TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Technology

    Tech Deciphered

    Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news. To understand what’s really happening behind the surface, join our hosts, Nuno Goncalves Pedro, investor, co-founder and managing partner at Strive Capital, and Bertrand Schmitt, entrepreneur, co-Founder & Chairman at App Annie. They have been each in tech for almost 25 years, are now based in Silicon Valley, having both previously worked and lived in Europe and Asia. With Tech DECIPHERED, discover how the best entrepreneurs pitch, how investors think, and what are the deep trends underlying the tech industry. To learn more about Tech DECIPHERED, head over to www.decipheredshow.com for more info about the podcast, show notes, resources and complete transcripts.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Bertrand Schmitt & Nuno Goncalves Pedro

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    41 – The Evolution of Venture Capital – 1 of 2 Apr 13, 2023
    Show notes

    In this episode, we will go in-depth into the evolution of Venture Capital, including its History, the business model, process and operating model, and what its future holds. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: History of Venture Capital (01:59) Section 2: The Business of VC (15:27) Conclusion (19:54) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Nuno Goncalves Pedro Welcome to Episode 41 of Tech DECIPHERED. In this episode, we will talk about the evolution of venture capital. We will start it with its history. We will discuss the business of venture capital, what is it all about, and we will go into the process of venture capital. How do venture capital firms and funds actually operate? Finally, we will talk about the future of venture capital, the immediate future and the more long term one. How will it change? Section 1 - History of Venture Capital (01:59) Nuno Goncalves Pedro Maybe starting with history. Venture capital actually goes back a long way. Obviously, we always like to go back to Second World War, the military complex in the US going full throttle, a lot of IP being generated, a lot of really useful things for defense that could be applied to the mainstream markets. In some ways, that's the beginning of the history of Silicon Valley and the beginning of the history of venture capital at scale with public-private partnerships, grants and money from government, technology transfer into areas that were ultimately areas that went fully outside of defence and into normal markets, so to speak. Nuno Goncalves Pedro But actually, venture capital goes back even further. Venture capital and high risk projects go back to, for example, the time of discoveries, the time of trading by boat. Actually, that is where the term carried interest comes from. It is carried interest. What happened was the boat owners were going to take merchandise from one place to the other. Because a lot of these missions and projects had a lot of risk to them, not only they got paid to do it, but they also got paid in kind to do it with carried interest. They would keep some of their carried interest. That's how the term carried interest really comes into these high risk profile projects. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Venture Capital is a very high-risk endeavor, or a higher risk endeavor than normal. Its history starts around World War II with private-public partnerships. Bertrand Schmitt I feel that between the age of discovery and World War II, there might have been the age of whaling in the US, from what I understand. Nuno, you want to say a few words on this? Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yeah. It goes back to whaling. It goes back to all these endeavors and projects and shipping. The military complex really expands it into private markets, so public-private partnerships, getting money into it. We started having, in venture capital, actually, early days, there was a lot of East Coast players in the market, which were more coming from the banking angle to it, just pushing into it. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Then we started having, because of a lot of aerospace defense projects happening around California and in California, there was a migration to players that were more, I would say, businessy, less banking. Some of the early VCs in this market, people like Pitch Johnson, Bill Draper, the granddaddies of us all. Bill was involved in a firm with Pitch. I think that was one of the original firms, if I recall correctly. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Bill went on, I think, to found Sutter Hill, which is still one of the oldest in continuity. Pitch went to found Asset Management, which if I'm not totally incorrect, is the oldest VC firm in Silicon Valley into continuity. A shout-out to the Asset Management guys, very good friends there. Obviously, from Bill, we had Tim's son. Now we have his grandchildren, so that's a bit of a dynasty. Sutter Hill is still around and doing very well, thank you. There's definitely all these roots that go back to it. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Then in the late '80s into the early '90s, when we started having some really innovative companies that came into the market, Fairchild, Intel. There was a little bit of a search for the next wave of venture capitalist. And out of that search of the next wave of venture capitalist, we have people like Mike Moritz, who used to be a journalist, actually. John Doerr used to be a senior executive at Intel, coming into the market and really being some of the most known VCs of all time at Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins, call for them buyers. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Through those times, just to define epochs in venture capital, I think the epoch in venture capital that we move from was the very IP-driven, postwar epoch to an epoch that was all about what I call the country club proprietary networks. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I knew people that had done well. They were about to start their next company, an idea. I was willing to really feed them. Relatively low risk. I know they were successful. They had built stuff before, they had a great track record. It was almost like real risk. I was incubating the idea, giving you money and letting you go with it. Then for a long, long time, to be very honest, until probably the late '90s, until really the Internet 1.0 movement happened, that was about it. That was the playbook in venture capital, country club, networks, etc. Bertrand Schmitt Another legend we might want to talk about, Don Valentine, who started Sequoia. I believe he was a very famous salesperson, head of sales at a big firm before funding Sequoia, if I'm not wrong. He was very successful in that endeavor. A lot of big guesses from these guys who started funds in the '80s. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yes, he was, I believe, at National Semiconductor? Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Then it's a little bit unclear how big was Sequoia when they started. I've heard that they started with five million. By a single LP, I'm not sure this is totally accurate and that capital may have been their first LP. I'm not sure again. But it certainly started in the early '70s, I believe, 1972. Bertrand Schmitt Yes, you're right, '70s. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Everyone talks about Sequoia like it's a brand new firm and they've been around for a long while. They've had obviously an amazing track record. They've gone through this. Mike Martz is a continuation of that route. But the playbook was really this playbook. It's people that I knew, people that I knew were talented. I call it the country club thing is I'm not saying it in a nasty way, but it was direct access to people that otherwise it would be difficult to access. There was no Internet, there was nothing at scale. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Then the Internet happened and many things happened around that time. In some ways Sequoia, Kleiner, I believe, were at that time the guys. Benchmark started existing around then in the '90s, but they were probably not as amazing and famous as they are today. Although, to be honest, I would say they're probably the first big riders of the Internet movement. They made a lot of money in those early funds. But the playbook was still more or less the same. We started going from the country club into universities, into young entrepreneurs. That may have moved a little bit, but in effect it was a similar play. Nuno Goncalves Pedro It was proprietary networks. I have access to those people when they're starting their next company. I have access to those professors when they're starting. Vmware was started by Diane and her husband who were professors. There was a lot of this linkage to academia that filled very well with the whole country club, proprietary network, ethos of it and caught a lot of the early Internet plays because Google was at Stanford and Sergey and Larry were there, etc. That's the first real big epoch of the professional VC. The postwar IP thing, that's the first big epoch. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Then no innovation for a long, long time. I would allege that until probably mid-noughties, late noughties, there was almost no innovation in playbook. VCs were mostly inbound-driven proprietary networks in the sense of who do I know, what companies are they at, et cetera. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Then all of a sudden, something happened. The something that happened, I will credit it to two people, but I don't think they're the only two people or the only two firms that really did this. But I always credit Mark's sister and what he did. Up front, it used to be called something else. I forgot the name. Mark will forgive me, I'm pretty sure. But Mark Suster, with both sides of the table and really answering these questions, was a very opaque space. People didn't understand legal documents and he started demystifying and being the friendly VC. Brad Feld for sure was also part of that movement. Certainly, Union Square Ventures with Fred Wilson were part of that early movement. They started blogging about it. I've already said three names. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Then the guys we institutionalized it in some ways and said, "No, we need to have a brand and we need to have media and we need to reach out there," because by and large, a lot of the VC firms were very stealthy or they were very much in their corner on Sand Hill and they did their thing. Benchmark had- Bertrand Schmitt No website. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Still does have a very poor... No website, like a splash page....


    40 – SVB & latest financial crisis Mar 19, 2023
    Show notes

    SVB goes down, and the Fed and Treasury react. The latest on the financial crisis: What actually happened? What was done to stave off the crisis? What are the next steps and what’s further on the horizon? As always, our “no bs” views and analysis. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: What happened? Section 2: What was done to stave off the crisis? Section 3: What are the next steps? Section 4: What’s on the horizon? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Bertrand Welcome to Episode 40 of Tech DECIPHERED. An episode, of course, focused on what happened this past week with Silicon Valley Bank and the overall financial crisis around it. We are recording this as of Wednesday, March 15, Pacific Time. Between the recording and the release of this episode, it might take a few days, so things might have changed. Bear with us. What a week in Silicon Valley. That was pretty insane. I think we have a black swan type of crisis every year now happening. Nuno If it's once a year, is it still a black swan? Bertrand Of course not. Sorry if my joke was not explicit enough. Nuno You're being facetious, understood. Okay, clear. Bertrand I'm definitely being facetious about this. Definitely, in the past, I don't know, three, four years have forced us to run businesses in a different way. We will try to do a short episode this time focusing on what happened, what was done to stave off this crisis, as well as what's the next steps, what's on the horizon. Nuno Let's start with the obvious big picture thing. Rate increases by the Fed is one of the engines of all the issue around SVB. We'll come back to what actually happened later on, but let's go through fundamentals first. The Fed has been increasing interest rates dramatically for the last less than a year. It's going to be a year, I think, this week, from starting at 0.25-0.5 range to now being at 4.5%-4.75% range, if I got that right, for the Fed rate in one year, less than a year, which is incredible. That has created, obviously, a situation where there's a lot of strain on various financial products that banks, for example, may be over exposed to. Nuno But it all started, in all honesty, for a valid reason, which was really containing and reducing inflation. If we remember, inflation started around the one point something percent mark, so well below the 2% magical number, which we're now questioning is 2% really the right number or not. But it went through the roof by 2021 into 2022 to 9%, and the Fed had to do something. They've been pushing it down. Obviously, I think the last number of inflation is around 6.0%, very close to 6.0%. Clearly, the interest rate increases have been working in really containing and reducing inflation, but this is the side effect. Bertrand Yes, it's definitely a side effect. Why is it a side effect? It's because when you increase rates, especially so fast as a bank, especially banks who have seen continuous increase in deposits, thanks to the monetary inflation over the past few years. If you have bought assets, long-term bonds at low rates, suddenly with the rate increase, the value of your bonds is decreasing. Bertrand For me, what's also interesting in all of this, and we keep learning more and more in the coming few days, but if I look at regulators, it looks like as well, they were asleep at the wheel. I was reading that a very recent FDIC stress test was not including any chance of rate increase in 2022. That proof for me is that banks officials were not doing what they were supposed to do in terms of diversifying risk, preparing to different situations. But the regulators were absolutely of the same mind. Apparently we talk more into the specifics of SVB, but several banks that went bankrupt actually just got their auditing released and done and stamped by KPMG in the past few days. We're talking about two weeks and everything was supposedly all right. Nuno Just to clarify, they went bankrupt or they went under this systemic approach, either at FDIC or the Janet Yellen announcement? Because formally, I don't think they're bankrupt. Bertrand FDIC took them over, but took SVB over Friday morning. Let's not forget we had another bank, Silvergate. The day before all this maelstrom on Wednesday I believe last week, didn't technically went bankrupt but was ceasing operation. We got another bank, Signature Bank, also that was taken over by the FDIC. I don't know if technically it was a bankruptcy, but I'm pretty sure it is because ultimately it's taken over by a new entity. Senior management was fired. Technically, you are not banking with the same entity. Nuno Yeah, you're banking with a bridge bank now. Bertrand I guess it's as close as you can be for bankruptcy for a bank. Let's put it that way. Banks have a special system in place to manage them when it is believed that it's not running well anymore. From what I'm reading about Signature Bank, there was a belief from officials, apparently, that they were not close enough to the action at this bank to know what's really going on, and that started to spook the FDIC officials. This one might be an even more different situation where technically they might have been in a better shape, but they were not able to share numbers at a fast enough pace with the regulators that the regulators believed that they have to take them over. Bertrand We talk about regulators and auditors, potentially a slip at the wheel. Maybe another piece, Jerome Powell was testifying last week in front of Congress that the banking system was all right. We are talking about days before all of this happened, and not just these guys went bankrupt, but we'll talk more about this, but that actually there was a significant change in regulation to stave off a bigger disaster. Nuno Yes. Obviously, there's a couple of other important elements here that we should maybe also talk about, the low returns on deposits that were around, the ability for people to move capital around and put their money into other accounts that obviously were giving them a lot better returns at that point in time. There was already some movements in terms of deposits in certain banks, in particular in SVB. Bertrand But to insist on this one, I have been following for a few weeks. There was definitely a lot of noise on this specific topic that not just SVB, but every bank in the US, because they have been so used to provide depositors with 0% interest rates on their savings account, didn't want to raise them when it should have been appropriate to raise them in order to match the treasury. Bertrand There is here a very clear greed on the part of the banks not to provide returns to their depositors, and in exchange, take a big risk that depositors are going to leave. If they are going to leave, you have to compensate by either cashing out your bonds or other assets as a bank or having to raise equity. They all took a big chance by not increasing savings rates that people would not leave even when they have the opportunity to have very safe risk-free higher return from treasuries. Nuno What we had effectively on Thursday was a bank run 42 billion in initiated transfers. I'm not sure if all of them were completed, but 42 billion in initiated transfers, which is a world record, I'm pretty sure. Bertrand It is. Nuno We're talking and discussing a lot of things around the bank that were very specific around this bank. A high concentration in some of the deposits, 42 billion would have been around 25%, very close to 25% of all the deposits in the bank. It would actually be 20% of all assets of the bank. A bank that had high concentration on certain accounts. From what I was told, there were certainly very large accounts with the bank, which is if one of those accounts got the money out, that significant hole immediately. All of this is true. I would go back a little bit because I actually disagree with all this discussion that's happening around, "Oh, no, it was FDIC's fault." Of course, it was in some ways the Fed's fault on increase of interest rates. Bertrand That I cannot fault the Fed to increase rates. I mean, that's their job. The rest of the institutions should know that they have to do something. Nuno But maybe they increased it too fast. Bertrand I think they started too slow. That's the issue. That's why they had to go too fast. Nuno Yeah, maybe they started too late, and that's the case, I don't know. Maybe it is that the FDIC stress tests weren't updated to include all these things. There may have been some regulatory mishaps that wouldn't have happened otherwise. There may have been some mishaps where the bank had some issue that came up. Nuno My ongoing theory, and I cannot say for a fact this is true, but I've now talked to enough people that seem to agree that this is likely what happened, was there were definitely some discussions with Moody's in the bank around their debt rate and a potential to actually downgrade them on their debt rating. Nuno There was actually a very quick knee jerk reaction to sell assets that they had at a loss. There was actually a push to recapitalize the bank, and we now know that magical number to be 2.25 billion, because it got announced in a press release on Thursday morning. In that recapitalization, it is clear that they started talking to a number of actors in the market, including General Atlantic,...


    39 – How to manage, get the most of your Board and how to be a great board member – 2 of 2 Feb 28, 2023
    Show notes

    In this final episode on Boards of Directors, we will share tips for successful board meetings, how to manage them, how to be a value-add board member and insights on advisors and advisory boards. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: Tips for Successful Board meetings (02:11) Section 2: How to manage your Board (18:24) Section 3: For Board members (25:52) Section 4: Advisory Board / Advisors (33:09) Conclusion (49:19) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34)NunoWelcome to Episode 39 of Tech DECIPHERED, where we continue our discussion around how to best manage your board and get the most out of it, as well as how to be a great and hopefully non-dysfunctional board member. NunoIn this episode, we will talk about tips for successful board meetings, how to manage your board, and we'll go into details on anything from agendas to how to organize the cadence of it, KPIs, et cetera. How to think through advisory board members and advisors and how they're different from consultants and contractors, and also on how to be a fully functional board member and bring value to the company that you're a board member of.Section 1: Tips for Successful Board meetings (02:11)NunoMaybe we go to tips for successful board meetings and door calls. Maybe we go to the first one, which I know is one of your favorites. BertrandI think it's quite key to be prepared for your board meeting, and it works for both sides, the execs, the CEO, and on the other side, investors, people who receive the communication from the company. That part is quite critical. BertrandMyself, not initially, but at some point when I was running my previous business, App Annie, Data.ai now, one thing I did after ending up sending a board deck and board back instead of the usual two days before a board meeting to send it a few hours before. I was not feeling very good about how it worked out. I ended up approaching that to share stuff at least a week in advance. BertrandThat might sound crazy from a lot of perspective, but at the end of the day, it's a question of just organization. There is no reason you cannot do a week in advance. You can do two days in advance, but you would have more time. If it slips, it's no big deal. If it slips by a day. BertrandWhat it also gives you is the opportunity to potentially reach out to different board members between the moment where you send your board materials and the moment where you have your board meetings. It gives you more time to set up some calls, to answer some questions, highlight some points. BertrandIf you have time to do that between sending your board back and having a board meeting, you will have a much more streamlined board meeting itself because if the big questions have been discussed in one-to-one, if some controversies have been addressed in one-to-one, things will go a lot smoother. BertrandSurprisingly enough, some board member might prefer more challenging confrontational type of board discussion. Personally, I don't if it's not needed, but working that way gives you definitely some more efficient board meetings. NunoTo your point, manage this thoughtfully. Again, when you're sending board materials, you send it to observers as well, et cetera. If you have some lead board directors, in particular from investors, that are material to you and you know there's going to be a complex conversation at the board meeting, have that conversation even before you send those materials because you might not want to have some of this material sent out. NunoAgain, be very thoughtful how this done. I think Bertrand, you alluded to a best practice. Sadly, I have very few boards that I sit on that send their decks and their information and financials a week before. I would love to have more. I've had people sending the day of and I'm like, "I don't know what you want me to say." BertrandThat's clearly unacceptable. NunoIn that case, you need to say, "It can't happen again." In particular, if we have quarterly board meetings, which has become, again, the norm during these bullish times of the last three or four years. And if it's quarterly, honestly, a week, you should have enough time to prepare and send a week before. Worst case, you send three or four days before, but again, you should send them well in advance. NunoBe very thoughtful, again, what you put on the board materials versus what you don't put. There's elements around legality and stuff like that and materials being discoverable. There's elements around you having potentially people on the board or that you're sending the deck to that are not board members that might be board observers, or that might be privy to information or have connections to other people where the information you're sharing might be taken in the wrong way. NunoA lot of inside information cases that we've seen in large public companies have happened because of that. Either it was discussed at the board meeting or because there were materials shared that shouldn't have been shared, then further on to people that were not privy to the companies. NunoAgain, just be thoughtful on what you write in the materials, how it's written. Focus, first and foremost, the discussion on what absolutely needs board approval. Normally, stock option grants, increases in salaries, stuff like that. What should have board approval and what you should discuss, like strategic direction of the company, significant allocations of resources. NunoI always put this "cover my ass" section of risks that have emerged internally or externally. Many founders that I know like to do the tops and flops of the last quarter. Address risks pretty early on. If it's a huge risk, even before the board meeting, just put it in front of people. Don't wait for the board meeting, just put it in front of people. It's better to do that than to... If you're being sued by Google or Google has stopped you from having access to their advertising stuff... These are true stories, by the way, raise that early on rather than late. BertrandOne thing I noticed is that some CEO might be a bit too positive on everything doing great and not acknowledging enough what's potentially not working require more improvement. I think it's key to have a balanced perspective of the business because at the end of the day, you are ultimately being judged by the facts. What happened, cold hard numbers. How are you ending the year in term of sales, in terms of EBITDA, in term of cash flow? BertrandMy point is that there is only so much that everything is looking great at each presentation, but ultimately you don't make the numbers or you achieve not-so-exciting targets. I think it's quite important to show and demonstrate that you understand what's going on, you understand the positive as well as the negatives of the business. Because at the end of the day, that's the only way to propose a plan and discuss how we can do things better. NunoAlso, take credit to your point. The achievements that you've gotten to. BertrandOf course. NunoI know some founders who are like this, they only talk about the crap stuff and risks and whatever. If you're just parachuting into the board meeting, you're like, "Oh, my God." But the company is doing incredibly well. NunoAgain, also give credit for achievements. Give credit for achievements if you have a senior executive presenting to the board and that person is doing particularly well. Or even if the person is not there that you can convey to that person, the board, "I mentioned to the board your performance and they're aware of it," and all of that. NunoA couple of things on form. I don't think you should spend too much time on beautiful presentations, but really focus on content. "I have the core content there." If a board member, in particular, an investor asks you for something, make sure it's there on the next board meeting. If they ask you for North Star metrics on a certain aspect, make sure it's there in the next board meeting. If they ask you for an analysis of sales pipeline or something else, make sure it's there on the next board meeting. NunoJust pay attention to what people are telling you. These are important things because these are quarterly. If you miss two, it's like half a year. The person that is in front of you will only get the level of update they want nine months down the road and that's not cool. Again, be very thoughtful about that. BertrandYeah, and on that point, I think you can standardize board meetings presentation quite a lot. That should simplify your life. If it's always the same framework, your life would be much easier. BertrandTypically, I think you can reuse maybe 70% of your board deck quite easily and you just have some new section to talk about some stuff in product, some legal matters, some different stuff. But all the finance, sales, even quite a bit of marketing can really be quite repeatable and product metrics. BertrandYou don't need to reinvent the wheel for every board meeting. Also, it makes life of everyone easier, not just the life of the people building the decks, but also the life of board members who are reviewing these documents. If they have a different format every board meeting, that's painful. NunoThat's absolutely spot on because it makes it easier for us to also read if we're not executives. For example, I have one board where the founder CEO always does it in a memo and then has financials and minut


    38 – How to manage, get the most of your Board and how to be a great board member – 1 of 2 Feb 02, 2023
    Show notes

    In this episode, we will explain what a Board of Directors is and is *not*, its roles & responsibilities, and how it should evolve over time. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: What is a Board of Directors (02:10) Section 2: Taxonomy (06:20) Section 3: Evolution of Board structure over time (12:08) Section 4: Board Composition (18:38) Conclusion (29:47) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Bertrand Welcome to Tech DECIPHERED, episode 38. This is the first of two episodes where we will discuss about how to manage your board from a CEO perspective, mostly. The idea here is to talk about why do you want a board, what's the purpose of a board, what would be the taxonomy about running a board, the evolution of a board, its composition, how you should manage your board, as well as other board, like an advisory board, as well as sharing some perspective from a board member perspective or from an advisor perspective. Section 1: What is a Board of Directors (2:10) Nuno Indeed. Maybe we start at the beginning. What is a board of directors? I think that might be a question that gets thrown quite a bit. I'll read from a definition. Some of the stuff we'll be doing today is based on a document I prepared a very long time ago and some other things that Bertrand dug out. But just to directly quote, a board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization. A board's activities are determined by the powers, duties, and responsibilities delegated to it or conferred on it by an authority outside itself. These matters are typically detailed in the organization's bylaws. What is a board? A board represents, basically, normally actually shareholders. Shareholders and other stakeholders in a company. It depends on the country. We know, for example, in Germany, that boards of directors also have in many cases representation by unions. But in the case of what we will discuss today for the most, we're going to talk about startups and tech companies. Normally, boards represent shareholders, and they represent the interests of shareholders. So the people that are on a board of directors are there to make decisions around a couple of areas that are vital to the well-being and growing of the company in representation of a larger group of shareholders. Nuno The typical duties of boards of directors obviously include the governance of the company, so all the key policies and objectives of the company. The selection, appointment, supporting, and reviewing of the performance of a chief executive. We'll come back to that as well. It's normally a contentious issue, but it is the responsibility of the board to do that. Making sure that the company has their adequate financial resources to sustain itself, to be a growing concern, proving annual budgets, strategic items, any accounting that is done to other stakeholders of the company, including shareholders. And last but not the least, and there's many other things a board can do, but last but not the least, setting the salaries and compensations for company management. This should be interpreted under the logic of the senior people of the company, certainly the CEO, maybe founders, and other core people to the company. In a nutshell, what the board is responsible for is governance on the one hand, and on the other hand, what I would call mostly strategic decisions. Strategic decisions that link to the financial well-being of the company and that link to its organizational stand, that link to its strategic elements. Nuno What does a board not do? A board is not the executive committee of the company. It's not responsible for day-to-day decisions or management of the company. We'll talk about it later. And when we talk about composition, there might be members of the board of directors that are executives, but the board is not responsible for day-to-day. It's not responsible for managing Johnny or Mary, or making sure that they're doing a good job on their day-to-day basis, etc, etc. It might be that Johnny or Mary are strategic in some discussions that get brought to the board, but it's definitely not the board's responsibility to manage them on a day-to-day basis. It's definitely not the board's responsibility to manage the operations of the company on a day-to-day basis Bertrand Maybe one point to never forget as a board member is your fiduciary duty. You are not here to just represent yourself, your fund, your interest. You are actually here to make sure that the organization is overall well managed, that it stays in some financial situation. And to do that, you need to be objective, unselfish, responsible, honest, trustworthy, efficient, hopefully. And at the end of the day, you need to act for the good of the organization, the company, the business, rather than for the benefit of yourself or some of the shoulders you represent. Your work as a board member is for the good of the organization. Nuno This is a pretty vital point that you highlight here, often forgotten by both sides of the table, by the executives in the company, people that work on the day-to-day, the CEO, the chief operations officers if they're board members, and in many cases, also forgotten by investors. Obviously, we are there to return the most money to our own investors, to limited partners if we're a venture capital firm. But at the end of the day, we also have to represent the best interests of the company. If we do something that's egregiously against the best interests of the company, although it might be in the good interests of us as shareholders, we might run into trouble. So again, it's something to remember at the end of the day. I've been on many boards of directors, and sometimes people forget. Sometimes they forget very aggressively, sometimes they forget for a short period of time and someone needs to remind them that's what they're there to do. Maybe this is a good way to migrate the discussion into precisely what is the taxonomy for the people attending a board meeting. And obviously, we have executives, non-executives, independents, all this stuff. Nuno Bertrand, do you want to give us the lay of the land? Section 2 - Taxonomy (06:20) Bertrand Yeah, sure. It's quite typical to have some founders as well as some executives as part of the board. Obviously, some founders might be executive in the business, might be employees in the business, or actually might have left the business but still sit on the board. So these executives, when they are on the board, they should act as board members. They should wear board member hat. And executives, of course, can be a CEO, COO, CFO, chief product officer, chief revenue officers. So you might have different execs that are board members. And o- course, what might happen in a board meeting is that you will bring as needed, but that's different from being an executive board member. If we go on the other side, non-executive board members, you have, of course, typically the investors. So if you raise money, you might have a seed investor, you might have a Series A, a Series B. Typically, you might have multiple investors in a round of financing. And there, typically, you might have only the lead or potentially the co-lead having a board seat. And what happens is to step by step end up with also some independent board members, one, maybe two that are more neutral and they do not represent investors as they do not represent executives. Bertrand They are just independent. Bertrand Obviously, some board members were introduced by the CEO, might be introduced by some VCs. So they might have some connections with one side of the table more than another. But at the end of the day, they are supposed to act independently. And you can also talk about inside investors, meaning execs and investors, and outside directors, meaning as independent. Inside versus outside directors is another way to talk about it. Sometimes some people might be surprised to see some co-founders who are no longer executives, no longer in the business, still on the board. They stay there because they have knowledge, they have expertise in the business, and sometimes they might have significant shares and control of the business but might not want to still be operational. Nuno Likely, if they're still there, they are investors. They still have stock in the company of some sort. Normally common stock, but it is a significant amount of shares, right? So there'd be non-executive investors that just obviously happen to be co-founders of the company at the end of the day. Bertrand Yeah, and if we go about non-board members, you have different type of people who might still be joining the board. So you can have a company secretary, a company lawyer to make sure the minutes are taken properly and we'll talk about it, to make sure the legal matters are respected. Typically, that can be an insider, a person working at the company, or it could be your external counsel, quite a lot of counsel. By the way, in Silicon Valley, specifically, provide that for free, so they don't charge you for their time working at the board. That's a good tip to know. Nuno I wonder why. Bertrand Yes. Definitely, they have an interest to know what's happening and to propose additional services if they were needed. But there is good value to have a lawyer assisting at the board, end to end,...


    37 – When to talk and when to keep your mouth shut… we sort of predicted the FTX debacle. Really! Nov 29, 2022
    Show notes

    We sort of predicted the FTX and SBF debacle… seriously! How much are CEOs’ political and socio-economic views welcome publicly? How about employees’? How much is too much? In this episode of season 3 of Tech Deciphered, we talk about founders & CEOs activism, employee activism and share our tips on when to talk and when to just… keep your mouth shut. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: Founders & CEOs activism (02:13) Section 2: M&A changes everything (20:09) Section 3: Employee activism (27:38) Section 4: Bring it all together (39:24) Conclusion (44:57) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Nuno Goncalves Pedro Welcome to Episode 37 of Tech Deciphered. In this episode, we will address CEO and employee activism. How much is too much? We will touch upon a few CEO-activism events that are recent. We will also talk about how M&A changes everything. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We will then address employee activism, which has become more exacerbated over the last three years. Finally, we'll bring it all together. How much is too much? Should you be in the media all the time? How much should your PR department control of what you say? How much should you listen to your employees? How much, as an employee, should you actually speak out? Section 1: Founders & CEOs activism (02:13) Bertrand Schmitt I think Nuno that's a timely topic and it's something that, for the good or for the worse, has been changing, maybe quite dramatically, if you compare the last decade versus how businesses used to be run before. I guess, of course, it's thanks to change in technologies. You have your cell phone always available. You can talk to people. You can record, you can tweet, you can do video. Bertrand Schmitt I guess step by step, CEOs, employees discovers that they actually could have more of a voice, and there might be less need for a middleman to express your opinion. As a result, you communicate more easily. If you stop communicating publicly, challenges can start to increase. It's a brand-new world out there. Nuno Goncalves Pedro As Spiderman would say, or actually his uncle, "With great power comes great responsibility." Unfortunately, sometimes, people forget the responsibility piece and maybe they tweet at the wrong times of the day, or they say the wrong things without really checking themselves up. Part of it we'll discuss today. Sometimes when you share on social media, obviously, it lacks context, it's misinterpreted, or sometimes it's just plainly wrong, which is also the case. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Shall we start? How much should one have an opinion on specific topics, geopolitical topics that are important socially? How much should a CEO or founder have an opinion on? Maybe we'll talk about a few examples. Bertrand Schmitt I think traditionally, the approach was, if you're in the economic sphere, you are out of the public sphere, you are out of the political sphere, and you are very careful and measured about how you communicate. Usually, you have a big PR department, all focused on supporting you and the message you are supposed to convey, and you certainly don't go off the cuff. Bertrand Schmitt Obviously, things have changed since the past 10 years. It's not easy for a CEO to make that decision to do more, but sometimes you have no choice. I think some interesting examples, a few years back, maybe actually with COVID, we saw some tension about, basically, should you be focused as a company on your mission first at the extent of anything else? Bertrand Schmitt We have seen quite a bit happening in that sphere. Maybe two companies have, in some ways, best showcased to extremes. On one side, you have the Salesforce of the world who is definitely trying to take every topic out there that you can find and trying to push the company itself and its employees to become "good citizens" and to influence the public sphere. We can remember, for instance, how Salesforce was pushing for new taxation scheme in San Francisco, hopefully, to help some people. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Others beyond themselves, because I do think that they got at some point some tax break as a company in SF and that may have rippled to others. Bertrand Schmitt Some would say that it was a clever ploy to actually make it more painful for other companies, especially the competitors to operate in San Francisco. It depends how you position it. It was clearly positioned as a of being a good citizen by Salesforce, but not everyone would agree. Bertrand Schmitt But on the other end of the spectrum, we have a company like Coinbase, where, basically, there was a lot of internal pushback for more discussion internally around what's happening in public policy, what's happening in the US. At some point, the CEOs say, "Oh, this is good and nice." Bertrand Schmitt But ultimately, we are mission-focused company, and this is not our problem. Our problem is, as employees, to focus our efforts and energy on our mission. If we believe our mission is important, that should help you believe you are focused on the right thing, and there is no need to do anything else, at least, during your work hours. Of course, obviously, what you do on your personal time and your personal name is a different story. Bertrand Schmitt But that should be enough. We believe that it's creating too much risk of division of the company to have this constant debate about what should be done from a political perspective. That's not productive or conducing of a good well-run company that wants to be focused on its mission. Bertrand Schmitt I think that, obviously, Coinbase, as well as many companies, have a very important deep mission, and that could be seen as a very fair statement. They think these two companies, Salesforce, Coinbase are really the two extreme of that positioning. Should you be involved in politics, at least internally or should you be much less? Nuno Goncalves Pedro It's interesting because if we go back in time, once upon a time, there was a world where, as you said, there were PR departments, comms directors that were in full control of their CEOs, there were message houses that were followed, media training that was held regularly practice, people talked like really politicians. There was a separation between internal communications and external communications, or internal communications was, by nature, more open, although also fleshed out but more open. Nuno Goncalves Pedro External communications was a lot more focused on what key messages we want to give the market, how will that affect our stock price. Then all of a sudden, all changed. It changed with social media. It changed with the leaking of internal memos. It changed with leaking of town halls that were videotaped and recorded. Nuno Goncalves Pedro All of a sudden, we've gone into a world, where, on the one hand, and we'll talk about employees later on, employees are sharing stuff that maybe they shouldn't be about what's going on in the company; and CEOs, in some ways, are acting in arenas that maybe they should be a bit more thoughtful about. The extreme example obviously is our great friend, Elon Musk. Everything that he does seems to be a meme. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We've talked about him in the past. Amazing one-man marketing machine. I don't think it's one man. He has people working with him, but definitely he's the meme machine. Not mean, but meme machine. Everything got a bit fuzzy. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The distinction between internal and external is not there anymore. People say what's going on, their minds. I share my perspectives on what's happening in the market might not be aligned with my board of directors, might not be aligned with most of my company, actually. It doesn't matter. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We've gone from a world in which people are saying, "You know what? We are a company. We have something we want to do, your logic of mission driven. We are of our own value system, and this is why we abide by the external stuff is the external stuff." Nuno Goncalves Pedro Then we have the other part of the world, where it's just like, everything's open. I'll just do whatever I need to do to get my company out there to manifest my perspectives on what's happening in the market. I need to be very aggressive and active about it." Nuno Goncalves Pedro In some ways, actually market Salesforce is a little bit more to the middle than to the extreme. Maybe Elon is the extreme example here. Marc is very thoughtful on how Salesforce will show up. Obviously, he has his principles. There's a value system that they abide by. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Maybe Elon is at the other extreme, which is like, "I have perspectives on everything. Tesla is not the only company I'm running. This is my perspective right now." Nuno Goncalves Pedro I think that's a little bit too much. Honestly, at that point in time, you have people that are a little bit bigger than life, in some ways. I'm not saying that what Elon is doing is not creating value for his companies. It's actually, quite the opposite, probably he's creating a lot of value for his companies. Nuno Goncalves Pedro But it's incredibly risky. You're going to unavoidably step on people's toes that you shouldn't. You're going to be operating in an arena that you're probably not well-equipped to participate. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I think, for me, that's the biggest objection I have is when I he


    36 – My Company is in Trouble. What Should I Do? End of our 2 part episode Nov 01, 2022
    Show notes

    "I am leading or involved in a company… and we are in trouble. What should I do?” In this episode, we share what do when you are in trouble and what to do if everything else fails. This is the second and final episode on this topic. For more information, also listen to episode 35 Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: What to do, if the company is in trouble? (02:04) Section 2: What if all else fails? (34:46) Conclusion (47:21) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Bertrand Schmitt Welcome to Tech Deciphered Episode 36. It's our second episode about, "My Company's in Trouble. What Should I Do?" In the previous episode, we talked about the context. We talked about how to determine if your company is in trouble. And we talked about what being relatively safe looks like. In this episode, we are going to talk about what to do if your company is in trouble, as well as what are your options if all else is failing. Section 1: What to do, if the company is in trouble? Nuno Goncalves Pedro Let's say that actually, you are in trouble, that you've done the analysis, you're running out of cash quickly. Your economics are very poor. Your burn is difficult to turn around. What do you do? What is the first thing that you do? Bertrand Schmitt I think the first thing that you do is as management, as a board, to acknowledge you have an issue. That's really the first thing. Acknowledge you have an issue and then start working together, management and board of directors to get in agreement into what is, at the very least, what is our current situation, not even what we should do about it, but always a level of risk, level of tension. The analysis done of what's happening so that you can start smartly discussing about the option for the business. But we saw an acknowledgement across a team of professionals, execs, and board of directors, it's very difficult to move forward. If one side believes a business is doing alright and there is no biggies, that's an issue. If one side believes that, hey, it's not that great in term of burn rate, but we would get financing easily. That's trouble if the other side doesn't believe that. And usually, that might be your board who doesn't believe it would be that easy to fundraise. I guess it depends. But it's really key to be aligned about the analysis. I've seen companies, I think it's less true now, but if you look at in June or May that still we're not acknowledging what was happening in the market, it was crazy for me. It's like, guys, this has happened for six months now. You need to acknowledge it's a different economic condition and what was investable, and we go back to the default investable in November of 2021, is not default investable in September 2022. And the gap might be pretty big. I can see that some people at the first bear markets really start to think, Oh, good times are back. No, no, they're not coming back. Not so easily. And you cannot build and bet your business just based on bet ready for a few weeks. Or both sides of the table need to come into agreement about the burn rate situation, the capacity of the company to deliver on its revenues and its projections of top line, specifically, but also about bottom line and get into agreement about what it means in terms of ability to fundraise. Nuno Goncalves Pedro And let's say we have agreement, so board, executives, everyone's like, we are in trouble. What we're going to share with you next is a little bit the menu. Okay. We're in trouble. What do we do? This is the menu a la carte. Some of these you can bundle, you can mix and match. But this is like a menu of things you can choose to do. The first and foremost thing you can do in terms of order, and this is in an ideal scenario, is control your own destiny. And the levers you have in controlling your own destiny are relatively simple. One is top line What can I do about my top line? And my top line is my sales, my revenues. So can I charge more from existing clients? Can I play a little bit with pricing? Can I create distinctive pricing maybe for new customers? Can I ask some of our existing customers to pay more in advance or contracts that I'm negotiating right now, ask them to pay more in advance? Can I shift around cash and not just money? Again, one key lever that you have is very simple, which is top line. How do I increase it? How do I maybe even make it more predictable? How do I play around with it in terms of levers to make it work? Bertrand Schmitt I think on this one, I totally agree with that reason. That's the first thing to do, it's made so little tactical, but in a situation where you have higher inflation, the least you could be doing is immediately work on readjusting all your contracts with automated readjustment clause based on inflation. That's the minimum thing you have to do about changing your pricing. You have certainly to take that into account. You cannot be stuck with clients who are going to spend for the next, I don't know, three years as much money every year for the same service. They need to end up having to pay more. And that has to be an expectation. I'm talking must see a B2B context. B2C, you don't need 10 people doing that, but it's going to increase by that much. But in B2C, as we have seen from Disney to Netflix, all of them are readjusting their pricing. So please work on this one. It's an easy one. It would be crazy not to use it, especially now that everyone is doing it. Nuno Goncalves Pedro It is a good time to justify it. I mean, it's like inflation and there's all these things happening and we need to pay more to our employees. And it's a good time, as you were saying, Bertrand, it's not just really about the B2B companies, also B2C, the ones that depend on subscription. Even in-app purchases. If you are a gaming company, you could actually tweak the promotions that you're pushing to your gamers and to your users on a weekly basis. The second side is, as you can imagine, the cost side, and that sort of goes directly to the bottom line and how can you become leaner? This is the classic one that people say, "Okay, you just cut costs, right?" Again, I would always start by looking at top line, in the first instance, but you obviously need to look at your cost base. Are there parts of my organization that make a little bit less sense that I can become leaner in. Are there parts of my operations that I can optimize? Are there parts of my supply chain that I can optimize? Are there parts of my relationship with suppliers and logistics firms that I can optimize? Everything is up for discussion. And again, this is a good time to do it because we are in a crisis. So it's a good time at a global level to say, "Well, I need to tweak this a little bit. If you say you're my logistics partner. Would you be willing to cut your costs right now for a certain amount of money and maybe we have an agreement by which we go up in the future?" "Is there something I can do around a specific area of my team that was very geared, for example, towards growth?" I don't want to take a stab at growth marketing because marketing can be a very important function during these times as well. But maybe there is a part of your growth marketing team that you could say, "You know what, we need to step a little bit back. We're not going to be aggressively doing growth marketing in the next six months or 12 months." Maybe the team needs to be leaner by default. I'm not defending that everything here is about layoffs and cutting, but it might be about renegotiating. It might be about actually being a little bit outside of the box and figuring out what is something that's win-win for everyone involved that we could still make this work. We've seen this in the past. We've seen companies that have laid off almost no people, but they went to a reduction in salaries for a defined period of time to see if the company could rebalance itself where they gave something else in return. They gave more benefits in return. They gave maybe more time off in return to the team, or they made the team have more time off for a significant period of time. There's ways of doing this that are not necessarily the classic, I'll just call everyone, fire people or lay them off and we're good. There are ways to do this in a way that is absolutely win-win for everyone involved. But cleaning up the cost side, becoming leaner for a period of time might be the difference between living or dying. Cash is king, and if you run off cash, as we discussed before, you die. So, again, very important to have these discussions. Bertrand Schmitt I guess I might be a bit more aggressive on this, in the sense that, yes, of course, you should do everything that you talk about, in term of trying to optimize your cost in the smartest possible way and go after easy win. If we are talking right now, it's because easy win are behind us and we are in the situation where we need to go deeper and might take that one unveilment where a lot of great companies, especially in tech, have already been going to lay off, 5%, 10%. We thought even thinking about it, they were like, okay, markets trouble, recession coming, that the time to do a reduction in force and move fast. And you even have some companies like Microsoft who do that every year and sometime you have a few percentage of the [inaudible 00:08:15] falls that's let's go to [inaudible 00:08:16]....


    #35 – Start of Season 3 – My Company is in Trouble. What Should I Do? Oct 06, 2022
    Show notes

    “I am leading or involved in a company… and we are in trouble. What should I do?” In this episode, the beginning of season 3 of Tech Deciphered, we firstly share how to know when you are in trouble (spoiler alert: getting this right is essential) or … if you are “relatively safe”. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: Context (03:28) Section 2: How to know the company is in trouble (04:58) Section 3: What does “being relatively safe” look like? (17:15) Conclusion (28:17) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Nuno G. Pedro Welcome to season three of Tech Deciphered. We have many surprises in store for the season. But to start, we will have two episodes: Episode 35 and 36, on the topic of My Company is in Trouble. What should I do? In these two episodes, we will discuss context on what is happening currently in the market. But more importantly, we'll help you figure out if your company is in trouble or not, maybe the most important of the first questions that you should answer. Secondly, we will talk about what to do if your company is indeed in trouble. And coming from different perspective, not just the perspective of the CEO, but also of people that are involved at the board level or relatively senior people that are involved in the future of the company. And finally, we come to the "what if all fails" piece, right? If everything's failed, what should I do? It's going to be an interesting set of questions, and hopefully, our answers will be helpful to you all. Section 1 - Context Bertrand Schmitt Thank you, Nuno. Yeah, it would be exciting to start this Episode 35. Maybe to share more context, we can start first with our last two episodes about the bubble bursting, winter coming. I guess winter is getting closer. A lot of great companies, tech companies today, they are valued at 50% of what they were worth last year. Fifty percent, five-zero. And it's not just 50%; it's 50% versus a year ago. Imagine the company attempt to grow, to expand their business, to be more successful, but the market are still valuing it 50% lower. That's happening for a lot of great companies in tech. If I take some private market, this company in the buy-now-pay-later space that announced pretty recently, [inaudible 00:01:42], that they were moving from $46 billion valuation last year to 6 billion market cap this year for the last round of financing, which is a huge gap. We're not talking about 50% anymore. We are talking about 90%. It probably happened because they had to mirror what happened in the public market with other competitors in that space who end up being in a similar situation of losing 90% market cap. Of course, the private market had to react and adjust to that new situation, and you cannot keep disconnecting yourself from the relatives of public markets, especially if you are at very late stage. Nuno G. Pedro You have Zoom that was close to 160 billion at the top of it in 2020. Top of COVID, I guess, and now at 25 billion or so. There's been some interesting... And this is a public company. Bertrand Schmitt We are not talking about Peloton. Nuno G. Pedro We're not talking about Peloton. The whole COVID effect also being felt very strongly in many industries. Bertrand Schmitt Yes, Peloton is actually on 15X. Nuno G. Pedro That's not too bad. Bertrand Schmitt It's in way more serious financial trouble than some of these companies we are talking about. Nuno G. Pedro Today, we will talk about a variety of situations. This question has been asked to us by some of our listeners, which is, okay, now some companies are in actual trouble, and we always have to qualify what does that mean? What does actual trouble mean? A company like Zoom that is worth significantly less than they were during COVID height, I mean, it's troublesome for Eric and for the leadership team, but honestly, there was a readjustment of their value, and probably now they're undervalued. Section 2 - How to know the company is in trouble? Nuno G. Pedro It doesn't mean that Zoom is not a valuable company. If we look at some of readjustments that we saw around companies like Facebook and Amazon and others, these are not companies that are in trouble. They have had readjustments and reset things. These two episodes will focus a little bit more on actual trouble. Not just valuation trouble but actual trouble. Like what means, may I run out of cash? Do I have a growing business or a growing concern going forward? Maybe let's start by setting that stage. How do you actually know that your company's in trouble? Where do you start? This seems like a really basic question, but it's often the case that people get it absolutely wrong for a long period of time. That long period of time could be six months or a year, where if I'm the CEO of that company, I could have been working already on a plan to readjust my strategy, my operations, my leadership team, whatever needs to be done to shift the boat into the right direction. And I just missed it. If there's anything you want to take away from these two episodes, I would say the first thing to take away is figure out whether your company's in trouble or not relatively quickly. Listen to your advisors. Listen to your board of directors. Figure out if your actual economics are working or not. Let's start with the first thing you can take a look at. Many people in the startup world understand this, but we're going to explain it in a little bit more detail. Understand your runway. What a runway means is how many months do you have ahead of you with a specific set of assumptions—we'll discuss that in a second as well—that you can go without running out of cash. There are many companies that are just fundamentally profitable. They don't have a concern around that, their unit economic scale, etc., but in any case, many companies are not in that camp. There's a lot of startups that are burning more cash—we'll talk about burn in a second— are burning more cash than they're generating. Therefore, their runway is necessarily limited. It could be 6 months; it could be 12 months; it could be 24 months; it could be something else. What would they have to do? Just to start this discussion, a runway calculation is actually not that easy because it starts from the perspective of assumptions. In assumptions, you need to think through a variety of things. The first thing you need to think through in your runway calculations is, honestly, if I'm being extremely conservative in terms of my top-line growth, my sales pipeline, but also pretty aggressive in the fact that I might have costs that I'm not fully anticipating. When I do this analysis and I turn it into a cash flow analysis, that will give me probably a very aggressive runway. It'd probably shorten my runway more than I would expect it to do so. That's a good thing because that will tell me when do I need more cash infusion, or do I need to do something else about it? Again, if you are in a case today, and we'll talk about, later on, what is a classic runway. I think in the industry, we talk about 12- to 18-month runways once you raise money. We'll discuss later that actually, maybe you should extend your runway above the 12- to 18-month period of time, which is classic in fundraising. So I raise so that I can maintain my business going for 12-18 months. We will talk about it later that we believe that you should actually prolong it. It should be more than 12-18 months. But if I have three months left of runway, we're running out of cash in three months, and I'm not raising money yet, I'm going to have a problem because raising money takes time—takes 3-6 months; we've talked about this in the past—and so, how can I do it? How can I go to that level of maintaining my company growing or going either with financing or with something else? So I know I'm in trouble if my runway is really, really short, and I have no other way of changing course, or if I need to change course, but I need to change it right now. So first thing to look at, runway. What's your runway? How many months you have left of cash? Do different scenarios. If you think your scenario is conservative, it's probably not conservative enough. Second thing to take a look at is burn. Bertrand, what is burn? Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Maybe before going what is burn, I think it's very important that the proper scenario is put in place to estimate runway calculation because if you start always using a rosy scenarios that you are going to grow, as expected, nothing more is happening in that market, in that situation, things are going to change; expectations might not be met, and you cannot plan a runway calculation just based on a rosy scenario. You might want to have a downside. You might want to have unexpected, maybe an upside scenario, but you cannot just plan everything on an upside scenario, an optimistic scenario. To go back to your question, what is burn, burn is simply how much money you are burning every month, so you are losing every month. We are talking typically about cash burn. To be clear, that means that if you are burning, let's say, one million a month, and you have 10 million in the bank today, and in 10 months from now, you would be out of cash and the runway is 10 months. That's a very critical metric. Obviously, this one as well would vary depending on your scenario and the assumptions. Nuno G. Pedro ...


    #34 – Winter Has Arrived – Part 2 – End of Season 2 … the Burst of the Bubble and the Crisis Upon Us… What’s next?! Jul 26, 2022
    Show notes

    In this episode, the end of our 2nd Season, we close our discussion on the crisis that is upon us and deep dive on what will happen next. We finalize with a brief recap of our season 2 and on what we got right and wrong. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: What Will Happen Next Section 2: End of Season 2 - a Quick Recap Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Bertrand Welcome to Tech Deciphered episode 34. This is our second episode on the bubble that's finally burst winter that has arrived. We will talk more in this episode about what will happen next. If you want to listen to our episode 33, where we talk about what has happened, what is happening, go back to that episode. And for this one, we'll be focused on future, short-term, medium-term, where we believe this is going. Nuno So what is happening next? There were some significant changes in the world that we're really not coming back from. And we've heard some amazing things and some well-written analysis, or at least some very pointed notes from people like Benedict Devin and many others that we have inspired ourselves with. Nuno But in effect that the whole notion of digitization is true, I think we have had a forced digitization over the last two years, which has really brought us forward. Our ability to do ecommerce, our ability to actually use services that we legacy services and have ways of interacting with those services that are more virtual than they were ever before, our ability to get telemedicine and many other things. Nuno So there's been a lot of moving forward that has been positive. There's a lot of things that, in our personal experiences, for example, in the home, we don't accept anymore. I think Benedict was the one saying no one is going back to cable. I'm not sure that holes in that sense, but obviously there's been a lot of court cutting streaming seems to have one day. Clearly, it was already relatively clear. Probably, it got accelerated through COVID. Nuno We'll now see the reckoning of that in the next few years on who's going to be the big winners in that space, but certainly, I think that's moved forward. The ability for us to really communicate with each other at a distance is now a theme that needs to be addressed by everyone. So it's no longer an afterthought. It's not like, okay, oh, maybe we can get on a plane and go somewhere. No, no, no, no. Nuno Do we have a good way for our team, for example, in a professional environment, to interact with each other at a distance? What are the tools we have to do that in? So all this notion of hybrid versus remote versus being in the office doesn't really matter. Remote work needs to work. And we've learned our lessons and there is a lot of tools missing. There's a lot of things that haven't been done properly. Nuno We also know for a fact that there are pieces of the acceleration that we saw in biotech driven by COVID and the vaccines that ultimately are here to stay. So there's definitely not a going back on this either. Obviously, there's a lot of work still to be done in digitization, in particular, across different sectors of the economy. Nuno But honestly, with all the tragedy that COVID has been and all the crap that we've been embedded in for the last two years as a global society, the silver lining is, guys, we've got the digitization we've been asking for. The whole digital transformation stuff we've been talking about, it happened in two years, what probably would have taken 10 years. Nuno And again, it's not perfect, there's still pieces missing. But even the pieces that are missing, I think, because of this shock that happened to the world, we are all working from home. Because of the shock, the pieces that are missing are now much clearer. The flaws in the systems and tools that we had are all much clearer. Nuno Again, I think this is an amazing situation for us to be in as investors. This is an amazing situation for us to be in as entrepreneurs. It is now clearer that there are things missing that we can build. Bertrand I totally agree. A lot of things got accelerated are not disappearing. Another big example is around the cloud computing. The move to the cloud has been accelerated. It's more efficient, it's easier, ultimately, for many cases, less costly. So this is not something we are coming back. The same with mobile devices, which in some ways, strangely enough, did pretty well. Bertrand Mobile devices, mobile content in a situation where a lot of people were spending much more time at home. But even at home, you prefer the smaller screen that you have really everywhere with you. You don't just want to be focused on one big screen. Some of those sectors are going to probably go a bit more back to normal. Bertrand Edtech has seen a lot of tension, not just because of COVID, but also because of regulations and changing platforms rules. Edtech is probably going to face a lot of unknowns, especially in front of an economic prices that are coming. Ecommerce, we probably keep moving forward, but as we have seen, it has been coming back a bit more in line with past trends. Bertrand But obviously, yes, a lot of things are not coming back, a lot of habits are not coming back. It's still amazing for me to see how now everyone, there's a video confer individuals, professionals, such situation, investment situation, stuff that in many cases were not possible, two, three years ago, would have been seen as a platform. Bertrand Yeah, it's that acceleration of digitization is there to stay and more is to come. And I would say you could even argue that with an economic crisis where typically you want to optimize your spend more, there should be more digitization because people will realize that the most efficient channels are digital to which consumers transact with them. And you will need to be even more hardcore in order to optimize your spend. Nuno In some cases, the nuances of what happened during COVID have become very apparent in the last few months in particular. So for example, for us, one thing that wasn't clearly solved in this whole stack of communication within the Enterprise and within the company was definitely the water cooler moments, the ability that people have going to each other's offices or each other's desks and asking something about something else that's very quick in answering. Nuno And for example, for us, that has led us to some thinking around that thesis, we actually might make an investment in that space, so I'm preempting a little bit that. But there's definitely pieces of the puzzle because they got so disjointed they became clear. Nuno The notion for me right now that is super exciting is this acceleration that we got, nobody probably would have asked for it that we got a global pandemic, but it provided a shock to society that has at least given us some positive things. And those things are things that we can build upon that can help us move forward across a variety of areas. Nuno One is that there's been obviously advancements in artificial intelligence. We've been paying attention quite heavily at artificial intelligence. We think we are now at the point of what we call the app economy and artificial intelligence, where there is a lot of leading platforms that you can build on top of. And so what you're effectively doing is you're being amazing in terms of algorithms. Nuno You have amazing engineers with you and data scientists that really allow you to go to the next level, in terms of how you build your own platform around existing and underlying platforms. I think we're going to see advancements around artificial intelligence that go well beyond it. That what got us here is not what is going to get us to the next level, what got us here was brute force. Nuno The next level is going to be finesse. It's going to be smaller datasets, better algorithms, bare methodologies, less computer or compute intense methodologies. A lot of exciting stuff happening around it. Nuno And we've talked a lot about other big advancements. Quantum computing has moved forward. I'm not sure we're there yet, to be very honest in that field. Biotech has had incredible movements. I think anyone that's in biotech today should feel like totally vindicated that was the right choice. Bertrand Yes, indeed. Nuno That's something for the future. Anyone that's around data manipulation and from anywhere from data quality, data engineering, data science, it's essential. The word becomes more digitized. Data becomes actually more important even. There's a lot of amazing things happening in the world. And obviously one of your favorite, which is nuclear energy and nuclear fusion. Bertrand I've been a big fan of nuclear for more than 20 years. I'm glad that finally, this is something that is back on the table for people who are thinking carefully about how you solve energy needs instead of proposing to go back to prehistoric times and stop using energy. I'm very excited that nuclear fission, it's back on the table that companies are investing more into nuclear fusion programs as well. Bertrand That's two fantastic technologies. I believe we absolutely need more of them. You take one famous example, in France, around 80% of all electricity is nuclear. That's a big difference in terms of energy dependence, but also in energy pollution. Let's not forget there is no pollution coming from a nuclear reactor,...


    #33 – Winter Has Arrived – Part 1 – the Burst of the Bubble and the Crisis Upon Us Jul 26, 2022
    Show notes

    Winter Has Arrived - the Burst of the Bubble and the Crisis Upon Us… AND WE GOT IT RIGHT! In this episode, we share … that we were right, all along. We were in a bubble and the crisis is upon us. We share context on the current crisis and what is happening, exactly at a macro level - inflation, recession, over-stimuli, etc - as well as in the start-up and VC world. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: First of All… We Told You So… Repeatedly (02:05) Section 2: What is Happening…Exactly (04:25) Conclusion (41:37) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Nuno Welcome to Episode 33 of Tech DECIPHERED. This will be the first of two episodes on the bubble bursting. We've called it very nicely. Winter has arrived when we're really in summer. Today's episode, we're going to go through what's happening exactly in this bursting of the bubble. But let's actually start with congratulating ourselves in having predicted the bubble. There was a dramatic bubble and that it was going to burst, which we did in our duology on the bubble a couple of episodes ago Bertrand. Bertrand Yes, we released these two episode in October or November, about the bubble and how was supposed to burst at some point. I guess timing was perfect to talk about the bubble when it was at the top of the bubble, right before it start to explode. I think you could fit it in a lot of our discussion in the past two years on our podcasters, that we were on one side amazed to see the increase in transaction values, in VC financing and startup financing, and at the same time, constantly reminding that didn't feel right, and this was probably just a big bubble, and we call it right. It's not just about congratulating ourselves. At the end of the day, it's a pretty scary times for everyone, but obviously, it happened for a reasonw and [inaudible 00:01:19] reasons, and that will help us understand what happened and what's going to happen. Nuno Maybe a parenthesis... I think we got it right in several ways because when COVID first hit, we were predicting that that mini-crash was going to lead to a fundamental crash, and it didn't. Part of what we're now going and suffering through was that, because there wasn't that crash, and the market continued to go bull market for another two years, thank you very much, because of governments giving money, incentives to consumption, a bunch of stuff that was really artificial now we know, we ended up actually having top of the market when we did launch the duology in 2021. Nuno I know it's not a great signal. I certainly, I think, in my own professional activity as an investor, in looking at companies et cetera I've used it. I used it throughout to advise my companies, "Raise now when never knows when it's going to burst", "Make sure that you have a plan B". There was a lot of things that instructed me in how I behaved within my professional activity. Nuno I'm sad to say that it didn't inform everything that I do. I probably could have avoided one or two things on that if I'd sort of followed my own advice on it. But in some ways, having been disciplined through the last year and a half, two years, and now we looked at investments. In some ways, I feel a bit vindicated. I don't want to do the "I told you so", but we told them so. Now, we have plenty of proof that we told them so. There's episodes, two episodes that talk about it in October, November, last year. Although I know this is not about really being vindicated or not, it is good to know that we weren't smoking dope, that we were seeing something that made sense. Bertrand I will say that the sad truths about this and about people who tell you they cannot see the bubbles, because actually, you can see the bubbles, actually. It's pretty obvious and I think you have to be pretty blind not to see them. Unfortunately, our officials, elected or not, seem to be totally blind to this sort of stuff. I don't know if it's simply incompetence or if it's on purpose, but this is what we have to deal with at this stage. Maybe to go back in time, as we discuss, indeed, initially, we are very scared about the impact of COVID you don't put hundreds of millions in lockdown. We saw consequence. Early on it was probably the best approach. You don't know what's happening. You don't know how bad it is. You don't know how it works. You don't even have access to masks or testing, so you have to take a lot of precautions. I think that initial reaction, which was not immediate, by the way, it was only after it was probably too late, made sense. Beyond that, I think that's when the craziness started, when we kept locking down too much, when we started to print money too much, I must say, I didn't see that we would be so fast on the printing press. Bertrand I was reading an article recently, and they were saying, "It took us two months in 2008 to push the printing button. It took us two weeks in 2020 to push the printing button. I was expecting myself it will go down further and it would take longer for recovery. But I was obviously underestimating what was the readiness of the government, the central banks to print money, distribute money and send checks to everyone, to do nothing. Obviously, it just delayed the inevitable and you probably could argue it made worse as inevitable. I'm really not happy to hear a lot of self congratulations from a lot of people to say it was the right thing. An early reaction was the right thing, but continually printing money as if nothing happened for two years is another story. That over-stimulus is probably the start of all of this. Do you have anything to add on the over-stimulus of the economy? When we talk about this, obviously it's happened in Europe, in US, in Japan, in many countries. Nuno I think the initial reaction was the right reaction. It was truly tragic and everything was happening at the same time. I think the stimuli that were applied in different parts of the world, obviously we don't know all the policies by heart, but we can look, for example, at the U.S. I think the indiscriminate stimuli, I'm not sure is a good practice. We need to follow the money when it happens at scale and you give money to everyone, even some people that might not necessarily need it, or it's extra savings or whatever. What are people going to do with it? They're going to apply it to something that they believe, "You know what? I might as well apply it to something that gives me high returns." Maybe it's higher risk. We saw, and we've talked about this before in a couple of other episodes, and move towards putting into public equities. We saw that the public equities were ridiculously overvalued. The reason for that is also because at some point in time, bonds stopped being attractive, and other things stop being attractive because of how the economy was moving. Where did you put your money? Nuno I'll put it to public equities. Then valuations public actors go through the roof. The multiples of public equity companies are commanding, are going through the roof. We always know what happens next. What happens next is then private markets going through the roof, the later stages goes first, then the mid-stages, and then early stage. We saw this panning out very cleanly. Then there's a little bit of lag in markets, the corrections starting in November. But it took, I think, until the beginning of this year, probably the end of first quarter, maybe beginning of second quarter, for us to start really seeing significant withdrawals in the private markets, where term sheets for early stage investments were being renegotiated because people didn't want to pay that valuation anymore. Investors were just scrambling at some points, there were a couple of term sheets that were left on the table where people and investors just walked away. Now we're back to a market that, obviously we'll go through a tough time, and we'll talk about what's next in our next episode. But it will go through a tough time necessarily. There was an exaggeration of everything. I mean, entrepreneurs that were raising left and right, and they were like, "We're the best thing to slice spread" and they were not. Nuno There was just a lot of capital and the capital needed to go somewhere. Everyone was flush with capital to give around. In some ways, after a big, big, big high of a bull market, now we're going to have a low, low, low, low because these things need to rebalance over time. For me, that's the big issue of the over stimuli... The over stimuli, if it hadn't been applied to other things, if it had been focused on consumption of things that were really necessary, if it hadn't been applied, for example, to savings accounts in certain circumstances, if it hadn't been done in discriminate way, maybe after the first check round. If it had been done in a different way, and I know politically this sort of creates all sorts of cans of worms, but if it had been done in a different way, maybe the over stimuli would have been more positive than it wasn't the end. In the end, it propped up a bunch of stock. It propped up, also a lot of investment in crypto assets, which were even riskier. That crash we haven't seen yet. We're going to see it. We started seeing some of the early signals of it, but it will happen and there will be consolidation. Nuno It's not that crypto is bad, it's not that Web 3 blockchain is bad. It's just it was too much....


    #32 – Leadership and Management – Part 2 – How to execute, values systems and our core beliefs May 31, 2022
    Show notes

    In this episode, we end our discussion on Leadership and Management: we delve into how to execute; explore values systems, including our own; and share our core beliefs. Navigation: Intro (01:34) Section 1: How to Execute (02:08) Section 2: Culture & Values, Our Core Beliefs (20:11) Conclusion (34:57) Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Intro (01:34) Bertrand Schmitt Welcome to Episode 32 of Tech DECIPHERED, our second and last episode of this series on leadership and management. In our previous episode, Episode 31, we focus on defining leadership versus management. We spend time talking about the different styles of leadership management. In this episode, Episode 32, we are going to focus on how to execute and how to create and build the right culture through the right values. Section 1 - How to Execute Nuno Goncalves Pedro How to execute, how to do this? What are the levers that you have to lead and to manage? Bertrand Schmitt I would like to share one perspective I've got, what the CEO's job? I'm talking about a company at some level of scale, obviously not five people, ten people team, but we're talking about 50 people plus type of company. What's your job at scale? I believe that you have to have on one side a deep vision, clear vision. You have to bring your team on board. You have to either keep convincing your existing team, bring new members on board, evaluate existing ones, and you have to manage the cash, because if you run out of cash, that's a big problem. In a way, there is this metaphor of being like the bus driver. You have to view outside of you, you have to let people in, sometimes, unfortunately, let people out, and you have to keep the gas. If you don't do all these three, at the very least, that's big trouble for the business. As we discussed, if you are a tech organization, specifically a tech company, you probably need to be as well a product CEO. But at the very core at minimum, you need these three vision, bringing a team, managing cash, as the key pieces of the game as a CEO. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Agreed. I would make a caveat here, which is my view on product CEOs in tech is they are the most dominant type. There are other types that work well, in particular in the B2B environment, in business-to-business. The more commercial-driven CEO, the person who has extreme experience in sales or in business development or corporate development. We've seen a few of those people doing very well in B2B. Again, by nature, tech product CEOs do relatively well. But in B2B, certainly I think we've seen great examples of amazing CEOs that, honestly, are not that technical. But they are very good at selling and they're very good at doing a bunch of other things. There's a few people that come to mind, but again, not to get any hate mail, I will not go into details. I agreed fully with your vision, Bertrand, and the metaphor is very accurate on the bus. The job of the CEO has several dimensions to it as well. Effectively, a CEO needs to manage for the long term and for the short term, and when managing for the long term, strategy comes into play. A set of integrated actions that leads to competitive advantage. Normally, you measure it in years, two to five years. It's something that is really far in the future. You have tactics. Normally, tactics is something that you think through as more the one to two year things. It might be a big initiative, a big product launch, something that is neither four or five years from now, but certainly not something that we're going to get done this year. You need to think through how that is done and then serve the classic final pieces operations, which is the one month, three months, six months, one year, we need to get this done. What are we doing in our day to day and how are we thinking through this? In some ways, the CEO role is very difficult because of this, because it is a little bit of a necessarily paranoid role where you're always looking very, very far ahead and trying to think about two to five years, how big can this be and how can we scale, et cetera, but at the same time, you're thinking about right now and what happened today and how can I compete and how can I go and do this, et cetera. What makes this particularly difficult is time allocation, for example. How do I allocate my time? I remember having clients at McKinsey, one client in particular, I won't name them, but one client that one day turned to me and said, "I envy you." I said, "Why do you envy me?" This guy was CEO of an organization. He said, "I envy you because you have time to actually think about my business." I was like, "Wait a second, you're the CEO of this business. I'm a consultant. I'm leading a team of consultants working on projects, engagements for you. How can you say that?" "I went to my calendar, and I would estimate that, at most, I have 15 to 30 minutes a week that I get to actually have thinking time about my business. Normally, I'm just basically 80, 90% firefighting crap, stuff that happens, that just goes across whatever. I get maybe 5% more on managing stakeholders, board, customers, clients, whatever, in a more proactive manner. It's not so much firefighting, more proactive, whatever. Then there's very little time left for anything else. You guys, in whatever three-month engagement that you're doing, for me, will have more time to think about my business than I did in the last six years." In some ways, I know he was exaggerating. This was not a badly run organization, just to be clear. Sometimes you do work with badly run organizations. It was just a very large organization where the CEO, at the end of the day, his role was just tough. It's tough to think strategically when you don't even have the time to do it. Bertrand Schmitt It was not just on being you because you were young and handsome. That was for other reasons. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I was young back then, I'm not sure I was handsome, but it was many kilograms ago. How is that handsome? It shows the difficulty of the role. For example, one thing that I always do when I have leadership roles in different organizations is I carve out time to think. I put time in my calendar. I'm extreme calendarer as many people have told me. I put time in my calendar on a weekly basis to actually just think. I create situations in which I think. I create situations where I can be in my backyard overlooking the ocean and I think, I can create situations in which I go to a place that is particularly pleasant to me, like drinking coffee or whatever, to think. To be very honest, a lot of my best ideas in terms of forward-looking strategic elements and even sometimes even operations, like day-to-day stuff that were not cracking. Some of the best ideas come during those moments where your brain just creates the space to not have the day-to-day biases. The bias towards an action that comes after another action. The bias to say maybe this is the wrong way, maybe we should just change this. I think having that discipline, the discipline to create those spaces is very, very important. Bertrand Schmitt Yeah. To double down, because it's an important topic, sometimes I see people who tell me, "Oh, I only have time for the tactics." I think it's a big mistake. You absolutely need to do both. When I say you need to do both, if you are the CEO, maybe you are stronger on one side or the other, but that's why you have to build a team and work out all together. Ultimately, you need to spend enough time on the short-term view, running the business, operations, and the long-term view. What does it mean? Why are we doing this? What's our strategy? How are we going to get there on the longer run? You have to combine both. People will tell you they can do only one thing or the other. They don't have time. You have to make the time to do both well. Strategy without tactics, you are going to die pretty quickly if you don't have the execution right. If you just have the execution right, you are going to run very fast to a cliff or to a wall. Both don't work. People have to really get that to build a great and maybe even a good organization, you need absolutely both. You need to get right both. Not negotiable. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I studied with Professor Burgelman at Stanford back in the day, and he wrote this book called Strategy is Destiny that formed a lot of my thinking around strategic planning. I had a variety of strategy roles in my career, and in some ways, I always thought the title of the book, I told him this, shouldn't have been Strategy is Destiny, but Strategy is Direction. Probably less sexy of a name, I guess. Strategy defines where you're going to, to shoot to find North Star. A lot of people think about strategy as beautiful charts in a slide deck. It's not that. Strategy, as I mentioned before, is an integrated set of actions that leads to competitive advantage, right? There's actions for strategy. For me, tactics then becomes a little bit the pillars, the building of the core pillars, the present ones and the future ones. Then operations, to your point, is the building, it's getting stuff done. It's, "Okay, how do we now move this?" That's how I look at these three dimension, strategy, tactics, and operations put together. One other topic is the whole topic of, and we've already addressed it a little bit, of breadth versus depth in the CEO role,...


    Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Reply All

    1

    Reply All Games & Hobbies
    Inside VR & AR

    2

    Inside VR & AR Gadgets
    Note to Self

    3

    Note to Self News
    BrainStuff

    4

    BrainStuff Natural Sciences
    This Week in Tech (Audio)

    5

    This Week in Tech (Audio) News
    Hands-On Tech (Audio)

    6

    Hands-On Tech (Audio) Technology
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights