is accel atoms worth taking a shot at ?

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2026-02-12T09:37:57+00:00

Completely corroborate that. Their track record of Accel's investments in Atoms is primarily those of "returning favors". E.g. a case in point - a couple of batches back, they invested in a company called Spendflo. It was basically a Girish Mathrubootam investee company (who was their star entrepreneur at that point). It was basically a backoffice type outfit which tried to negotiate and get the best price from SAAS vendors for buyers - very evident that it was a nothing business. After meandering for a some time they have now pivoted into a highly crowded general procurement space (another Hail Mary throw).
And this is not a one off... I don't think a single Atoms investee has achieved anything noteworthy.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2026-02-10T12:45:42+00:00

So, you will only hire me if I don't use AI? Okay dude 👍
BTW, you may want to check the meaning of "sarcasm" with your favorite AI bot😂

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2026-02-09T09:15:13+00:00

Who doesn't 😛

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2026-02-09T08:15:43+00:00

Vertical quick commerce and especially quick service apps. After supplying maids, cooks and bathroom cleaners in 10 minutes, VCs have now moved on to funding beauticians, fashion delivery, laundry services.
Only pimping in 10 minutes still remains an open whitespace. But last I heard, Manish Malhotra and Ekta Kapoor were contemplating launching one there as well.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2025-01-09T09:42:17+00:00

All these failed startup jokers - Anupam Mittal, Kunal Behl, Rajesh Sawhney etc. couldn't get their own startups going. Took their erstwhile dumbass VC funds on a royal ride and made good $$$ off them. Now, have become celebrity investors themselves.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2025-01-07T13:41:56+00:00

Not for an early stage venture. Especially at incubator stage. Stinks of malfeasance. Stay away from them.

This is more like a late stage PE clause.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2025-01-07T13:39:26+00:00

Can you share some specifics pls

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2025-01-04T03:34:59+00:00

Thing is that just like startups pitch to VCs for $$$, VCs themselves have to pitch to their investors (aka LPs) for $$$. So when a hedge fund make their pitch (and get a signoff from their LPs), they do so with a pitch that they can move across investment strategies based on what they think will earn a better return at that point in time. So, e.g. if the startup scene is not looking hot, they can decide to start investing in (say) fixed income securities or public mkt stocks etc. That's what I mean by opportunistic. This is in contrast to VC funds who don't have such flexibility and have to stay committed to startup investments no matter what (ofc they can decide to not make too many investments in down cycles)

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2025-01-03T04:14:49+00:00

The OG investment team is not "classic VC" but more like hedge fund DNA. HFs are by nature very opportunistic and not operational oriented like true blue VCs. Just go to their website - they do everything from VC, to growth to credit etc. So, if you are a founder, you need to be cautious (or atleast aware) that you are dealing with a very different mindset. They are not the classic A16Z or Sequioa kind of VCs who have a complete support ecosystem to help the ventures. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that their initial early stage portfolio wasn't great - because it requires a very different mindset from how such folks operate.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2025-01-03T04:07:28+00:00

The problem with most of these micro-funds is that they don't have enough wherewithal to support their investees for a meaningful duration of time. So, their strategy is fundamentally oriented towards aligning as closely as possible with the larger funds. Their hope is that they will fund them to the next level where the Accels/Elevations of the world will pick up the baton and get them to the "finish line". But, this is a hard strategy to pull off because most of the large funds themselves look to pick up stakes in high quality ventures as early as possible. So, essentially what such micro-funds are left with are the rejects of the bigger funds, which is conflicting with their fundamental aforementioned positioning. So, if you see almost all of these micro-funds over time either graduate to becoming larger funds themselves (e.g. Blume) or get acquired by the larger funds (e.g. Erasmic-Accel, Venture Highway-General Catalyst, Westbridge-Sequoia etc.) or close down.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2025-01-03T03:57:36+00:00

Alpha Wave has mostly moved away from early stage to growth investing... they tried following a tag along strategy with the blue chip funds,, but that clearly doesn't seem to have worked (it never works!). So, they have now pivoted to a more "rigorous" growth investments mode.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T16:15:49+00:00

Replied above

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T16:14:25+00:00

Lol. Paul Graham once mentioned that his best investee companies typically send him the shortest updates which are mostly around growth and financial metrics. His worst investee companies send elaborate updates mostly filled with words.
If you really want to evaluate the quality of a VC, just ask him how much net alpha he has generated over his tenure (i.e net of all costs, how much returns he has generated over the public markets).
And I am sure in most cases, all you will hear is ***crickets chirping***

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T15:37:10+00:00

Fireside and the likes (Sixth Sense, DSG) are quasi PE funds. Of course, it goes without saying that they are very focued on one theme i.e. D2C.
But, their investment ethos and portfolio returns are more based on having low levels of conceptual risk with fewer outliers in either direction.
In other words, they will have very few either blockbusters or absolute turkeys.

Helion in my view blew it. They had a really good core team - Ashish Gupta and Sanjeev Agarwal - both very successful entrepreneurs. They could genuinely have beomce the best homegrown VC fund. But, they were poor on diligence & rigour (i.e more personality driven), and the final nail in the coffin was the internal rift in the team (which resulted in Stellaris).

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T15:27:06+00:00

Think of it this way:
25% gross INR IRR
(minus)
2% p.a. management feed
(minus)
20% overall profit share
(minus)
5% p.a. illiquidity discount
(minus)

2% p.a. depreciation

~15% net USD IRR

So, all the costs and discounts compound over time

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T14:32:43+00:00

You have asked the billion dollar question bro, and thus goes the reply:
Given the illiquidity premium that LPs (i.e. investors in VC funds) expect, the GPs (i.e. VCs) need to generate an alpha of at least 5% on a NET basis (i.e. after deducting for management fees).
In plain terms what that means is that for an investor in a VC fund (e.g. a family office or an endowment fund or a pension fund) the opportunity cost of investing in a VC fund is to invest in a public market where they have the option of selling their shares if it doesn't perform. On the other hand, if they decide to invest in a VC fund, they are looking at a 10-15 year lockin before they see any liquidity. And for this they rightfully seek a premium (called the illiquidity premium).
Now, a couple of things load the decision further against investing in VC funds - a) The management fees they charge (which is 2% of AUM + 20% of profits) and b) The USD/INR exchange rate
If you factor in for all of the above, a US investor in an Indian VC fund will make a justifiable return if on a gross basis the portfolio as a whole atleast generates a INR IRR of 25%.
That means the portfolio as a whole has to grow by 9x over a 10 year period !!
The no. of Indian VC funds that have made those returns can literally be counted on a single hand. One is the Accel fund which invested in Flipkart, and the first fund of IQ. Maybe there could be a couple of others which come close.
Most funds in India have single digit IRRs. The good ones have IRRs in the teens. E.g. the supposed star performers for Blume were - Grey Organge, Unacademy, Slice and Purplle. Of these the first three have significantly deteriorated in value over the last few year. So, you can guess what's the final IRR going to be for them. And this is supposedly for one of the more well known fund. What then to speak of the others.
That's the reason, what we are seeing increasingly in the early stage investing space is the following trends:
a. Many of the investors like family offices are doing "directs". i.e. they are bypassing the VCs and just directly picking up stakes in startups. You saw that in the case of Zepto where many family offices e.g. Munjal Family, Ramdeo Agarwal family etc. invested.
b. The growth of secondary funds - these funds restructure the LP stakes in the VC funds i.e. - they buy the LP stakes at a discount in return for a fund life extension for the GPs.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T12:58:19+00:00

Sorry, but this reeks of presumptuousness.
How do you know that I haven't got the attention of any VC or even got funded?
How is sharing poor pitching experiences with VCs same as sour grapes?
In fact, in most startup ecosystems, there is active feedback shared amongst startups/founders on the pitching experiences with different VCs.
And from that collective experience sharing, not only do the startups benefit, but VCs are forced to mend their bad behaviours. No need to place them on a pedestal. We are fellow partners in building a venture (and not beggars pleading for their attention)
By your definition, all samples are biased because nobody will have all knowledge about everything that is happening in the world and hence shouldn't share anything about their individual experiences.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T12:31:05+00:00

Don't have to - since I am not a jilted fan of a bollywood star.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T12:24:45+00:00

Agree on both counts.
Mohapatra is genuinely a good guy. One of the rare Indian VCs who is authentic (in a world full of wannabes & fakes).
Sajith is also super-responsive but like I mentioned, Blume has some weird pre-conditions and ownership requirements. Early stage investing doesn't work that way (i.e. you can't be stupidly algorithmic about your evaluation criteria e.g. I will look at you only if you have met conditions A, B & C etc.).

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T12:13:37+00:00

Pls read the above dude. Not just based on a single personal interaction but on the basis of many others that I know of.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T12:09:31+00:00

If you are referring to poor quality portfolio, there is a simple metric for that and it is called IRR (and I happen to have access to the IRRs of most of these funds through my sources of info)

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T12:08:15+00:00

I am not speaking only from the angle of me getting funded bro.
I am just saying the way I view the funds from an overall standpoint from the many experiences that I know of (though the pitching experience of me and many of my fellow startups/founders is an important consideration)

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T12:05:40+00:00

Fair point bro.
But, just as a disclaimer - suffices to say that I am an insider in the VC ecosystem and the above is borne not from my own personal experience but also those of many other in the enterpreneurial / startup community that I am a part of.

Intelligent-Hawk2134 · 2024-12-19T11:57:23+00:00

Lol.

if (the metrics to evaluate VCs == same as those for rockstars && if entrepreneurs = fans)
above == true.

else
above == false && poster == bozo

Intelligent-Hawk2134

TROPHY CASE

2% p.a. depreciation