Podcast appearances and mentions of scott kupor

Today we're joined by Scott Kupor, Director of the Office of Personnel Management. I think of it as the federal HR department — he makes a compelling case that it's really the government's talent management organization.Scott manages talent for an organization of 2+ million people with a $7 trillion budget. We discuss:* How DOGE cut federal headcount — and what comes next?* Why agencies rehired employees they had just laid off* How few federal employees get fired for poor performance* What OPM can do without congressional helpFor the full transcript of this conversation, go to www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

US Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor and Academy President and CEO James-Christian Blockwood sat down for a discussion in front of a live audience during the 2025 National Conference in Washington, D.C. on November 3. The conversation covered a wide range of topics including ongoing plans for resizing and reshaping the federal workforce, how to attract early career people to public service, and the role technology is likely to play over the rest of the second Trump Administration. Management Matters is a presentation of the National Academy of Public Administration produced by Lizzie Alwan and Matt Hampton and edited by Matt Hampton. Support the Podcast Today at: donate@napawash.org or 202-347-3190Episode music: Hope by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comFollow us on YouTube for clips and more: @NAPAWASH_YT

The Sunday Times' tech correspondent Danny Fortson brings on Scott Kupor, managing partner of Andreessen Horowitz, to talk about why this boom is different from 2000 (1:50), if it is easier today to start a company (6:10), and why it is harder to get big (7:50), the rise of the “mullet” (9:20), why he wrote a book (12:00), why Y Combinator is important (13:20), the investor profiles it keeps (15:40), being “frenemies” with Y Combinator (17:05), the weirdness of venture capital competition (18:25), what goes wrong (20:00), dealing with ego (22:50), what happens when companies fail (24:05), whether Facebook should be broken up (26:50), the changes coming to antitrust laws (30:30), the opportunity to build a decentralised giant (32:00), managing conflict (34:05), and the importance of the “warm intro” (35:50). Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

In this week's episode, a Christian college in Australia buys a robot dog that works in mysterious ways, Scott Kupor watched The Right to Believe on his work laptop, and Ryan Walters did NOT watch The Right to Believe on his work laptop. --- To make a per episode donation at Patreon.com, click here: http://www.patreon.com/ScathingAtheist To buy our book, click here: https://www.amazon.com/Outbreak-Crisis-Religion-Ruined-Pandemic/dp/B08L2HSVS8/ If you see a news story you think we might be interested in, you can send it here: scathingnews@gmail.com To check out our sister show, The Skepticrat, click here: https://audioboom.com/channel/the-skepticrat To check out our sister show's hot friend, God Awful Movies, click here: https://audioboom.com/channel/god-awful-movies To check out our half-sister show, Citation Needed, click here: http://citationpod.com/ To check out our sister show's sister show, D and D minus, click here: https://danddminus.libsyn.com/ Report instances of harassment or abuse connected to this show to the Creator Accountability Network here: https://creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org/ --- Guest Links: To see DJ's incredible balloon art, click here: https://balloonsinbold.com/ --- Headlines: Trump wants federal employees to be more openly Christian: https://www.chcoc.gov/content/protecting-religious-expression-federal-workplace Kim Davis is going to overturn gay marriage https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article311312655.html Ryan Walters gets caught watching porn at work and then can't shut it off and then blames “the media” https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/ryan-walters-tv-displayed-nude-women Missionaries using illegal drones to evangelise Brazil's isolated peoples: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jul/27/missionaries-using-secret-audio-devices-to-evangelise-brazils-isolated-peoples Insolvent Christian college buys robot dog and gets busted for fraud: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-25/bridabella-christian-college-likely-insolvent-2021/105571656

- Senate Hearing for Scott Kupor to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management & Eric Ueland to be Deputy Director for Management, OMB (4.3) - Naval Officers Speak at Navy League Conference - President Trump Hosts the 2024 World Series Champions, LA Dodgers at The White House - Continued: Naval Officers Speak at Navy League Conference - Confirmation Hearing for Ambassador Nominees Sen. David Perdue to serve as U.S. Ambassador to China & Monica Crow to serve as State Department Chief of Protocol (4.3) - Badlands Commentary from Ghost - President Trump's Bilateral Meeting with the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu - Badlands Commentary from Ghost

The podcast features Preethy Padmanabhan, host of *10X Growth Strategies*, in conversation with Mercedes Bankston, Program Director at Founder Institute to discuss the book "Secrets of Sand Hill Road" by Scott Kupor. The book covers how venture capital firms operate, what investors look for in startups, and how to navigate the funding process. The podcast delves into these key insights, offering practical advice for those looking to grow their businesses with venture capital support.   Topics: 00:00 Introduction to Venture Investing 01:01 Meet Our Guest: Mercedes Bankston 01:51 Mercedes' Journey in the Startup World 03:12 Insights from 'Secrets of Sand Hill Road' 05:06 Understanding Venture Capital Dynamics 07:11 Global Perspectives on Startups 11:11 Impact of Venture Investing on Employment 15:16 Current VC Landscape in 2024 17:11 Market Trends and Political Factors 18:30 The Role of Founder Institute and VC Lab 20:52 Success Stories and Unique Funds 24:01 Future Outlook for Venture Investments 27:34 Advice for Entrepreneurs 28:42 Common Pitch Deck Mistakes 31:39 Final Thoughts and Resources

In the first Origins episode of the year, ⁠Nick Chirls⁠ (Notation Capital) and ⁠Beezer Clarkson⁠ (Sapphire Partners) host Scott Kupor, a Managing Partner at Andreessen Horowitz. In his role as managing partner, Scott invests in growth-stage companies building in the bio and healthcare industries, manages the firm's investor relations team, and is responsible for the firm's growth initiatives.  Scott was the first employee at Andreessen Horowitz and managed the firm's growth from $300 million in AUM to more than $30 billion. Prior to joining the firm, Scott worked as vice president and general manager of software-as-a-service at Hewlett Packard. Before that, he held numerous executive management positions at Opsware, including senior vice president of global field operations, vice president of financial planning and vice president of corporate development. Scott is also the author of the Wall Street Journal bestselling book, Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It, and serves on the boards of Cedar, Headway, Foursquare, Labster, Ultima, and SnapLogic. He also served as chairman of the board for the National Venture Capital Association. In this episode we discuss:  - The evolution of Andreessen Horowitz as the firm approaches its 15th anniversary - Reflections on how Scott's role has changed since becoming the first hire at a16z - The state of venture today with AI as an inflection point + valuation corrections - Managing LP/GP expectations in the current environment (e.g. markdowns) - a16z's decentralized business model and keeping important cultural values - How to think about (and debate) fund size and what is the TAM today …and much more Follow us: ⁠⁠https://twitter.com/nchirls⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://twitter.com/beezer232⁠⁠ https://twitter.com/skupor

(0:00) Intro.(1:36) About this podcast's sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel.(2:23) Start of interview.(3:33) On the collapse of SVB and its impact to Silicon Valley and the VC industry.(9:05) On the state of private markets. *Reference to Aileen Lee's post on Unicorn update (2013-2024).(14:35) How VCs are approaching tough conversations on shutdowns, downrounds and/or recaps in this down market cycle. *Reference to Scott's book Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It (2019).(19:10) On the evolution of secondary markets (including founders taking secondaries) and the idea of staying private for longer ("SPL").(24:15) On startup compensation practices (stock option vesting schedules, RSUs).(26:21) On a16z's expansion to NYC (~80 employees) and internationally to London. (28:52) On geopolitics challenges, including China. (31:06) On the crypto industry (Web3) and its regulatory challenges. (34:37) On AI as an investment thesis.(35:30) On some of the novel corporate governance structures used by some leading AI companies (PBCs, LTBTs, etc). On the OpenAI board crisis.(38:37) Fraud in private markets.(41:44) On ESG and DEI in the venture-backed startup market. *Reference to a16z Cultural Leadership Fund and Talent x Opportunity (TXO). How LPs think about this, both in the US and abroad.(44:45) On California as a tech hub and some of its "exodus".(46:35) Corporate governance matters for late stage companies, independent directors and "overboarding" in the VC context.Scott Kupor is an investing partner focused on growth-stage companies building in the bio and healthcare industries, manages the firm's investor relations team, and is responsible for the firm's growth initiatives. You can follow Scott on social media at:Twitter (X): @skuporLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottkupor/ You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__You can join as a Patron of the Boardroom Governance Podcast at:Patreon: patreon.com/BoardroomGovernancePod__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Private Markets Valuations…do these quarterly marks properly represent fair value or are they make believe…contrived from the fictional world of GP machinations?  Do these interim valuations, as one commentator put it, “not matter;” or as another proclaimed provocatively, are they simply a case of “volatility laundering.”  Is the gap or “lag” with public market equivalents relevant…are we anchoring to the right bogey…or arbitrarily comparing objective value to an emotionally manic patient, to paraphrase Warren Buffett?  In today's episode, our inaugural episode of Capital Decanted, we are going to lean in to this divisive and complex topic with some help from Scott and Andrea. Episode Sources

¡Hola! Soy Jaime Sotomayor, conductor deI podcast Innovación Sin Barreras.En este episodio tengo el honor de presentar como invitado a Julian Colombo, CEO de N5, una empresa que se especializa en software para la industria financiera. A lo largo de su carrera, Julian ha demostrado ser un líder en el mundo de la tecnología financiera, con un enfoque en resolver problemas específicos en la industria financiera con soluciones de software innovadoras y efectivas.Julian viene del mundo de la tecnología financiera, habiendo trabajado en diversas iniciativas y empresas. Su filosofía se basa en la idea de que es esencial enfocarse primero en lo importante, en las fundaciones y en lo estructural antes de pasar a la sofisticación. Según Julian, es crucial resolver problemas básicos antes de pasar a soluciones más sofisticadas.En nuestra conversación, Julian nos habla de su visión sobre la creación de software para la industria financiera. Discutimos los desafíos y aprendizajes de este proceso, así como las estrategias que ha utilizado para establecer y crecer su propia empresa. Julian nos comparte detalles sobre cómo su software es diferente de otros en el mercado y cómo se centra en resolver problemas específicos en la industria financiera.Además, Julian discute la importancia de cobrar precios que remuneran el esfuerzo de su empresa y permiten su desarrollo continuo. Según Julian, es esencial ofrecer soluciones a problemas específicos en lugar de tratar de ser todo para todos.---¿Qué escucharás en este episodio?La tecnología en la industria financiera.La importancia de enfocarse en lo fundamental antes de pasar a soluciones sofisticadas.La visión de Julian sobre la creación de software para la industria financiera.Los desafíos y aprendizajes en el proceso de establecer y crecer su propia empresa.La importancia de cobrar precios justos y ofrecer soluciones a problemas específicos.La diferencia entre trabajar con proveedores genéricos y especializados en la banca.Recomendaciones para bancos antiguos y nuevos en la gestión de temas tecnológicos.Reflexiones sobre la vida, relaciones y enfoque en los resultados.---Recomendaciones:"Tom Sawyer", "Ambar", "El diario de Dan y Eva" de Mark Twain."Pensando, rápido y despacio" de Daniel Kahneman."El Cisne Negro" y "Engañados por el azar" de Nassim Nicholas Taleb."The Hard Thing About Hard Things" de Ben Horowitz."Secrets of Sand Hill Road" de Scott Kupor."Sapiens" de Yuval Noah Harari."La señal y el ruido" de Jordan Ellenberg."El juego del colgado" de Gisela Colombo (hermana de Julian).---¿Te gustó este episodio? Te invito a suscribirte gratuitamente al podcast y al newsletter de Innovación Sin Barreras en https://blog.jaime.pe/. Así no te perderás de ninguna de nuestras entrevistas sobre startups, tecnología e innovación, donde extraemos valiosos aprendizajes directamente de aquellas personas en la cancha. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit blog.jaime.pe

Scott is the Managing Partner at Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) where he is responsible for all operational aspects of running the firm. He also invests in growth-stage companies within the bio and healthcare industries. Scott originally joined Andreessen Horowitz as the first employee, joining Marc & Ben after they founded the firm. He is the author of the bestselling book, Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It. Follow Scott on Twitter @skupor. [1:41] - The start of Scott's career, from law school to investment banking [6:00] - The evolution of Scott's relationship with reading [10:29] - Persisting after an initial rejection from Stanford [14:05] - Scott's role in shaping the amazing growth of a16z [17:46] - Transitioning from executing tasks to managing people [22:03] - Scott's learnings from scaling a16z from scratch [27:25] - The development of a16z's organizational design [36:30] - Going from a generalized investment fund to multiple specialized verticals [39:50] - Criteria for selecting new general partners at a16z [47:01] - The value of making media efforts as a VC firm [51:40] - Scott's guiding principles for success in his work For more episodes, go to podofjake.com. Previous guests include Mark Cuban, Vitalik Buterin, Brian Armstrong, Balaji Srinivasan, Keith Rabois, Ali Spagnola, Anthony Pompliano, Raoul Pal, Julia Galef, Jack Butcher, Tim Draper, and over 100 others alike. Learn from founders and CEOs of companies like OpenAI, Coinbase, Solana, Polygon, AngelList⁠, Oura⁠, and Replit, and investors from Founders Fund, a16z, Union Square Ventures, and many more. I appreciate your support and hope you enjoy. Thanks to ⁠Chase Devens⁠ for the show notes and ⁠Yiction⁠ for the music. Lastly, I love hearing from fans of the pod. Feel free to email me any time at jake@blogofjake.com. Thank you!

Follow me @samirkaji for my thoughts on the venture market, with a focus on the continued evolution of the VC landscape.This week we're joined by Scott Kupor, Managing Partner at Andreessen Horowitz. Scott was the first employee of the firm alongside Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. He has been instrumental in the firm's growth to now having north of $35B in AUM. Scott also authored a Wall Street Journal bestselling book called Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It, and previously also served as chairman of the board of the NVCA. Scott goes through the history of a16z and the learnings along the way in building the multi-product investment company it is today.Frank, Rimerman + Co.'s history is closely intertwined with that of Silicon Valley. With humble beginnings similar to so many start-ups, Frank, Rimerman was formed with a desire to serve the entrepreneurial and venture communities of the Valley and the determination to think outside-the-box.When it comes to venture funds, we work with almost 500 VC groups from over 20 states across the USA. We have worked with over 400 fund groups during their first year of operations, making us one of the leading providers in the country to emerging managers.No one wants to be bored at work. That's why we chose to work with some of the most innovative and creative people – people who are changing the world around us every day. Their excitement fuels our passion and determination to grow and serve this special community.Frank, Rimerman + Co, Passion Works Here.www.frankrimerman.comAbout Scott Kupor:Scott Kupor is Managing Partner at Andreessen Horowitz, focused on growth-stage companies building in the bio and healthcare industries, manages the firm's investor relations team, and is responsible for the firm's growth initiatives. Scott was the first employee at Andreessen Horowitz and managed the firm's growth from $300 million in AUM to more than $30 billion. Prior to joining the firm, Scott worked Hewlett Packard, Opsware, and represented startups through M&A processes. Scott is the author of the Wall Street Journal bestselling book, Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It, and serves on the boards of Cedar, Headway, Foursquare, Labster, Ultima, and SnapLogic. He also served as chairman of the board for the National Venture Capital Association.Scott earned a bachelor's degree and a JD from Stanford University.In this episode, we discuss:(02:24) Scott's journey to a16z(04:52) Lessons from the dotcom bubble (08:29) Why the original thesis for a16z was so different(12:33) How Mike Ovitz and CAA inspired them(16:44) Early days building the firm and recruiting the team(20:26) Running the firm like a startup(25:58) Challenges of building and maintaining a culture(30:01) Building cohesion with a global workforce and work from home(33:18) What “founder-friendly” means at a16z(36:34) Advice for new managers(40:49) Where we are in the current market cycle(44:59) The advice Scott would give e himself as a new graduate.I'd love to know what you took away from this conversation with Scott. Follow me @SamirKaji and give me your insights and questions with the hashtag #ventureunlocked. If you'd like to be considered as a guest or have someone you'd like to hear from (GP or LP), drop me a direct message on Twitter.Podcast Production support provided by Agent Bee This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit ventureunlocked.substack.com

In this episode of Ventures, I (https://linkedin.com/in/wclittle) compare ChatGPT, Bard, HuggingChat, and BingChat regarding their recommendations for startup books and front-end code for a standard startup landing page. I compare the user experience of each LLM, the limitations of each for these use cases, and show how ChatGPT and Bard seem to be current leaders in these examples.Visit https://satchel.works/@wclittle/ventures-episode-149 for more information. You can watch this episode via video here. 0:03 - Tee-up for the episode, talking about the 4 LLMs I'll be comparing, and where to find the audio/video of this episode. 1:14 - Talking about startup books, starting with ChatGPT's list: "The Lean Startup" by Eric Ries"Zero to One" by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters"The Startup Owner's Manual" by Steve Blank and Bob Dorf"Founders at Work" by Jessica Livingston"The Hard Thing About Hard Things" by Ben Horowitz"Venture Deals" by Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson"Disciplined Entrepreneurship" by Bill Aule"Crossing the Chasm" by Geoffrey A. Moore2:47 - Talking about Google Bard's list: The Lean Startup by Eric RiesZero to One by Peter ThielThe Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben HorowitzThe Mom Test by Rob FitzpatrickThe Startup Owner's Manual by Steve BlankThe $100 Startup by Chris GuillebeauFounders at Work by Jessica LivingstonLost and Founder by Rand FishkinThe Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton ChristensenThe Art of Startup Fundraising by Steve Blank and Bob Dorf3:25 - HuggingChat's “list” - which was just The Lean Startup4:12 - Bing Chat's list: Lost and Founder by Rand Fishkin, The Startup Checklist by David S. Rose, and The Lean Startup by Eric Ries1. Other books recommended for startup founders include The Founder's Dilemmas by Noam Wasserman, Secrets of Sand Hill Road by Scott Kupor, and Zero to One by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters1. According to Benzinga, the best startup books for beginners are “Zero to One,” “Creativity Inc.” and “The Lean Startup”1. “The Startup Owner's Manual” by Steve Blank is also recommended as one of the best startup books2. Other books that are recommended for business startup include “The War of Art” by Steven Pressfield, “The 4-Hour Workweek” by Tim Ferris, and “Purple Cow” by Seth Godin1.6:06 - Diving into front-end code with the 4 LLMs, including asking it for the CSS for the recommended HTML code that Bard and ChatGPT put out (HuggingChat and Bing weren't able to generate code for me). 

Michael speaks with venture capitalist Scott Kupor, author of "Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It." Original air date 17 June 2019. The book was published on 4 June 2019.

Host Gary J. Ross talks with Scott Kupor, Managing Partner at Andreessen Horowitz and the author of the best-seller Secrets of Sandhill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It. Scott discusses how Andreessen Horowitz organizes its funds, with verticals consisting of consumer enterprise and biotech/health, as well as software, crypto, and gaming. Gary and Scott also cover such topics as LLCs vs. corporations, dual-class stock, the fiduciary duty of directors towards common stockholders, and various challenges facing entrepreneurs and boards of directors.

0:00 -- Intro.1:23 -- Start of interview.3:32 -- Adam's "origin story". He grew up in southern California where he attended UCSD and graduated from UCLA. In college he became an activist focusing on the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, and developed a "targeted divestment" model. After college he became a social entrepreneur based in Washington, DC.4:06 -- His decision to pursue a JD/MBA from UC Berkeley. While in grad school "he fell in love with the startup tech scene" and during business school he tried to start his own startup but that's where he learned that "it doesn't matter how good your idea is when you don't have a good team and good execution." He then joined Gunderson Dettmer as a corporate associate supporting tech founders.7:14 -- Adam's new role as Assistant Dean for Executive Education and Revenue Generation at UC Berkeley's School of Law. How his initial work with 500 Startups with the BCLB sparked more executive education programs. 9:24 -- On the origin and mission of The Independent Director Initiative.12:20  -- What makes corporate governance in private venture-backed companies different to public companies. Explaining VC University (a partnership between Berkeley Law, NVCA and Venture Forward).15:42 -- The Academic Partners of the Independent Director Initiative: Berkeley Law Executive Education; Berkeley Law Center for Law and Business; Ira M. Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership at Columbia Law School; UC Davis School of Law; UC Hastings Law Center for Business Law; Institute for Law & Economics at the University of Pennsylvania; Silicon Valley Executive Center at Santa Clara University; Rowling Center at SMU Dedman School of Law; Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University; Stanford Center for Racial Justice at Stanford Law School; and Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law & Policy at UCLA School of Law.University of Washington School of LawThe Organizational Partners of the Independent Director Initiative: Ascend; BLCK VC; BoardList;Bolster;Corporate Directors Forum;The Fourth Floor;HBCUvc; Him for Her; LCDA;National Black MBA Association; National Venture Capital Association; NxtWorkVenture Forward.18:07 -- On the interest and number of applicants to the program (~500 applications, 80 got selected in first cohort).19:21 -- On fiduciary duties of directors in venture-backed companies (including dual-fiduciary conflicts). Role of independent directors, and boardroom diversity in private venture-backed companies. The Trados case (2013).38:43 -- The evolution of private markets and how its regulation may impact corporate governance.40:06 -- Take-aways from the program: 1) more education is needed for directors of venture-backed companies generally (beyond just independent directors), and 2) it was refreshing to see such a diverse and qualified group of executives that could serve on corporate boards.41:56 -- Where can people learn more and/or apply for the next cohort of the Independent Director Initiative: independent.venturecapitaluniversity.com42:57 -- Benefits for participants beyond just the two days of the program. Placements. 45:27 - Some of the books that have greatly influenced his venture career: Venture Deals, by Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson (2011)Secrets of Sand HIll Road, by Scott Kupor (2019)45:51 - Who were your mentors, and what did you learn from them (regarding this program)Evan Epstein (!)Afra Afsharipour, UC Davis Law School46:26 - Are there any quotes you think of often or live your life by? "You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step." Martin Luther King, Jr.46:26 - An unusual habit or an absurd thing that he loves: walking 40min for his commute. "Owning your downtime."48:55 - The living person he most admires: his wife.Adam Sterling is the Assistant Dean for Executive Education and Revenue Generation at UC Berkeley's School of Law and the Executive Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Business. __ You can follow Adam on social media at:Twitter: @adambsterlingLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adambsterling/__ You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

This conversation is with JD Worcester. JD is a recent graduate from Santa Clara University currently pursuing his various passions of Web3, A.I., and Impact and Social Investing. We converse about his transition from baseball to entrepreneurship, web3 and we speculate its benefits for the future, two staples of JD's daily routine he can't live without, and the importance of finding like-minded individuals on your journey toward personal success. You can connect with JD via: Instagram | Website JD's go-to resources: Any of Naval Ravikant's work Gaby.eth's web3 reading list Zero to One by Peter Thiel - JD recommends the chapter about the "Paypal Mafia" Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey Moore - for those interested in marketing Secrets of Sand Hill Road by Scott Kupor - for those interested in venture capital Finematics Youtube channel Bankless podcast - for those interested in crypto and DeFi And if you enjoyed this episode, have any feedback, or just want to reach out, you can reach me via my Twitter.

In this episode, we host Scott Kupor, managing partner at Andreessen Horowitz, the first employee to join Mark and Ben when they found the firm. He's also a lecturer at Stanford and UC Berkeley. And most known as the author of “Secrets of Sand Hill Road”, The 101 book for every venture capitalist. We will discuss Criss' investments, his career as a VC, his book, and how the VC landscape will change in the future.

Scott Kupor is a Managing Partner at Andreessen Horowitz (a16z). A16z is a leading venture capital firm based in Menlo Park, California, with more than $18B AUM, focusing on early stage tech companies. Scott Kupor is the Managing Partner of Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), one of the world's top venture capital firms. He has overseen the firm's rapid growth to more than 300 employees and more than $18 billion in assets under management. Prior to joining a16z, Scott worked for 8 years in a variety of roles at Opsware, an early SaaS company, before its sale to Hewlett Packard. Besides his role at a16z, Scott is the author of the Wall Street Journal best-seller, Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It. He serves on numerous corporate, nonprofit, and education boards. In today's episode, Ross and Scott discuss Scott's early journey from finance into the world of start-ups, venture capital, his role growing a16z from the founding with Marc Andreesen and Ben Horowitz, and his advice for anyone looking to be successful as early stage investors.

David Richter is a fractional CFO helping people in the real estate industry to understand the numbers, growth, profit and cash flow in order to effectively scale their businesses. David's book "Profit First for Real Estate Investors" is coming out soon and it is based on the Profit First concept by Mike Michalowicz. In this episode David explains how to apply the Profit First concept to the specifics of real estate investing. He also gives us one key takeaway to help you build a more profitable business than it is today. What We Cover: - The burning need for entrepreneurs to get more clarity on the numbers in their business - What is Profit First for Real Estate Investors - The three types of accounts every real estate investor should have - How to apply Profit First when you want to scale your business - What investors should do with excess cash they generate - The difference between creating wealth and keeping wealth - How your real estate investing business can become your asset Resources: - Profit First for Real Estate Investors https://profitfirstrei.com/ - Simple CFO Solutions https://simplecfosolutions.com/ - "Profit First: Transform Your Business from a Cash-Eating Monster to Money-Making Machine" by Mike Michalowitz https://www.amazon.com/Profit-First-Transform-Cash-Eating-Money-Making-ebook/dp/B01HCGYTH4 - "Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money that the Poor and Middle Class do not" by Robert Kiyosaki https://www.amazon.com/Rich-Dad-Poor-Teach-Middle-ebook/dp/B07C7M8SX9/ - "Exit Rich: The 6 P Method to Sell Your Business for Huge Profit" by Michelle Seiler Tucker https://www.amazon.com/Exit-Rich-Method-Business-Profit-ebook/dp/B08PCK7PMK/  - "Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital - And How to Get it" by Scott Kupor https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Sand-Hill-Road-Capital-ebook/dp/B07KLJQ13R/ Interested in becoming a real estate investor? Sign up of Brad Smotherman's apprenticeship group at support@bradsmotherman.com

Peter Wendell is the founder of Sierra Ventures, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm that has invested more than $2 billion over the past 35 years in a wide variety of successful technology companies. Peter has taught more than 2,000 Stanford MBAs over the past 30 years, specifically the very popular course Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Scott Kupor, managing partner of Andreessen Horowitz. He serves on the board of Merck. He just completed his trusteeship at Princeton. He was also chairman of the board for Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO) for six years, during which time PRINCO doubled the University's endowment. In this episode, Peter discusses the evolving nature of venture capital investing, the relationship between VCs and their LPs (limited partners), emerging phenomenon like SPACs and cryptocurrencies, whether we're entering another great age of secular growth for technology, and his personal journey in starting Sierra Ventures. Peter has been recognized by Forbes magazine as one of the 100 best technology venture investors in the United States and named one of the 15 venture capitalists on Upside magazine's “Elite 100” list of influential U.S. leaders in technology, finance, and business. Peter started Sierra Ventures as a young investor with some wealthy families' money –– “they should've never given someone like me money to manage,” joked Peter. But it was the age where “it was hard to not make money in venture investing” –– every fund started in Peter's time had returned money to LPs; not a single fund lost money, in contrast to around a fourth of all bond funds back then collapsing given the Asian financial crises. Peter bought 6% of stake in Intuit with a $2.5 million investment; now it's a company with a market capitalization of around $145 billion –– you can do the math. This investment, along with many others, made Peter one of the most successful venture capitalists in the world over the last few decades. We also ask Peter whether he sees us entering another period of great secular growth for technology. The sentiment amongst pro-tech, pro-growth investors seems to be that the hyper growth stocks (Snowflake, Coinbase, Shopify, Docusign, Twilio, Upstart, etc.) look expensive and many are currently unprofitable, but most have long runways, high margins, sticky customers, and steady revenues. If we value these companies on what they might look like 5 years from now, do most secular compounders still seem fairly valued? Looking at the market environment today, Peter is very skeptical of the promises of SPACs. He said in his keynote address at Princeton GCEPS that the SPAC boom likely won't end well because there is a lot of promotion, a lack of regulation, but fundamentally not that many great companies to acquire. Peter thinks that cryptocurrency and blockchain technology are the future and certainly on the risk frontier, but we still don't know which chain or project will eventually prevail, so the overall asset class is still a highly risky investment option. A big proponent of SaaS (especially given how he's one of the first investors that embraced this idea back in the early days), Peter also believes that we're still at an early stage in exploring artificial intelligence and the good it could do for the world.

In 2020, venture capitalists invested about $150 billion into U.S. start-ups, according to the data company, Crunchbase. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, local startups in Southern California are securing more investment dollars in a single quarter than they used to get in an entire calendar year.This surge of capital is not necessarily a new trend, but it has shifted power from the investors to the entrepreneurs. Perhaps no one knows this better than Scott Kupor. The entrepreneur turned Managing Partner at Andreessen Horowitz helps manage more than $16.6 billion in assets. Scott's new book, Secrets Of Sand Hill Road, gives readers a look behind the curtain at venture capital as it relates to all stages of the startup cycle.In this episode, we'll hear more from Scott about what makes a successful venture capitalist. He'll also describe how the industry has changed over the past 20 years and explain how that changing landscape has made managing relationships more important than ever. Plus, could the future of VC be in the hands of AI?Episode Quotes:On unicorn companies:“The market size opportunity for successful companies is just dramatically different, right? I mean, you can get to $500 billion outcomes in these companies, which was just inconceivable even probably 10 or 15 years ago[…] nobody had really seen billion-dollar companies with any kind of regularity[…] I hate to say it, but billion-dollar companies are kind of table stakes at this point in time.”On why venture capital is unique:“I think the reason why venture capital has persisted is it fills a gap in the market that just don't otherwise get satisfied. […] for things where you have long lead times, you have people really trying to take on a risk that is just well beyond what a bank or other financing source can do. There's really not anything other than venture capital that can provide that.”On how much failure is involved in investment:“You can't measure success based upon your percentage success or failure rate. In other words, if you invest in 10 companies and you get five or six or seven of them right, we don't really know whether you're good as a venture capitalist. It doesn't really tell us anything. Everything here is about the magnitude of the winners.”Show Links:LinkedInOrder Book: Secrets of Sand Hill Road

On this episode of the a16z Bio Clubhouse Show, a16z general partners Julie Yoo and Jorge Conde, managing partner Scott Kupor, and market development partner Venkat Mocherla talk to guest Florian Otto, cofounder and CEO of Cedar. The conversation covers how to improve two of the trickiest aspect of healthcare: price transparency and patient engagement.

This is a special episode of the a16z podcast — it's an audio history, told through the voices of the a16z crypto team, about what crypto is, how it really works, and why it matters. This "innovation overview" is meant as a resource, and it features hallway-style conversations with the a16z team as well as outside experts.In brief segments, we’ll take you from the ground up — from the basics, to the most current developments, and beyond that to a look at what we might see in the future. Here are the topics and voices you'll hear:The BeginningIntroduction — Zoran Basich, a16z crypto editorBefore bitcoin: previous attempts to create digital money, 1:45 — Dan Boneh, computer science professor at Stanford and a16 advisor The core innovations of Satoshi’s white paper, 3:36 — Dan Boneh Proof of work, 5:36 — Alex Pruden, chief strategy officer at Aleo Systems and former a16z crypto partner Mining and why it’s important, 7:10 — Alex Pruden The history of mining, 8:20 — Alex Pruden Value in monetary systems, or why bitcoin is worth anything, 9:53 — Arianna Simpson, a16z crypto partner Bitcoin as store of value, 11:30 — Arianna Simpson Security in crypto, 12:45 — Alex Pruden ExpansionWhy is it called a blockchain? 14:00 — Eddy Lazzarin, a16z data scientist Why the blockchain matters and what you can do with it, 15:09 — Chris Dixon, a16z general partner Beyond bitcoin, 17:01 — Eddy Lazzarin Ethereum as logical extension of open source, 17:36 — Eddy Lazzarin Tokens: What are they? 19:04 — Eddy Lazzarin Tokens and the functions they serve, 19:53 — Scott Kupor, a16z managing partnerTokens and the ownership economy, 21:19 — Jesse Walden, Variant Fund founder, former a16z partner, and Mediachain founder What tokens enable for creators, 22:18 — Ali Yahya, a16z general partner Right NowWhat DeFi means, 23:58 — Eddy Lazzarin Yield farming: What is it? 25:16 — Eddy Lazzarin NFTs: What they are and why they matter, 27:15 — Linda Xie, Scalar Capital managing director, and Jesse Walden Developer ecosystems, crypto, and composability, 30:17 — Jesse Walden Decentralized networks, value capture, and what it means for builders, 33:05 — Ali Yahya The FutureThe big picture, web3, and DAOs, 35:38 — Chris Dixon For more crypto resources, please see our Crypto Startup School page, our documentary about the program, and our NFT Canon.###The views expressed here are those of the individual AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (“a16z”) personnel quoted and are not the views of a16z or its affiliates. Certain information contained in here has been obtained from third-party sources, including from portfolio companies of funds managed by a16z. While taken from sources believed to be reliable, a16z has not independently verified such information and makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. In addition, this content may include third-party advertisements; a16z has not reviewed such advertisements and does not endorse any advertising content contained therein.This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Furthermore, this content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investors or prospective investors, and may not under any circumstances be relied upon when making a decision to invest in any fund managed by a16z. (An offering to invest in an a16z fund will be made only by the private placement memorandum, subscription agreement, and other relevant documentation of any such fund and should be read in their entirety.) Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by a16z, and there can be no assurance that the investments will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed by Andreessen Horowitz (excluding investments for which the issuer has not provided permission for a16z to disclose publicly as well as unannounced investments in publicly traded digital assets) is available at https://a16z.com/investments/.Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Please see https://a16z.com/disclosures for additional important information.

En el segundo podcast del programa 'Charlas sobre profesiones y empresas', Sergio Bulat habla con el empresario Dídac Lee, que ha prologado y adaptado la edición española de 'Los secretos de Silicon Valley' de Scott Kupor, sobre los entresijos del Venture Capital y otros temas relacionados con esta obra.

This week we review "Faux Croissant", "Faux Data", Where AI Helps and Hurts, Predictions that hit and those that didn't.====1 — AI creates data…and images for itself.  How Dall-E emulates the Human Brain using GPT3. Another great podcast by Andreessen Horowitz’ Frank Chen, Scott Kupor, and Zoran Basich.====2 — What You Missed in Data, AI and Analytics This MonthA recap of the biggest news with Bernard Marr. We talked Data, Analytics, CES, Davos & Flying Cars. Catch it all here and see you next month!====3 — Prediction Hits and MissesPrediction Hits and Misses by no other than Dave Kellogg. Lots of great insights for everyone interested in Data, Analytics and Startups. Dave even predicts the return of EPM!====4 — Think you know which country is the most innovative one in the world?!====5 — Which Business Metric is MOST Important?!NPM, CCC, NWC or CCR?! I say neither! RCA is the main one! :). What do YOU think?!====Remember "Project Crescent"?!  Check it out @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfRpfCav9hg&t=58s====If you like any of this, please leave a comment & a like. Want to connect? I’m on LinkedIn @ linkedin.com/in/brunoaziza====

We've got segments on artificial intelligence and IPO innovation in today's episode of 16 Minutes, where we take a look at the news and what it means for the long arc of innovation.In the first segment (0:00): Take the surrealistic images of Salvador Dali and cross them with Pixar's animated film Wall-E and you've got ... Dall-E! It's a new neural network that creates images based on text inputs, and the worlds of A.I. and machine learning recently got their first glimpse.Last summer, research lab OpenAI released an API for the machine learning model GPT-3, which caused a stir with the way it could produce text that was hard to distinguish from human writing (16 Minutes showrunner Sonal Choksi and a16z Operating Partner Frank Chen discussed it in a recent 16 Minutes Podcast, "GPT-3: Beyond the Hype," breaking down what it does and doesn't mean for startups, incumbents, and the idea of "AI as a service").Now OpenAI has unveiled Dall-E, which processes language to create new images (not new text, as GPT-3 does). Dall-E does this using a neural network called CLIP (Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training), which classifies a wide variety of images culled from the internet while "filling in the blanks" using zero-shot reasoning, enabling Dall-E to produce surprising images by inferring information it wasn't trained in.We called on Frank again to explain where Dall-E (and the broader topic of machine learning) sits on the path toward artificial general intelligence (AGI), how Dall-E's transformer-type architecture is able to infer information, what its limitations might be, and what uses we might see as this technology develops. -- with Zoran BasichIn the second segment (12:58), we had a quick chat with a16z operating partner Scott Kupor about the recent decision by the SEC to allow the issuance of new shares via direct listings on the New York Stock Exchange. Previously direct listings were limited to the sale of existing shares. Recent first-day IPO "pops" have sparked much discussion about the fairness or unfairness of the process and whether the current path we have for companies going public is broken or just needs some tinkering around the edges.Scott breaks down how the new rule will affect companies, as well as institutional and retail investors, and what this means in the long arc of IPO innovation. -- with Zoran Basich---The views expressed here are those of the individual AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (“a16z”) personnel quoted and are not the views of a16z or its affiliates. Certain information contained in here has been obtained from third-party sources, including from portfolio companies of funds managed by a16z. While taken from sources believed to be reliable, a16z has not independently verified such information and makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. In addition, this content may include third-party advertisements; a16z has not reviewed such advertisements and does not endorse any advertising content contained thereinThis content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Furthermore, this content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investors or prospective investors, and may not under any circumstances be relied upon when making a decision to invest in any fund managed by a16z. (An offering to invest in an a16z fund will be made only by the private placement memorandum, subscription agreement, and other relevant documentation of any such fund and should be read in their entirety.) Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by a16z, and there can be no assurance that the investments will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed by Andreessen Horowitz (excluding investments for which the issuer has not provided permission for a16z to disclose publicly as well as unannounced investments in publicly traded digital assets) is available at https://a16z.com/investments/.Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Please see https://a16z.com/disclosures for additional important information.

Zapraszamy na odcinek z serii #PołączKropki. Audycja Zaprojektuj Swoje Życie jest patronem medialnym książki Tajemnice Sand Hill Road. Autorem jest Scott Kupor, partner Andreessen Horowitz, jednego z najlepszych funduszy Venture na świecie. Chcemy podzielić się z wami przemyśleniami partnerów wydawniczych tej książki. Dzisiejszym gościem jest Bartłomiej Samsonowicz z PFR Ventures. Poleca wspomnianą książkę wszystkim uczestnikom ekosystemu innowacji. Z rozmowy dowiecie się, które fragmenty zrobiły na nim największe wrażenie. Opowiada też o godzeniu funduszy publicznych z pieniędzmi prywatnymi przy operacjach fundingowych.Pamiętajcie aby subskrybować nasz kanał na YouTube, iTunes, Spotify lub wszędzie tam gdzie słuchacie podcastów. Co czwartek wywiady z przedsiębiorcami. I nie tylko!Więcej ciekawych historii i rozmów z wyjątkowymi gośćmi znajdziecie na naszej stronie: https://zaprojektujswojezycie.plFacebook: https://m.facebook.com/zaprojektujswojezycie/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zaprojektujswojezycie.pl/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/audycja-zsz/

In der dritten Folge unseres Podcasts sprechen wir mit Astrid Freier, FinTech-Investorin bei Early FinTech Ventures, Co-Founder und CEO bei RegTech Berlin. Mit Astrid haben wir unter anderem über folgende Themen gesprochen: - Was ist eigentlich RegTech? - Welche sind die aktuellen und zukünftigen Trends in diesem Bereich? - Was sind die größten Herausforderungen im Bereich RegTech? - Buchempfehlung, passend zu einer Investorin ;)Secrets of Sand Hill Road. Venture Capital and How to Get It von Scott Kupor und Eric Ries

Zapraszamy na odcinek z serii #PołączKropki. Audycja Zaprojektuj Swoje Życie jest patronem medialnym książki Tajemnice Sand Hill Road. Autorem jest Scott Kupor, partner Andreessen Horowitz, jednego z najlepszych funduszy Venture na świecie. Chcemy podzielić się z wami przemyśleniami partnerów wydawniczych tej książki. Dzisiejszym gościem jest Michał Kramarz z Google For Startups. Z rozmowy dowiecie się czemu wspomniana książka zrobiła na nim tak duże wrażenie, że kupił ją dla całego swojego zespołu. Według naszego gościa jest idealna dla każdego, kto ma startup, chce go założyć lub po prostu interesuje się tematem. Dzieli się też ze słuchaczami i widzami jak zastosował treści w niej zawarte w swoich działaniach biznesowych. Bez wątpienia jest to bardzo wartościowa pozycja. ❗ZDOBĄDŹ KSIĄŻKĘ❗Aby zdobyć książkę Tajemnice Sand Hill Road wystarczy odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez Michała: ➡Dlaczego opcje dla pracowników mają najczęściej formułę vestingu czteroletniego? Michał podpowiada, że odpowiedź można znaleźć w szóstym rozdziale książki Scotta Kupora. Pierwsza prawidłowa odpowiedź zamieszczona w komentarzach pod filmem na YouTube zostanie nagrodzona książką.Pamiętajcie aby subskrybować nasz kanał na YouTube, iTunes, Spotify lub wszędzie tam gdzie słuchacie podcastów. Co czwartek wywiady z przedsiębiorcami. I nie tylko!Więcej ciekawych historii i rozmów z wyjątkowymi gośćmi znajdziecie na naszej stronie: https://zaprojektujswojezycie.plFacebook: https://m.facebook.com/zaprojektujswojezycie/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zaprojektujswojezycie.pl/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/audycja-zsz/

Stéphanie começou a carreira como consultora. Após anos na área, fundou duas empresas, uma de marketing e a outra de viagens. Foi a primeira diretora mulher da ABFintechs, é advisor da Sony Pictures e do Shark Tank. Em seu projeto de vida, é a fundadora do App DinDin, que foi adquirido em setembro de 2020. Stéphanie ganhou notoriedade nacional ao ser premiada e representar o Brasil em uma competição da empresa de meios de pagamento Visa para mulheres empreendedoras. Alguns temas do episódio: * A trajétoria da Stéphanie, de consultora para outsider no mercado de fintech * Desafios de uma mulher empreendedora no meio tech e financeiro do Brasil * Como a cultura brasileira pode afetar na tropicalização de um negócio estrangeiro * As tendências do mercado de investimento em startups para 2021 Livros que foram citados no episódio: * Biografia do Richard Branson: https://j.mp/3lmMYLv * O Lado difícil das situações difíceis, Ben Horrowitz: https://j.mp/3po65qO * Nada Easy, Tallis Gomes: https://j.mp/2UkNY6P * Secrets of Sand Hill Road, Scott Kupor: https://j.mp/3poeISd

Nous recevons aujourd’hui Shiraz Mahfoudhi, VC chez Speedinvest à Paris. Speedinvest est initialement un fonds autrichien mais maintenant européen dédié au early stage, pre-seed et seed. Bien que fonds généraliste, speedinvest a plusieurs équipes verticalisées sur des sujets deeptech, fintech, industry, network effects, healthtech & consumer. Fonds présent dans 5 pays, avec €430M sous gestion, un portefeuille de 160 startups mais seulement 6 startups française, Shiraz a rejoint Speedinvest au mois de mars 2020 pour ouvrir le bureau de Paris et développer la présence française de Speedinvest notamment sur ces 2 dernières verticales healthtech et consumer. Dans ce super épisode avec Shiraz on découvre: son parcours professionnel à rebonds entre opération et investissement en quoi cette mosaïque d’expérience lui a permis de comprendre les sujets d’hypercroissance son passage de chez Malt à VC chez Speedinvest, sa préparation et sa grille de lecture des opportunités d’investissement les différences fondamentales entre l’equity crowdfunding et le VC comment aborder les premières rencontres avec les founders en 3 points, quels sont les signaux faibles auxquels Shiraz est sensible un exemple récent d’investissement l’objectif de l’ouverture du bureau parisien de Speedinvest et comment conjuguer son développement stratégique et le quotidien de l’analyse du dealflow les secteurs que Shiraz regarde de près et ses convictions ce que Shiraz a d’unique et apporte en support aux portfolio companies les ressources qui l’inspirent ses conseils aux entrepreneurs en levée pour entamer un échange avec elle … et plein d’autres sujets! Alors place immédiatement à cet échange avec Shiraz Mahfoudhi, VC chez Speedinvest à Paris! _ Les ressources qui ont inspiré Shiraz Livre: Secrets of Sand Hill Road, by Scott Kupor, VC at a16z Newsletters: a16z, Sifted, Venturebeat, rapports Rock Health _ Les podcasts Runway Series, AMA VC & Venture Talks sont produits par UPCOMINGVC® (www.upcoming.vc), imaginés, animés par Raphael Grieco. UPCOMINGVC® c'est aussi une newsletter, "Venture Notes" (venturenotes.co) qui ajoute du contexte aux podcasts & donne accès à des outils & infos uniques pour la communauté. Finalement, UPCOMINGVC® c'est aussi un "VC game: SUPERVALO"! Tu veux apprendre la construction d'un portefeuille de startups? Viens jouer sur upcoming.vc/supervalo!

Getting into retail can be very challenging, especially when you have to compete with the bigger brands. You have to prove yourself before you ever get on the shelf. That’s where Amazon comes in. Amazon provides an opportunity for small brands to make that play to prove themselves, and to show up on the shelf later and in relatively quick order. Joining Jim Beach on The School For Startups Radio is product innovator and Amazon launch specialist Tracy Hazzard. Tracy shares the secret to using Amazon as a test bed for your product. She also touches on podcasting and how you can use it as a marketing, networking, and content creation tool. If you have a product to launch, this show will prove valuable to you.

In his best-selling book Scott Kupor former entrepreneur and now managing partner at VC firm Andreessen Horowitz offers advice on how founders can understand and engage with VCs. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

My guest today is Scott Kupor, the managing partner of Andreessen Horowitz. He has overseen the firm's rapid growth to one hundred fifty employees and more than $7 billion in assets under management. The topic is his book Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It. In this episode of Trend Following Radio we discuss: What are venture capitalists saying about your startup behind closed doors? And what can you do to influence that conversation? Why most VCs typically invest in only one startup in a given business category? Why the skill you need most when raising venture capital is the ability to tell a compelling story? How to handle a “down round,” when startups have to raise funds at a lower valuation than in the previous round? What to do when VCs get too entangled in the day-to-day operations of the business? Why you need to build relationships with potential acquirers long before you decide to sell? Jump in! --- I'm MICHAEL COVEL, the host of TREND FOLLOWING RADIO, and I'm proud to have delivered 10+ million podcast listens since 2012. Investments, economics, psychology, politics, decision-making, human behavior, entrepreneurship and trend following are all passionately explored and debated on my show. To start? I'd like to give you a great piece of advice you can use in your life and trading journey… cut your losses! You will find much more about that philosophy here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/trend/ You can watch a free video here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/video/ Can't get enough of this episode? You can choose from my thousand plus episodes here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/podcast My social media platforms: Twitter: @covel Facebook: @trendfollowing LinkedIn: @covel Instagram: @mikecovel Hope you enjoy my never-ending podcast conversation!

Kupor quite literally wrote the book on venture capital in Silicon Valley.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this episode, Andreessen Horowitz's Scott Kupor discusses his new book “Secrets of Sand Hill Road: Venture Capital and How to Get It” (Penguin Random House, 2019). The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/scott-kupor-on-venture-capital-and-how-to-get-it/ (Scott Kupor on venture capital and how to get it) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

with Ben Horowitz, Scott Kupor, and Caroline Moon “The only unforgivable sin in business is to run out of cash” [so said Harold Geneen], yet startup CEOs “always act on leading indicators of good news, and lagging indicators of bad news” [according to Andy Grove]; after all, it requires a certain stubborn, headstrong optimism to start a company. So how to reconcile these views? At the very least, pay more attention to leading indicators of running out of cash, “because there's just no going back”! But doing all this — while also trying to balance growth, advance planning vs. constantly changing strategy, revenue vs. margin, coordination/communication/culture, and so on — is a lot harder than it seems on a finance spreadsheet. It requires understanding that the “math is not the terrain, the spreadsheet is not the business”… yet also knowing when to trade rose-colored glasses for darker rainy-day ones. And that's where a CEO partnering productively with a CFO comes in. In this episode of the a16z Podcast -- moderated by (and based on an internal event for CEOs+CFOs hosted by) Caroline Moon, who leads the financial operations for startups practice on a16z's corp dev team -- Ben Horowitz and Scott Kupor share their personal insights as well as advice for founders: How DO you do it all?

with Anne Mitchell, Lars Dalgaard, and Scott Kupor"Orthogonal thinking" but "shared core values" -- that's what makes an ideal board... especially when it comes to "independents", i.e., board members who aren't also investors. But how do you get the most out of those independent directors, who are often in the minority? How do you bring in the best board member for the company, team, product -- not just as another box to check on the road to IPO, but to ensure a fresh and/or missing perspective? And finally, how can the existing board -- and CEO -- best prepare for the changing dynamics? Leaders have to evolve with the company after all.In this episode of the a16z Podcast, moderated by managing partner Scott Kupor, general partner Lars Dalgaard (formerly CEO and founder of SuccessFactors) and executive coach (and former investor) Anne Mitchell -- both of whom have served on boards for companies all the way from private stage to IPO -- share their thoughts and experiences. The conversation took place as part of our annual Director's College at Stanford University in April 2017.

How to think about business policy and top-of-mind issues for the tech industry, given a new president? From what agencies matter for startups and VC to what the first 100 days (and next two years!) look like, a16z managing partner Scott Kupor and president and CEO of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) Bobby Franklin share what happens between elections and when the reality of the Washington process sets in post-inauguration. What are some of the discussions that are happening around taxation, special stock exchanges for earlier-stage/ smaller companies, and what was the JOBS Act again? Believe it or not, seemingly wonky details like these incent behavior -- for better or worse, with intended and unintended consequences -- and in this episode of the a16z Podcast, we discuss all this and more. (Company) size does matter, after all.

From the silver age of on-prem software companies like SAP and Siebel Systems to the golden age of enterprise software-as-a-service, we're now seeing an explosion of data. All types, all sizes, and all over the place. And much of it is a sort of industrial "data exhaust", where companies aren't quite sure what question to ask of the data but are being bombarded with data due to the variety of data sources available today -- from websites to sensors (and therefore data capture) everywhere. Before there is even a signal in the noise. So how do you solve a problem like this-Data? Beyond requiring new types of plumbing and integrations, enterprises now expect -- given the age of mobile, web, cloud, and heck, let's add millennials to the mix too -- self service. To be able to ask, get, fit (curve-fit), predict. To take back the enterprise from the patchwork of integration and number of vendors we all have to deal with -- the scope of which most companies in fact are not truly aware of. It's about the lifecycle of data in the enterprise, argues Snaplogic founder and CEO Gaurav Dhillon in this episode of the a16z Podcast, in conversation with Scott Kupor. It's in fact about the evolution of data overall -- from data warehouses to "data lakes": in stages, from purification (like wrangling data) to bottling (prepping for consumption by data scientists) to making sense of streams and streams of data! The views expressed here are those of the individual AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (“a16z”) personnel quoted and are not the views of a16z or its affiliates. Certain information contained in here has been obtained from third-party sources, including from portfolio companies of funds managed by a16z. While taken from sources believed to be reliable, a16z has not independently verified such information and makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Furthermore, this content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investors or prospective investors, and may not under any circumstances be relied upon when making a decision to invest in any fund managed by a16z. (An offering to invest in an a16z fund will be made only by the private placement memorandum, subscription agreement, and other relevant documentation of any such fund and should be read in their entirety.) Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by a16z, and there can be no assurance that the investments will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed by Andreessen Horowitz (excluding investments and certain publicly traded cryptocurrencies/ digital assets for which the issuer has not provided permission for a16z to disclose publicly) is available at https://a16z.com/investments/. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Please see https://a16z.com/disclosures for additional important information.

"Raise prices." Regular listeners of our podcast have heard this advice more than once. But why is this so key and yet so hard for many technical founders? And how should startups go about raising prices -- or more specifically, creating value -- for their products? In this episode of the a16z Podcast, former sales VP Mark Cranney (and head of a16z's EBC and go-to-market practice for startups) and former startup founder (and general partner focused on all things infrastructure) Martin Casado talk to managing partner Scott Kupor about pricing for startups ... especially for category-creating businesses. It's not all "pricing, pricing, pricing" though -- there's another important "p" in there too!

"All of a sudden you can program the world" -- it's the continuation of the software eating the world thesis we put out over five years ago, and of the trajectory of past and current technology shifts. So what are those shifts? What tech trends and platforms do we find most interesting on the heels of raising our fifth fund? Are we just building on and extending existing platforms though, or will there be new platforms; and if so, what will they be? Well, distributed systems for one... This episode of the a16z Podcast covers all things distributed systems -- encompassing cloud and SaaS; A.I., machine learning, deep learning; and quantum computing -- to the role of hardware; future interfaces; and data, big and small. Podcast guests Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz (in conversation with Scott Kupor and Sonal Chokshi) also share the one piece of advice from a management and go-to-market perspective that all founders should know. And finally, why simulations matter... and what do we make of our current reality if we are all really living in a simulation as Elon Musk believes?

Do we need a new pay system for the way startup employees are compensated? While many people agree that the current 90-day exercise practice — an outdated relic of when companies used to go public/get liquidity in a much shorter timeframe — is far from ideal, neither are some of the other solutions proposed so far. Because incentives matter, and behavior follows incentives. Which is fine as long as you know all the implications around what you're incentivizing for and it aligns to what you want as a founder for your company and employees. So “let's get it out from under the rug, let's talk about it, and let's design a system that works for whatever you want your company to be”, argue a16z partners Ben Horowitz and Scott Kupor in this episode of the a16z Podcast. The discussion goes beyond just the question of a 10-year exercise to other configurations — such as Snapchat's model and Tesla's model for timing options, as well as radical experiments like “progressive equity“. What are the tradeoffs of each approach? How does the type of company you're building (a complex hardware or infrastructure-heavy startup for example) change things? How does the broader environment affect all these considerations (and might plans to create a new long-term stock exchange help)? Finally, is it fair to treat tenure as a proxy for the actual value a particular employee contributed to building the company? Or to optimize for earlier vs. later employees, particular if the earlier ones de-risked the company and later ones helped scale it? And what do different employees want — more options, more RSUs, cash, more ownership, more stability, more mobility? All this and more in this episode…

It's hip to be Square right now. Or is it? How do we assess whether it -- and other recent IPOs -- went well, not just for investors but overall? In this episode of the a16z Podcast, Nicole Irvin and Stephen McDermid from our startup corp dev team -- and Andreessen Horowitz managing partner Scott Kupor -- share an internal "hallway conversation" of sorts around how to make sense of market reactions to recent IPOs, and more broadly, how to compare private vs. public valuations (and investors). Is there a method to the madness, a formula to compare these from beginning to end? Does it make a difference if you're creating a new category (like SaaS previously) or are in an existing one? Finally, we share views on the somewhat religious debate about whether public is really the new private, growth vs. profitability, and more. Especially as startups are always optimizing for so many competing things at any given time.

"This time is different." But it's always different! So what's going on now in the public markets? Why does this even matter? For one thing, tech markets have grown significantly. And one big reason is internet and mobile. It's like a multiplier for the market size and opportunity. In this episode of the a16z Podcast, Andreessen Horowitz managing partner Scott Kupor, mobile analyst Benedict Evans, and corp dev research partner Morgan Bender break down a slide deck we recently shared, including answers to what all these so-called “unicorns” are, how it affects venture capital and the funding landscape, and how we define a "quasi-IPO." The views expressed here are those of the individual AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (“a16z”) personnel quoted and are not the views of a16z or its affiliates. Certain information contained in here has been obtained from third-party sources, including from portfolio companies of funds managed by a16z. While taken from sources believed to be reliable, a16z has not independently verified such information and makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Furthermore, this content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investors or prospective investors, and may not under any circumstances be relied upon when making a decision to invest in any fund managed by a16z. (An offering to invest in an a16z fund will be made only by the private placement memorandum, subscription agreement, and other relevant documentation of any such fund and should be read in their entirety.) Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by a16z, and there can be no assurance that the investments will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed by Andreessen Horowitz (excluding investments and certain publicly traded cryptocurrencies/ digital assets for which the issuer has not provided permission for a16z to disclose publicly) is available at https://a16z.com/investments/. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Please see https://a16z.com/disclosures for additional important information.

It's a problem most entrepreneurs would love to face, a massive valuation offer from investors for the startup they've been killing themselves over. But what terms come along with that big number? In this segment a16z's Scott Kupor is joined by two startup CEOs to pick apart the topic of valuations – serial entrepreneur Danny Shader, founder of PayNearMe, and Danielle Morrill, co-founder of Mattermark.