You already know about AngelList, our curated list of top tier angel investors.

You also know that you can get in touch with these angels by sending us your pitch and, if it’s investment grade, we’ll pass it on to the angels. We’ve already announced the first startup that was funded this way and more announcements are on the way.

In the meantime, I thought you might like to know which angels have taken meetings (or are setting up meetings) with the startups we’ve sent to AngelList. It’s a pretty awesome list of angels. All of these angels have given us permission to use their name. In no particular order, here we go…


Dharmesh Shah (Investor in Backupify)
Thomas McInerney (Investor in Mochi Media)
Aaron Patzer
(Investor in Milo)


Shervin Pishevar (Investor in Gowalla)
Jeff Clavier (Investor in Mint)
Matt Mullenweg (Angel in DailyBurn)


George Zachary (Charles River)
Chris Yeh (Angel in EtherPad)
Jeff Fagnan (Atlas)


Brian Norgard (Angel in ad.ly)
Mike Hirshland (Polaris)
Alex Finkelstein (Spark Capital)


David Cohen (Techstars)
Bill Lee (Angel in Posterous)
Michael Dearing (Angel in Aardvark)


Rob Go (Spark Capital)
Richard Chen (Angel in Aardvark)
Joe Greenstein (Angel in Eventbrite)


Ann Miura-Ko (Investor in Modcloth)
Andrew Parker (Union Square Ventures)
Jon Callaghan (Investor in Meebo)


Ho Nam (Investor in JS-Kit)
Rob Lord (Investor in Grockit)
Pejman Nozad (Investor in Dropbox)


Fadi Bishara (Investor in Bebo)
Thomas Korte (Investor in Heroku)
Salil Deshpande (Investor in Engine Yard)


Mark Suster (Investor in awe.sm)
Peter Chane (Investor in Aardvark)
Gabriel Weinberg (Investor in Wakemate)


David Cowan (Top 10 on Forbes Midas List)
Bijan Sabet (Investor in Twitter)
Bob Shapiro and Drew Turitz (Sandbox Industries)


Chris Sheehan (Investor in Carbonite)
Sim Simeonov (Investor in Veracode)
Satish Dharmaraj (Investor in Posterous)


Keith Rabois (Investor in YouTube)
Manu Kumar
(Investor in CrowdFlower)
Bipul Sinha
(Investor in Sweepery)


Phineas Barnes (First Round Capital)
Saar Gur (Investor in Admob)
Ariel Poler (Investor in StumbleUpon)


Andrea Zurek (Investor in Tapulous)
You (Join AngelList →)
And You (Join AngelList →)

That’s 40+ angels and counting who have taken meetings from AngelList (ping me if I missed you or I shouldn’t have included you).

I want to thank all the angels who are making AngelList happen and the startups who are applying for intros. Startups, apply for an introduction to AngelList here. Angels, join AngelList here.

Last week, Naval threw a Venture Hacks meetup at SXSW and sat on the Seed Combinators Panel with Paul Graham, David Cohen, Marc Nathan, and Joshua Baer. Much thanks to everyone who joined us. Here are some pics and highlights.

Panel

Photo by Joshua Baer

Photo by Elegant Machines

My favorite paraphrased quotes from the panel — I grabbed them from Dave McClure’s tweets:

“Can you start a startup alone? Yes, of course. it’s entirely possible to raise kids alone, but it’s easier to do it in a marriage.” – Naval

“The Y-Combinator application form is like an intellectual CAPTCHA.” – Paul Graham

“Incubators are graduate school for entrepreneurs… instead of getting a job, create jobs.” – Naval

“We often fund companies on 2nd/3rd try… Drew Houston at DropBox was an initial reject.” – Paul Graham

“Press is negative ROI in most startups.” – Naval

ReadWriteWeb also has a good round-up of the panel.

Meetup

The last minute meetup was a monster, check out the pics and video. Thanks to everyone who came. You can find each other on Plancast and Facebook.

Photos and video by John Price

Favstar automagically collects your most popular tweets. This is a great way to catch up on the great links we’ve been sharing, that you missed while you were on the beach eating lasagna. Check out our most popular links.


Image: Pink Floyd

Update: Here’s a simpler approach I like.

Scheduling meetings with investors — this topic is so banal you may wonder why someone needs to write about it all. But since we started AngelList, we’ve been making daily introductions between investment-grade startups and top-tier investors like Satish Dharmaraj (Posterous), Jeff Clavier (Mint), and Aaron Patzer (Milo). We see a lot of first time entrepreneurs trying to schedule meetings with investors.

This is not how you do it (based on a true story):

Shervin,

It is a pleasure to meet you. I would love to tell you more about Yomommaco. Next week we are at DEMO but the following week is wide open. Please let me know if there is a date/time that works for a meeting.

BTW, I am big admirer of some of your investments… KISSmetrics looks very interesting. Gowalla too.

Looking forward to speaking with you,

Yngwie Malmsteen
CEO, Yomommaco

777.212.2323

What’s wrong with this email? First, Yngwie proposes meeting in over a week — what’s wrong with right now? Second, he doesn’t propose any times to meet. Third, he doesn’t talk about the fact that he lives on the other side of the country. Fourth, he CC’ed me instead of moving me to BCC. Fifth, he makes an attempt to add a personal touch about KISSmetrics and Gowalla but he’s too colloquial (BTW?) and the touch isn’t personal at all — it’s just a list of company names.

How to do it right

This is how you do it (based on a true story):

Thanks Nivi (bcc'ed).

Shervin,

I'm back in SF on Wed 3/31. I could meet anytime the following day Thurs 4/1 after 3pm or Fri 4/2 before noon.

Since I won't be in SF for 10 days and we've already secured some commitments for the financing, why don't we get the conversation started with a 30 minute phone call anytime tomorrow Mon 3/22 after 2pm or Tue 3/23 after noon? My cell is 213.333.8923.

If you happen to be in Cambridge, MA anytime between now and 3/31, I could meet you there. Similarly, if you're in NYC in the next week, I could hop on a bus and make that work too.

I'm looking forward to talking.

Yngwie Malmsteem
213.333.8923
http://yomommacorp.com

The principles of scheduling meetings with investors.

Respond immediately and be available to meet immediately. BCC the introducer. If you don’t live nearby, find out where the investor is (Plancast anyone?) and let them know if you’re going to be there soon. If you’re not going to be near them soon, propose a phone call. Propose specific times to talk. If there’s a deadline on the financing or you’re going to be oversubscribed, politely let them know. Write less — you have no idea how busy a typical investor’s inbox is. Don’t be colloquial. Attach a copy of your deck. Use an email program like Gmail that generates narrow fucking columns. Don’t write HTML emails. Include a cell # and URL in the signature and not much more. Bonus: include one line of good news — or start the email with a substantive sentence about a mutual acquaintance or something about the investor’s portfolio or blog or whatever.

P.S. Good news: we just hired Steve Wozniak. / Barney Rubble just committed to the financing. / We just had our first $1000 revenue day. / I got hair plugs and they look great.

Seed financings get done through a positive feedback loop of social proof, scarcity and momentum. Focus on the financing, get it done, and get back to work.

We like to write about tools that make life better for startups. We’ve written about Pivotal Tracker, the iPod of project management software. And we recently covered [Startup Digest], which curates the best startup events in 27 cities.

Today I want to talk about Solvate. Solvate says they “recruit and contract talent to work on demand.” But I like to say they’re “simple outsourcing for startups.” I’ve been using Solvate to produce interviews like How to optimize web apps with KISSmetrics.

SlideShare: How to optimize your web apps with KISSmetrics

My Solvate experience

I told Solvate what I needed: “Turn my MP3 interviews into blog posts that look like this.” It took them about a day to find someone: “Trent‘s going to get in touch with you.” I talked to Trent on the phone and described how I’ve produced our interviews in the past. He took a lot of notes and sent me a spot-on email that described what he was going to do.

Then I sent Trent a raw MP3 interview and he produced everything you see in the full blog post: a Slideshare with Slidecast, a podcast with chapters that look great in iTunes, an outline, a transcript, and a polished draft of the blog post. Along the way, he sent me 2 or 3 emails asking for feedback: “What do you think of this outline? Can you take a look at this podcast before I make a Slidecast?”

Trent probably saves me 5-10 hours per interview. I think my favorite part is that I rarely have to repeat instructions twice — with Trent or Paul. They both really want to do a good job. And Solvate takes care of the hassle of negotiating contracts with the talent — all I did was sign a click-through contract with Solvate.

Free hour of Solvate!

I’ve arranged for Solvate to foot the bill for the first hour of any project you start with them in March. Try it out and let me know what you think.

The only reason investors say ‘no’ is because you haven't figured out how to get far enough on your own.

This is one of our most popular tweets ever. You never know which tweet will be popular.

The tweet isn’t exactly true but it’s close enough for 140 characters. Exceptions and corrections welcome in the comments.

Naval here.

For those of you going to SXSW, I’ll be on the Seed Combinators Panel on Monday March 15 3:30pm. I’m joining Paul Graham, David Cohen, Marc Nathan, and Joshua Baer to talk about YStars, TechCombinators, SeedBoxes, and the like. Here’s the Plancast if you want me to “count you in.”

I’m also throwing a SXSW Venture Hacks Meetup on Sunday March 14 5-7pm in the Four Seasons Lobby Lounge at 98 San Jacinto Blvd. If you’re coming to the meetup, please RSVP on Facebook xor Plancast so we can get a headcount.

If you’re a Venture Hacker, please come talk to me about your startup and venture hacking at these two events. I’m looking forward to pressing the flesh and kissing some babies.

According to Google Reader, we write 2 blog posts a week. And according to TweetStats we write 73 tweets a week.

If you only read our blog, you’re missing the great links we post on Twitter. We take the same care with our tweets that we do with our blog posts and we try to keep the quality stratospheric.

You can follow us on Twitter but maybe you’re already following too many people. So we’ve created a daily digest of our tweets that you can get via email or RSS. 600 people have already subscribed to the digest and it looks like this:

But wait there’s more! First, we’re working on a redesign of the digest with a designer who can only be described as a badass — subscribe and you’ll see it first. Second, we usually preview new projects like StartupList and AngelList on Twitter for many weeks before we publish them here — again, subscribe and you’ll see them first. Third, we’re working on a sweet new project that we’ll preview on Twitter soon — its code name is “Talk”.

So give tweet a chance: Twitter, Email Digest, RSS Digest.

Don’t be afraid to get multiple intros to a single investor. Fred Wilson:

“One of my favorite VC quotes comes from Bill Kaiser of Greylock. He once said, “when I hear about a company once, I often ignore it, when I hear about it twice, I pay attention, when I hear about it for the third time, I take a meeting”.

“It happened to me this week. I met with Reshma who runs seedcamp, the european version of Y Combinator, on Monday and she told me about Zemanta which came out of last year’s seedcamp. Then I saw this blog post about Zemanta on Techmeme the next day. And then on Thursday, Alex Iskold, founder of our portfolio company Adaptive Blue, introduced us to Andraz, one of the founders of Zemanta.

“Three hits in one week is absolutely a “pay attention” notice. So this morning I am trying Zemanta out. The image and most of the links in this post were automatically provided by Zemanta.”

Put yourself in Fred’s shoes. His inbox is overflowing with intros to companies that are as good as yours. He has to ignore most of the intros and focus on a few of them. One of Fred’s best filters is the quality and quantity of the people referring your company. And, by the way, Fred went on to invest in Zemanta.

How to get multiple intros

This is what we tell entrepreneurs who use AngelList and StartupList: we recommend doing all of these at the same time,

  1. Email investors directly if they allow it. But first read their profile to see if you’re a good fit. Don’t contact them if you don’t fit their interests — you’re not the exception that proves the rule.
  2. Use one of the referrers they suggest. But don’t spam referrers — you should either know the referrer or the referrer should be open to cold calls.
  3. Use Facebook/LinkedIn and ask mutual friends for an intro. You should either know the mutual friend well or the mutual friend should be open to cold calls.
  4. Send your elevator pitch to StartupList and, if you’ve got a good pitch, we’ll send it to the investors on AngelList — or, if you prefer, specific investors you suggest. 4 weeks in, we’ve already done intros between 15 startups and 25 investors — and gotten 1 startup funded. Even better, with StartupList, the investors come to you.

The idea here isn’t that you should keep bugging investors — the idea is that it often takes three tries to get a meeting.

Thanks to George Zachary, a partner at Charles River Ventures, for sponsoring Venture Hacks this week. If you like this post, check out George’s blog and tweets @georgezachary. – Nivi

In my first post, A brief history of your investors (and their investors), I wrote about the history of venture capital. I described how the economy and stock market drives investments into venture capital and startups. I also covered how the basic incentive structures are affected by these drivers.

I ended with a suggestion that cash is gaining power relative to other assets and a suggestion that this will shift the balance of valuation and terms in favor of the root sources of capital (limited partners and above). In this second part, I’ll discuss why I think this is happening and what it means for venture investors and entrepreneurs.

Speculative returns are a major component of total returns

The coming decade is not going to be a bull like the 1980’s or 1990’s. Why is this important? Because it’s going to turn money into a “scarce” commodity and therefore drive down valuations, erode returns, remove under-performing venture funds, and reduce company exit valuations.

The 1980’s and 90’s were incredibly bullish. The annualized return from the public stock market was 16.8% from 1982-2000. That is huge. If you dive into the 16.8%, the fundamental return was 9.9% annualized.

What’s the remainder? I’ll call it speculative return. The speculative return was 6.9% between 1982-2000. And what is speculative return? It’s the expansion of the starting and ending P/E from 1982 to 2000. We started 1982 with a P/E of 8.0 and finished 2000 at 26.4!

As I wrote in part one, the increased supply of money drove these large returns. M3 money supply started its ballistic rise in the early 1980s. The total debt market went from $4T in 1980 to about $52T at the end of 2009. So the credit boom and decreasing interest rates fire-hosed cash into all markets. And that’s how a speculative return of 6.9% a year was driven. Other drivers included the baby boomer demographic, the technology boom, geopolitical stability, and the boom in international trade from globalization.

If we look back in time, the preceding time period of 1966 to 1981 had a total return of 5.9% (including dividends of course). However, the fundamental return was 11.1% and the speculative return was -5.2%! We started 1966 with a P/E of 17.8 and finished 1981 with a P/E of 8.0. And to add a little more color, the 1950-1965 post-WWII time period had a total return of 16.1%. That was comprised of a 10.0% fundamental return and a 6.1% speculative return. And, looking forward a bit, we can see the 2001-2005 time period had a total return of -1.3% with a -6.9% speculative return.

This data suggests that the speculative return component is a huge driver on total returns. And that it has a fairly long half-cycle time. It’s in the vicinity of 16-18 years if we do the analysis since the early 1900s. In a short 5 year period, speculative return can comprise 55% of the total return. And, over a 40 year period, speculative return drops to near 0%.

Benjamin Graham said it best when he said that the stock market worked like a voting machine, but in the long term like a weighing machine. If you are building a long term company, that is the good news. The not-so-good news is that the short term pain of being part of the voting machine could be very significant.

2001-2020 will have negative speculative returns

Okay, its 2010. Could the speculative return dynamics since 2001 have ended? Umm — probably not. Take a look at this table of important drivers that compare 1981 (the start of the mega 20 year bull period) to now.

1981 Today
CPI 8.9% -1.3%
30-year bond 13.65% 4.24%
Fed Funds rate 12.00% 0.25%
Highest marginal tax rate 69% 35%
Highest LT capital gains tax rate 28% 15%
Home ownership rate 65.2% 67.4%
Household debt as % of income 56.1% 114.4%
% of families with retirement accts 20.4% 52.6%
Personal savings rate 11.4% 3.0%
Mortgage debt as % of disposable inc 43.1% 95%
Baby Boomer age range 17-35 45-63
Federal Deficit as % of Nominal GFP 2.5% 11.2% est
PCE (consumer spend) as % of GDP 61.9% 70.7%
US debt as % of GDP 32.2% 85.8%
Household debt as % of GDP 47.2% 96.8%

To me, these are very sobering statistics. They paint a completely different picture than at the start of the last bull cycle of 1982-2000. My judgment is that these statistics are going to seriously suppress speculative return. The -6.9% of 2001-2005 will get worse and total returns will suffer. In 2021, statistics will show that the 2001-2020 time period had good fundamental returns. But horrific speculative returns.

Valuations go down and diligence goes up for startups and VCs

What will this mean for the U.S. entrepreneurs and investors? In short, we are not going to be “partying like its 1999” for quite awhile. (Who knew that the artist formerly known as Prince could forecast market peaks?)

The implications of negative speculative returns will be huge. The number of venture firms and their personnel will shrink. And probably hit bottom sometime this decade. Venture firms will be under significant pressure to outperform their peers and outperform their limited partners’ common benchmark indices like NASDAQ. Limited partners will feel the same type of pressure as they too source their capital from sources that will be under tremendous economic pressures. Angel firms (translation: angels who are institutionally backed) will feel the same pressure. Angel investors (individuals investing their own capital) will become more risk averse.

How will these pressures affect entrepreneurs? As a whole, valuations will stay suppressed and will probably come down further over the future years. Revenue multiples and “discount to public market multiples” will re-enter and dominate the late stage financing lexicon. Early stage companies will also feel this suppression with smaller venture rounds. Capital-intense startups that need to raise large initial Series A financing rounds will be particularly affected.

The amount of time spent in due diligence will go up and get more rigorous and detailed. Of course, there will always be companies that are exceptions. But as a rule, the suppressed return environment will force all parts of the money chain to spend way more time in diligence. Way more time and energy for limited partners to raise capital. And the same for venture investors. And the same for angel firms.

Startups will feel this diligence pressure next as they are the next stop on the money supply chain. My guess is that new service providers will emerge to help both investors and entrepreneurs with these diligence processes. How they will be paid is an open question.

Since individual angels use their own cash, they won’t be directly affected. But they will probably diversify their portfolio by making smaller investments on average. And put less of their total portfolio in startups so that they can have greater portfolio liquidity. In aggregate, they will put less money into startups.

Some startups and VCs are going to disappear

Okay, so valuations down and diligence up for every part of the money supply chain. We can all work through that.

Where matters are going to get tricky is that parts of the money supply chain will disappear. A venture investor or angel firm may run out of cash in a fund and need to raise a new fund. A startup company has a similar problem.

If you are a startup company, a pure non-dilutable asset is your time. Raising a new financing round requires time. Since we’ve already established that investor due diligence time will increase, the last thing an entrepreneur will want to do is spend that time talking with investors who don’t have cash to invest. Or who can only invest with particularly harsh terms because of their own liquidity needs.

In the next and final part of this series, I will detail the questions you should ask your potential investors. These questions will assist you in ensuring you are talking to the right investors for your company.

In closing, here’s the “New York Daily Investment News” front page from the early part of the Great Depression to remind us that history may not repeat exactly. But it does rhyme.