Suggestions
Philip H. Beauregard
Then: Founder & Exec, Now: Early Stage VC
Philip H. Beauregard is a seasoned professional with a strong background in investing and entrepreneurship.
Having studied Bachelor of Science at The Wharton School, he has honed his skills and knowledge in the business field.
With his experience as a former Managing General Partner at Impellent Ventures, Philip has demonstrated a keen eye for investments and strategic business decisions.
Throughout his career, he has been involved with numerous organizations such as EnFi, Inc, TRL11, ThreesAI, Alō Index, and many more, where he served as an investor.
Philip is passionate about working with exceptional individuals to create magic and is dedicated to living life to the fullest with his family.
His journey in the business world showcases his commitment to innovation, growth, and investment in varied industries and startups.
Highlights
How We Pick Founders
In astrophysics there is a concept that defines an unknown quantity in the known universe - I won't get into it because 1) is doesn't matter here and 2) I honestly don't understand it well enough to write about it succinctly or lucidly. In any case, it's called dark matter, and simply put it's one of the ways astrophysicists explain some of the inexplicable.
When we meet an early stage company at Impellent Ventures, 95% of the reason we choose to work with them is founding-team-based. This doesn't differentiate us as a venture capital firm. Most early stage shops will say the same thing. The reason is is that from inception a company usually takes 10-15 years to reach a substantial enough impact, size, and liquidity event to return a fund. That's a long time - it's really hard. Many of my betters have said the one common trait in all of their wins is survival. (The other 5% of the choosing equation sits between TAM/vector and GTM for me.)
So if 95% of the company-picking equation is on the founder, then what does that analysis entail? We always get asked that question. The answer is...complex.
It's another coefficient equation. For us, I'd say that 80% of the set of qualities a founder needs is what we call "table stakes." Remember when you applied to college and you were filtered in or out at top of funnel by a rubric? Well, it's the same thing with us: you must be quantifiably intelligent, academically trained, a domain expert in the vector to which you are trying to disrupt, experienced in one field of operations/tech, have a unique viewpoint, etc.. (there are other more proprietary things that we analyze which I'm leaving out here - I'm sure a lot of venture firms use a mixture of the same stuff). Then we throw that all into a bucket, tweak the weights of every variable to our liking - some qualities may outweigh others due to the circumstance/opportunity - and we come up with a composite score of sorts for that 80%. The table stakes part. That's to get in the door.
Then comes the hard part.
The other 20% of the founder decision is based on dark matter. A certain je ne sais quoi. Vibes? Gut feel? I'm not sure what to call it. It's the unquantifiable. It's the part where we sit down with our prospective investments, usually a number of times, at length, and stare into their souls. It usually isn't unpleasant. We use conversational devices, Q&A, and a Socratic method to make it seem as natural as humanly possible. Some normies call it a "conversation." What we want to get out of it is a consensus around you, the individual. Do we believe that you, personally, will be a fund returner? For every partner at Impellent it's probably different. I really value self-awareness and scars, David Brown may say he prefers communication and community-building. Tariq Trotter prefers people be genuine and honest. We all have different foci. But it seems to work. Dark matter.
Interested to hear your thoughts. How should we pick?
