our previous guests in his portfolio including the likes of SoftTech, Freestyle, Founder Collective, Collaborative Fund and many more, clearly great minds think alike! Prior to Cendana, Michael was one of the original partners of Rustic Canyon Partners a VC firm with $1bn AUM. In Today’s Episode You Will Learn: 1.) How Michael made his way into VC and then made the transition into the world of LP? 2.) Why have we seen the proliferation of seed funding? Is this a good thing for the economy? Is dumb money good or bad for the early stage environment? 3.) Chris Douvos states we will begin to see the hybridisation of LPs and GPs, does Michael agree? What are the inherent problems with this happening? 4.) What is Michael's blackbox for assessing emerging fund managers? What does he look for? How can they present their edge? 4.) How does Michael respond to Dave McClure's portfolio construction theory of allocating capital to many startups with the realisation that 0.5% become unicorns? Items Mentioned In Today’s Show: Michael’s Fave Book: Catcher & The Rye Michael's Fave Blog or Newsletter: Techcrunch, The Twenty Minute VC As always you can follow The Twenty Minute VC, Harry and Michael on Twitter here! If you would like to see a more colourful side to Harry with many a mojito session, you can follow him on Snapchat here! This episode was brought to you by DesignCrowd, the online marketplace for custom graphic, logo and web design that helps startups, entrepreneurs, web developers and agencies outsource design projects to designers from around the world. How Does It Work? Once you have launched your brief, designers will begin submitting quality designs for you to review. With some constructive feedback, you can quickly generate a large gallery of designs that really do fit your needs. You can have exactly what you need within just three days. Once you have selected your favourite design, you will be sent all the files you require to update your branding. If you don’t like any of the submitted designs, then DesignCrowd offers a money back guarantee. So checkout designcrowd.com/VC and enter the promo code VC100 to get an astonishing $100 off your next project.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Harry Stebbings?

  You are listening to the 20 Minute VC with your host Harry Stebbings at H Stebbings with two Bs on Snapchat. Now today's show is a little different as you might remember a few weeks ago we featured Beza Clarkson and Chris DuVos, two phenomenal LPs and today I'm delighted to welcome another in the form of a fund of funds. And before we start, I have to say I just love recording the show today as it was one of those where the schedule just went out the window and we have a great chat on the venture scene and all the intricacies of it. So joining me in the hot seat today, I'm delighted to welcome Michael Kim. Michael is the founder and managing partner of Cendana Capital, a fund of funds which invests in seed funds and it seems we've stalked his portfolio with our previous VC

• 0:41Harry Stebbings?

  guests who include Softtech, Freestyle, Founder Collective, Collaborative Fund, Lira Hippo Ventures and actually many more. Such a fantastic portfolio of funds and clearly we have similar taste in funds. But prior to Cendana, Michael was one of the original partners of Rustic Canyon Partners, a VC firm with 1 billion under management. And I have to say again, a huge thank you to Beza Clarkson at Sapphire Ventures for making the intro to Michael. I'm so grateful for that and without which the interview couldn't have happened. But before we dive into the world of investing in VC funds with Michael, you must check out Design Crowd. It's the online marketplace for all things design, from custom graphics to logos to web design.

• 1:23Harry Stebbings?

  Hey, they even do big brands like HTC and Virgin who use them for t-shirts and billboard design. So how does it work? Launch your project, designers begin submitting quality designs for you to review. You quickly generate a large gallery of designs that fit your needs. Once you select your favourite design, you'll be sent all the files you require and all of this can happen in just three days. Much better and more reasonable than an agency and perfect for small businesses and entrepreneurs looking for fast response times and reasonable pricing. So head over to designcrowd.com/vc and enter the promo code VC100 for an incredible $100 off. However, enough from me, so without further ado, I'm delighted to hand over to Michael Kim, founder and managing partner at Sendana Capital.

• 2:14Speaker 01

  You have now arrived at your destination.

• 2:17Harry Stebbings?

  Michael, it's such a pleasure to have you on the 20 minute VC. A huge thank you to Beza for introducing us. And thank you so much for you coming on and giving us your time.

• 2:26Speaker 02

  Thank you for having me. Very excited to do this.

• 2:28Harry Stebbings?

  Now, I'd love to get the ball rolling today by discussing your journey into the world of LP with Sendana and what the aha moment was for you behind the founding of Sendana.

• 2:38Speaker 02

  Sure. You know, I graduated from Wharton in 1997 and joined Morgan Stanley's Technology M and A Group. We were on San Jose Road, uh, helped participate and facilitate the first internet bubble. Around 2000, I had an opportunity to join a venture capital fund called Rustic Canyon. And I did that for nine years. But while I was doing that, and I was always based here in San Francisco, I was also on the board of San Francisco's Public Pension Fund. And that at the time was about 12, 13 million, billion dollars. Now it's about 20, 21 billion. That was the first time I was on the LP side of the table. The various roles I served, um, included being the chairman of the, uh, investment committee.

• 3:20Speaker 02

  And it was really a great, uh, dive into asset allocation, how institutional LPs think about managers, evaluating managers, and ultimately working and monitoring managers. So that was the first time I was on the LP side of the world. At the same time, at Rustic Canyon and being in venture, I saw that the absolute best firms like the Sequoia, Axcel's, Greylock's benchmarks of the world were getting substantially larger, 500 million to a billion dollar funds. But at the same time, it became substantially cheaper to start a company. You know, back in 2000, a software company, the typical initial round was a five on five. So two VC firms at two and a half million on a five million pre, that means each firm owns 25%.

• 4:06Speaker 02

  The startup needed to raise five million dollars because they actually had to buy servers. They had to pay for software licenses and, you know, contrast that to today where it's almost an order of magnitude cheaper to start a company. You can get substantial traction with $500,000. And so- Those two disruptions, the absolute best firms getting so much larger. And the fact that it became substantially cheaper to start a company. Created the opportunity for smaller funds to emerge. By two thousand and five, you know, you had groups like Union Square, Foundry, True. Um, by two thousand and seven, eight, you had groups like Steve Anderson at Baseline, Mike Maples at Floodgate. Michael Dearing at Harrison Metal.

• 4:48Speaker 02

  So you started seeing this emerging group of smaller funds focused on doing the first round of investment.

• 4:55Harry Stebbings?

  And and then the founding of Cendana was based on the fact that these all needed a new LP class to fund these new micro VC funds?

• 5:02Speaker 02

  Yes, so by the time I left Rustic Canyon in two thousand and nine, two thousand and ten. You know, I would say that there were probably ten, fifteen, maybe even twenty institutional quality seed funds. You know, clearly now they talk about three hundred plus seed funds in the US alone. But I I think at the time it was a very emerging idea. I can tell you that it took me two years to raise my first fund. Most people thought that seed seed investments were a fad, that it was not meant to be. Um, but you know, ultimately, I think our thesis proved out, uh, these smaller funds do outperform. And these smaller funds have effectively become early-stage venture capital today.

• 5:45Harry Stebbings?

  And on the discussion then of the evolution of the seed environment. Uh, as you said, we've seen it change fundamentally over the last five years. What do you think is the fundamental shifts and do you think they're good for our economy?

• 5:57Speaker 02

  Well, I think the the proliferation of seed funds is good. It's never been a better time to be an entrepreneur, at least to start a company. Certainly, a lot of different sources of funding, uh, aside from seed funds through, you know, accelerators. Corporate VCs getting more active. So, you know, I think there's a plethora of of cap, early-stage capital available to an entrepreneur. So clearly, it's a really good time to be one. The real trick, of course, is being able to scale your company, attract additional financing, and then ultimately get a successful exit. Is it good for the economy? Absolutely. I think without a doubt innovation is is emanating from these startups. You know, a large portion of the NASDAQ today are from companies that were venture backed.

• 6:42Speaker 02

  Uh, I do think that um, from a a jobs perspective, obviously, the Great Recession in two thousand eight, two thousand nine was very painful for many people, but it allowed and enabled and facilitated companies like Uber, Airbnb, TaskRabbit to start what effectively become uh, the the shared economy.

• 7:02Harry Stebbings?

  And you said, you said it was good for the economy there, and and I very much agree with you. Uh, but I was on a panel last night, uh, and and someone said on the panel that actually a lot of the seed money is dumb money and that that only worsens the quality of our ecosystem. Do you agree that even if it is dumb money, uh, is that a bad thing, do you think? Is, does that not all still go to the funding of innovation?

• 7:24Speaker 02

  Well, let's take a step back and talk a little bit about taxonomy. You know, angels, I think, are individuals who, as a hobby, invest in early-stage startups. See, uh, super angels, which I don't think most people talk about anymore, but super angels are ones who are using their own money and doing this as a full-time profession. And then you have the institutional quality seed funds, which is where we are focused on. These are groups that raise outside money and are doing this full-time. So I mentioned that taxonomy because I think um, the composition of a seed round, which today is about uh, one to two million in the US, sometimes larger, is as large as three million, in fact. I think those seed rounds are, especially in the high-quality companies,

• 8:08Speaker 02

  you will see one or two high-quality institutional seed VCs. You may see um, a few individuals that the company may feel are strategic to the company and in what they're trying to accomplish, and maybe one or two smaller seed funds. Now, the absolute worst scenario, and Mark Suster actually talks about it in his recent post uh, on both sides of the table, are these party rounds. I don't think these party rounds are happening as often, but these party rounds are where twenty-plus individuals, you know, pony up uh, and become uh, and and form a Syndicate. Problem with those, number one, they may or may not have deep pockets. They may or may or not be active with the company. And most importantly, when the company needs to raise their next round of financing,

• 8:53Speaker 02

  there's no one necessarily on point, especially if the financing is a difficult one. Whereas an institutional seed fund would help organize, perhaps even lead an extension. I think the individuals involved in a party round, no one's on point. So I don't think that type of activity ultimately gets done.

• 9:11Harry Stebbings?

  I'm really intrigued there because mentioning kind of the LP world investing in startups. And we had Chris DuVos on the show last week. And he suggested that we'd see a lot more LPs investing in startups directly. And that we'd actually see kind of the integration of LP and GP into one role and almost a cutting out of the middleman. So does that strategy of investing in startups directly play a big role in Cendana's approach? And do you agree that we might see this intersection appear?

• 9:40Speaker 02

  Right. At the high level, I do think that there are substantial issues with LPs investing directly. First and foremost is adverse selection. If an opportunity is available to the LP, why are they being shown this? Is something wrong with the company? Does the fund manager himself or herself feel that they can't raise the capital from people who do this full time, i.e. the venture capital funds? So I think adverse selection is a major issue. I do see LPs are a lot more interested in investing directly. I do think that it happens at the later stages as opposed to the initial stage. And specifically to Cendana, we do have a direct investment fund. So we have a standalone fund that invests directly into the portfolio companies of our fund managers.

• 10:25Speaker 02

  The idea here is that we would invest at the early growth stage, so Series B or C. These companies have 10 million plus of revenue. We think that technology and market risk are largely mitigated. And you know, the idea when we formed that was if you believe that our fund managers have a very strong portfolio of seed funds or seed companies, as they bubble up to Series A and as a subset of those bubble Up to Series B, those are ostensibly the best companies in our fund managers' portfolios, certainly the most mature. And from that subset, we select twenty companies to build a portfolio of direct investments.

• 11:04Speaker 02

  So the answer is, yes, we do direct investments. Yes, we do see LPs doing more and more direct investments. I don't think it's at the seed stage. And we certainly don't invest at the seed stage because we don't want to be perceived as having, you know, sharp elbows and elbowing out our fund managers from what they're supposed to be doing.

• 11:26Harry Stebbings?

  You said that about adverse selection. Is it not adverse selection? It's just purely optionality because you are an LP in a fund and so you see the deal flow before other people. Is that not the potential case?

• 11:37Speaker 02

  Well, there is some of that, and I think that that's the dynamic that we hope to take advantage of, where we are working very closely with our fund managers. Over the next two to three years, they're identifying companies that progress from C to A to B. And we're familiar with the company and we can invest, you know, efficiently into those. But I do think that in general, if there is at the earliest stages, a company that is high quality with high quality investors coming in, LPs are probably the last in line in terms of getting access to that. So imagine a seed-funded company by one of our fund managers. A high-quality firm like Sequoia comes in with a $10 million Series A.

• 12:20Speaker 02

  They're not going to make room for anybody else. The larger VCs like the Sequoia, XL, Benchmarks, Greylocks of the world, are very focused on ownership into the best companies. And that dynamic itself precludes outside parties or parties that are not involved directly with the company from participating in that round.

• 12:39Harry Stebbings?

  And we mentioned kind of interaction with your fund managers there. And I'm really intrigued then to discuss the micro VC fund managers that you do back. I'm not sure if we're allowed to mention them. Are we allowed?

• 12:51Speaker 02

  I'm happy to.

• 12:52Harry Stebbings?

  Okay, so if we take some of them, so if we take, say, Chad at Sousa, how do you tell the eye of the tiger in Chad as a potential investment opportunity? What are you really looking for? Because he's selling himself as the product, really, with a fund.

• 13:06Speaker 02

  Right. You know, I think it'd be helpful for us to describe sort of our black box on how we evaluate fund managers. The first filter that we use is ecosystem. For us, that means three vectors: high-quality entrepreneurs, high-quality co-investors, and a ton of following capital. So what that effectively is meant for us is that we're focused on the Bay Area as well as New York. We actually recently made a commitment in Los Angeles, and we have some exposure to Boston. But to use an example, if you're the go-to seed fund in Cleveland, we are not likely to take a look because there aren't that many larger VC funds that are based in Cleveland. So those companies are relying on the Sand Hill

• 13:48Speaker 02

  Road or the New York City VC funds to fly in. And I think early-stage investments are hard as it is, and so we are very focused on robust seed ecosystems. The second filter that we use, and I think this is an extremely important one, is portfolio construction. So what we mean by that, we specifically look for GPs who are leading their deals. They're writing the largest checks. So in a typical two- to three-million-dollar seed round, they're writing a million-dollar check. They have the credibility with the entrepreneur to organize that syndicate and ultimately be a partner to the entrepreneur in helping build the business.

• 14:29Speaker 02

  So actually, a lot of our GPs are ex-entrepreneurs because they've had that experience. Getting back to your point, you know, we are very focused on GPs who have that ability to lead a deal, that credibility. Part of that also, in terms of value prop, is that these GPs can help facilitate the next round of funding, not just through introductions, but also working very closely with the companies in terms of identifying operating and performance metrics that are required for those companies to get their next round of funding done. So with the third filter, quite frankly, and I think this is actually what you're trying to get at, is intangibles. You know, how do we get a sense that particular GP has a discernible

• 15:11Speaker 02

  edge? What kind of networks does the group have? What kind of reputations? Do they have an experience? What are their long term motivations? We spend a lot of time getting to know our GPs, understanding what they want to do with their platforms. I've actually had a small fund come in and pitch me and say, you know, telling me that it's one and done. That this is the only fund that they want to raise. You know, we're looking for long term platforms. We're looking for the next Sequoia in early stage investing. You know, hopefully some of our portfolio funds fit that bill. Probably not most of them, I would say that to be realistic, maybe one or two out of, you know, the eighteen or plus funds that we work with may ultimately emerge in that category.

• 15:53Speaker 02

  But it's certainly fun trying to identify these and working with these, um, with the GPs.

• 15:58Harry Stebbings?

  And I'm really pleased you said that about portfolio construction. Cause I, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dave McClure last night, uh, from five hundred startups. For a fireside chat and he said, the reason that VCs inherently flawed as an ecosystem as and as an industry is, is due to the portfolio construction thesis of, of being so heavy. And he obviously, uh, very much advocates for the, uh, spread, very diverse portfolio. Citing that only, you know, half a percent turn out to be unicorns. And so it's about how many deals you're in, not how heavy you're in them. So, so how do you respond to that then? I'm intrigued.

• 16:34Speaker 02

  Yeah, Dave is a very smart person, a very nice person, and I love talking to him. He and I have publicly disagreed many times about his portfolio construction and my thoughts on what the right approach is. You know, I'll give you a simple example. The typical venture exit is between fifty to a hundred million. If you own ten percent of that company, that's ten million dollars back at a hundred million dollar exit. Ten million back to a seed fund is very meaningful. If you own one percent, you get the same kind of return for your invested dollars. But one million dollars back does not move the needle. So in a way, ownership of a, um, portfolio company, that is extremely important. And fundamentally, seed funds are not geared toward investing the life cycle of a, a company.

• 17:19Speaker 02

  They're not investing their full prorata in the series D, for example. So what that means is that the seed. Actually have to buy their ownership upfront. So we're focused on groups that are, a- as I mentioned, that are leading their deals, specifically so that they can get the ten to fifteen percent ownership. And ultimately, you know, in the series A, they may do their full pro rata to defend their ownership position, but ultimately, they they won't be able to maintain their full ownership position and they ultimately, and they get diluted. And so if you're starting out at fifteen percent, you might get diluted down to seven and a half to eight percent by the time the company exits. I think that ultimately will would generate the best alpha or best return for that fund.

• 18:03Speaker 02

  Small one percent positions imply that you need, you're required to have billion dollar exits in order to move the dial.

• 18:10Harry Stebbings?

  Very enticing. Well, I I'd love to have you and Dave on together. Dave has very vociferous views on this. So it'd be interesting to have a discussion, maybe a round table next time I'm in San Francisco.

• 18:21Speaker 02

  Yeah, absolutely.

• 18:22Harry Stebbings?

  But but but I want to also then kind of take a more macro view and evaluate the market today. And and we've seen this year really an increased amount of dollars flowing into a much more concentrated amount of funds with the much more established funds seeming to raise a lot of money. So what do you make of this kind of narrowing of the VC funding environment this year? And where do you think the market opportunities are that lie ahead for you, Cendana?

• 18:46Speaker 02

  Right. Well, you know, clearly there's been a lot of funds raised, but they were from the absolute top tier. The aggregate dollars are very large because the absolute top tier of these firms are are are very large. They're very large funds. And recent Horowitz just announced their billion and a half dollar fund. You know, that moves the needle in terms of overall VC funding. What you really have is the the dynamic of have and have nots. The absolute top tier can raise at will. They decided to bulk up in the first quarter, second quarter of this year, so that they have the dry powder available. If there is a downturn, if valuations do come down, that's actually a great opportunity.

• 19:25Speaker 02

  There are a lot of studies that show, particularly in private equity, that returns actually increase coming out of out of recessions. And as I mentioned, great companies can be formed coming out of a recession like. Uber or Airbnb, those were funded, those are formed in two thousand eight, two thousand nine. So I do think there's some of that, but ultimately, I do think that what you have right now is this dynamic where the best funds can raise that will, a lot of them did. And so now institutional LPs are largely out of capital for the year. A number of LPs I know have already spent their budget or have already allocated their budget to these re-ups. And it's also not just in the US, there are a lot of re-ups coming out of Asia and also Europe.

• 20:08Speaker 02

  So I think the forward calendar for a lot of institutional LPs is already full. What that means specifically for newer funds, I guess the have-nots. I would say that they should spend the second half of this year, meeting with institutional LPs, getting to a decision point by early next year in the first quarter, so that investment committees can make a decision based on the fact that they have a lot more dry powder at the beginning of the year rather than the end.

• 20:36Harry Stebbings?

  And I'm really intrigued as to kind of which segment of the market you're most excited by. Is it still very early seed stage in San Francisco? Or are there other market segments you're particularly excited for?

• 20:47Speaker 02

  I think one important element of seed investing, our hypothesis is that it's actually an asymmetry of risk. And what we mean by that is that on the upside, you know, you have outliers like Uber. A seed investor in Uber has done extremely well. But you know, if a company exits for a hundred to a hundred million to a billion dollars, the seed investor does very well. On the downside, we actually think that risk is a lot more limited. What I mean, what I mean by that specifically is that a seed fund that invested, let's say, a million dollars into a company, the team builds out, the product never gets the market fit that's, that's required, so they need to sell. They can sell the company for a few million dollars

• 21:30Speaker 02

  and the seed investor gets some capital recovery, if not a profit. I think the downside is actually less than what most people think. I will tell you that through our portfolio of seven hundred companies or more, our Mortality rate right now is less than ten percent. What I mean by that is companies that have shut down, companies that have been written as zero. And, you know, I do think that the longer term sort of steady state mortality rate is probably twenty five percent to thirty percent. But I don't think it's eighty percent, but we'll see.

• 22:04Harry Stebbings?

  Absolutely, and I'd love to dive into a quick fire round with you now. So I say a short statement and then you give me your immediate thoughts. How does that sound?

• 22:11Speaker 02

  Great.

• 22:12Harry Stebbings?

  So your favorite book and why?

• 22:14Speaker 02

  Catch and the Rye, I think Holden Caulfield is a, a, a, an iconoclast, someone who thinks for himself and really puzzles about his existence in the world.

• 22:23Harry Stebbings?

  What's your biggest challenge for you in your role now with Cendana?

• 22:26Speaker 02

  I think maintaining discipline on what we do. We are only focused on seed funds and also making these direct investments. It's always tempting to grow larger, but I think being appropriately sized is the best way to generate alpha for our investors.

• 22:40Harry Stebbings?

  What would you like to see change in the world of LPs?

• 22:43Speaker 02

  I think most LPs are social proof investors. I think that there's a substantial dynamic of you don't get fired for buying IBM. And venture funds are hard to kill. Uh, a lot of them should have been killed, but they're ten to twelve year vehicles. So I think LPs need to act rationally. And separately, I do think that LPs need to be a lot more transparent.

• 23:03Harry Stebbings?

  And then favorite blog or newsletter, what are your must reads when they come in?

• 23:07Speaker 02

  Every day I read TechCrunch, Recode, Pando, and actually I listen to your, your podcasts.

• 23:14Harry Stebbings?

  Fantastic. Well, thank you so much for that, Mike. Uh, and then what's been the best pitch you've ever had and why was that? If, if there's a name that comes to mind.

• 23:23Speaker 02

  That's a good question. You know, I think, um, I would say it's Jeff Clavier and the Soft Tech team. We're their largest LP in their newest fund. It's a relationship that I've had, uh, since the early two thousands when Jeff was so, a so-called super angel. We had great discussions about portfolio construction, about reserves, about areas of investing, the style of investing. In terms of Jeff as a, a GP, extremely thoughtful. He's French and very successful, so one would presume that he has. Air arrogance, but actually he is the most down to earth person, very straightforward. You know, one element that is particularly attractive about what Softtech does and what Jeff

• 24:06Speaker 02

  has done specifically, he has sought to build a long-term platform. And so when he brought on Steph Palmieri a few years ago, he would specifically make time, you know, give her airtime either in conferences or in pitch meetings. And so I thought that kind of development of the next generation is important. And if you look at the absolute top-tier VC funds, they've done a phenomenal job of generational shift and what, you know, the older generation handing off to the younger generation, certainly firms like Greylock have transformed themselves. And I think that is the success, the key to success for a long-term platform. Jeff and Softtech, leading contenders to being that for the next few decades.

• 24:50Harry Stebbings?

  Yeah, no, absolutely. I have Jeff on the show a while ago, Jeff and Andy McLaughlin on the show a while ago. And we've got Steph coming on, so that's fantastic, but no, we absolutely love them. And then finally, let's finish on the vision for you with Cendana. What's the ultimate goal? Is this, is this a desire to be the kind of mass billion-dollar fund of funds, moving upstream, or are we going to remain true to Cendana?

• 25:13Speaker 02

  I think most venture capital fund of funds are terrible. They're asset gatherers, they want AUM, they want management fee. A lot of them don't even charge carry. We are extremely focused on carry and I think that's the best alignment of interests with our investors. My fundamental objective is to make our investors as much money as possible. And so in my mind, what that means is being disciplined in what we do, maintaining the appropriate fund sizes for ourselves and also going after and staying, staying focused on where we think a lot of value can be created. Certainly, you know, non-US areas like China, perhaps Europe, the ecosystems are very interesting and perhaps getting better, but we've been focused on the US.

• 25:58Speaker 02

  Down the road, we may look at potentially working with some groups outside the US. I think the key to long-term success is discipline. And staying focused on what you're best at. So we have zero interest in becoming a multi-billion dollar asset gatherer and living off our fees and having swanky offices. That's completely opposite of what we do.

• 26:18Harry Stebbings?

  Well, Mike, thank you so much for coming on the show today. It really has been incredible to hear your journey with Send On and the incredible funds that you've backed. So thank you so much for sharing that with us.

• 26:27Speaker 02

  Thank you, Harry. Great chatting with you.

• 26:31Harry Stebbings?

  A huge hand to Michael for giving up his time to be on the show today. And I also have to state my immense respect and admiration for his journey with Send On. To come and build a fund of funds that he has in today's environment in San Francisco is simply incredible. So a huge hand to him for that. And if you're also loving the 20 Minute VC and do not want to miss a thing from us, then you can add me on Snapchat at H Stebbings, or you can sign up to the newsletter on the 20minutevc.com. And talking of sites there, how is your site design looking? Actually, how's your overall approach to design looking? Well, that's where Design Crowd come in. With their 500,000 registered designers, they bring the creative flair and design ability to develop your logo, website design, or even

• 27:13Harry Stebbings?

  business cards. And all you have to do is launch a project, gather a gallery of designs that you really like. And then once you've selected your favorites, all the files will be sent to you. And even better, all of this can happen in just three days. Perfect for entrepreneurs and small businesses who need quick turnaround times. And you can check this out on designcrowd.com/vc and enter the promo code VC100 for a fantastic $100 off your next project. As always, we're so grateful for all your support and are very looking forward to bringing you Friday's episode.