Former General Catalyst Executive Outlines Formula to Raise Billions

前 General Catalyst 高管解析数十亿美元募资法则 John Kim 认为机构资本的流动取决于情感信任而非逻辑回报，管理人需通过市场共识与简明的沟通来化解投资者的恐惧。 John Kim 阐述了募集数十亿美元资金背后的基本机制与心理逻辑，强调资金流动归根结底取决于信任建立的速度，而非单纯的逻辑推理。他提出了“说服力等式”（说服力 = 渴望 - 恐惧）、差异化法则（Law of Differentiation）和管线法则（Law of Pipeline）等核心框架，说明募资者应如何消除阻力并扩大机构层面的共识。本次对话还探讨了如何利用卡普曼戏剧三角（Karpman Drama Triangle）等模型处理复杂的人际动态，借鉴奥普拉·温弗瑞（Oprah Winfrey）等顶尖信任构建大师的经验，并解释了为何顶尖募资人必须在机构中充当战略“国务卿”般的角色。 资金随着信任的速度流动，募资的核心挑战在于跨越理性认同（信念）与感性托付（信任）之间的鸿沟，而非单纯依赖数据与逻辑说服。 (2:39) 募资活动应从确定创始人的“基本盘信任额度”（hard reelect number）开始；在机构募资中，首关规模往往代表该基准，最终募资上限通常约为该基础的两倍。 (5:06) 说服力本质上等于欲望减去恐惧（Persuasion = Desire − Fear），成熟机构通过跨越技术采纳鸿沟构建市场共识来消除恐惧，而逻辑只是 LP 为感性决策提供的事后合理化背书。 (8:03) 募资的差异化定律表明说服力取决于“历史战绩加差异化除以叙事复杂度”，而管线定律则将总融资金额量化为管线规模、转化率与平均投资单额的乘积。 (18:36) 优秀的募资合伙人如同基金的“国务卿”，需要卸下自我并具备极高同理心，在创始人和主理人不在场时精准代表其愿景与外部世界展开外交斡旋。 (38:35)

Fundraiser John Kim argues that securing institutional capital is fundamentally an exercise in managing human emotion and building trust, asserting that persuasion succeeds when an investor's desire outweighs their fear while logic merely serves as post-hoc justification. The Psychology of Persuasion Over Logic (8:03) Fundraisers frequently fail by relying entirely on logic and performance metrics, mistaking intellectual belief for trust. Kim explains that while an investor may believe a team is qualified, capital will not move if fear remains unaddressed. Persuasion functions according to the equation Persuasion = Desire − Fear, where trust eliminates perceived risk and makes high-stakes decisions possible. Because decision-making originates in intuitive and emotional centers of the brain, logic acts as the retrospective rationalization that limited partners (LPs) use to justify choices they have already made emotionally. Furthermore, fundraisers often misjudge LP motivations by projecting the aggressive financial greed of general partners onto institutional allocators. Most LP professionals are not directly compensated on the ten-year internal rates of return of individual funds; they are fiduciaries managing collective risk. Navigating institutional dynamics often requires understanding frameworks like the Karpman Drama Triangle, identifying LP pain points—such as rigid fee constraints or committee skepticism—and positioning the firm with authentic empathy as a collaborative solution. The Structural Laws of Differentiation and Pipeline (18:36) Kim formalizes fundraising mechanics through distinct mathematical principles, beginning with the Law of Differentiation: Persuasion = (Track Record + Differentiation) / Complexity of Story. Track record includes behavioral consistency alongside financial returns, while differentiation demands genuine sacrifice, such as contrarian investment strategies or outsized GP commitments. Story complexity acts as the primary friction point because an internal sponsor must be able to summarize the fund's premise in a single defensible phrase to their investment committee, much like the defense slogan used in the O.J. Simpson trial. Execution is governed by the Law of Pipeline—Fundraising Target = Pipeline × Conversion Ratio × Bite Size—and the Law of Trade-offs balancing fund size, execution speed, and terms. Kim notes that speed depends entirely on genuine scarcity and relationship velocity, warning that institutional LPs bound by multi-month diligence cycles instantly recognize and reject manufactured urgency, which permanently corrodes trust. Engineering Consensus and Baseline Trust (12:20) Capital campaigns rely on an initial baseline of trust, analogous to a political candidate's 'hard reelect number.' In private funds, this baseline is established in the first close; Kim observes that a fund that secures a $1 billion first close typically taps out near $2 billion, effectively doubling its core foundation of trust. Friends and family rounds operate on the same dynamic, functioning not as casual charity but as high-stakes commitments from backers who subordinate loss aversion because they believe in the founder. As investment firms scale into mature flagship vehicles, capital seeks the path of least resistance through engineered consensus. Because institutional investment committees rely on group decision-making to diffuse personal accountability, firms must cross the adoption chasm to become the consensus choice. Scaling to this tier often creates an innovator's dilemma, requiring managers to accept losing early contrarian backers in exchange for sovereign wealth funds and state pensions attracted by co-investment rights and fee concessions. Kim notes rare exceptions like Benchmark, where historically dominant performance creates such universal consensus and scarcity that they can raise capital by email without conventional pitch cycles. The Fundraiser as Secretary of State (38:35) Kim asserts that scaling a firm requires treating the primary fundraising partner not as a transactional salesperson or investment banker, but as a diplomatic 'Secretary of State.' Unlike internal department heads, a Secretary of State negotiates with sovereign entities over which the firm has no authority, requiring an envoy who deeply reflects the leader's philosophy and domain—mirroring historical pairings such as Richard Nixon with Henry Kissinger or Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton. At the interpersonal level, high-stakes persuasion requires total ego detachment, stepping inside the prospect's mental framework to understand how they process uncertainty. Kim cites Oprah Winfrey as the ultimate archetype of institutional trust, attributing her influence to the 'promotion of goodness'—the synthesis of kindness and deep conviction. By combining programmatic reciprocity, consensus engines like her book club, and uncompromising scarcity, she demonstrated how emotional resonance and authentic alignment create enduring, unshakeable influence. Kim's model shows that multi-billion-dollar fundraising is an exercise in diplomatic empathy, consensus architecture, and emotional de-risking. However, because institutional allocators operate with long diligence cycles and fiduciary constraints, these frameworks depend entirely on authentic credibility; any artificial scarcity or unprincipled shifts in identity quickly undermine the very trust that moves capital.

风险投资家约翰·金（John Kim）指出，数十亿美元级别的募资本质在于“资金随信任的速度流动”，而非单纯依赖逻辑或数据说服；募资的核心机制是管理情绪，说服力取决于“欲望减去恐惧”，机构募资者唯有在确立自身差异化并推动市场共识的同时，消除出资人的制度性恐惧，方能有效实现资本规模的跃升。 说服公式：欲望减去恐惧与逻辑陷阱 (8:03) 金指出，募资最根本的心理公式为“说服力 = 欲望 − 恐惧”（Persuasion = Desire − Fear）。业内常将其简化为贪婪与恐惧，但金强调，有限合伙人（LP）作为管理庞大资本的受托人，极少直接按照单个普通合伙人（GP）的内部收益率（IRR）获得短期业绩提成，因而单纯的财务贪婪无法有效驱动他们；募资者必须洞察LP涵盖自身声誉、组织考量乃至代际传承等更广泛的人性欲望。与此同时，绝对的信任是恐惧的解药，若能完全化解投资者的顾虑，其感知风险便会降至极低水平，推动交易所需的欲望门槛也随之大幅下降。 许多募资专业人士常陷入过度依赖逻辑（Logos）的陷阱，试图用密集的收益数据和运营指标说服对方。金援引西蒙·斯涅克（Simon Sinek）的决策机制观点指出，人类决策实际上由直觉和情感中枢主导，大脑前额叶仅负责在事后进行“合理化”（Rationalization）。“认知上的认可”（Belief）与“真正的信任”（Trust）存在本质鸿沟：正如恐飞者在理智上完全相信飞行员合格，却仍因缺乏信任而感到恐惧一样，机构LP即便在逻辑上认可投资策略，若未建立深层信任，其内在恐惧依然会导致交易流产。逻辑并非促成交易的初始输入，而是决策达成后用于自我辩解的输出工具。 募资物理法则：差异化、权衡与转化漏斗 (18:36) 在实操层面，金提出了募资的三大物理法则。首先是“差异化法则”，即说服力等于（历史业绩 + 差异化）除以“叙事的复杂度”。历史业绩涵盖过往财务回报与行为一致性；真正的差异化则要求机构付出实质代价（例如在特定投资原则上保持长期连贯，而非像2019年承诺不投武器却在防务科技热潮中匆忙转向的机构那样丧失核心标签）。复杂度则是信任的死敌，因为LP内部推动者必须向投资委员会转述这一逻辑，复杂的叙事极易失效。募资者需要像辛普森案辩护词“手套若不合，必须判无罪”那样，提炼出一句简单且具防御性的核心主张。 其次是“权衡法则”与“漏斗法则”。权衡法则表明规模、速度与条款三者必须取舍，而速度严格取决于真正的稀缺性，人为制造的紧迫感会立即破坏信任；同时，即便降低管理费也无法压缩大型养老金等机构固有的漫长尽调周期。漏斗法则则给出了清晰的操作公式：“募资目标 = 潜在对象规模 × 转化率 × 单笔出资额”。在跨越核心信任圈后，募资转化为概率游戏，提升转化率的关键在于消除故事复杂度并强化差异化。 从核心信任基准到机构市场共识工程 (5:06) 发起募资必须锚定既有的信任底线。金借用政治竞选中的“铁票率”（Hard Reelect Number）概念指出，“亲友轮”投资人并非因风险承受力高而注资，而是因亲眼见证过创始人的执行力，使其对成功的期盼压倒了对损失的恐惧。在机构募资中，首期交割（First Close）正是该基金的铁票盘。经验表明，首轮锁定的资金往往决定了最终募集规模的上限——通常最终募资总额约为首期交割基准的两倍（例如10亿美元的首关通常最终达到约20亿美元左右）。 对于迈向数十亿美元规模的成熟基金而言，募资则从早期试探转变为系统性的“共识工程”。由于主权财富基金和公共养老金的投资决策依赖8至9人的投资委员会以分散责任，委员会天然偏向共识而非非共识赌注。机构必须跨越技术采纳生命周期中的鸿沟，向大型LP提供联合投资权、透明度和优惠费率，从而吸引标杆机构背书。金以通用催化（General Catalyst）为例，说明规模化需要克服“创新者窘境”，勇于承受因基金规模扩张而失去早期家族办公室等逆向投资者的代价；而像Benchmark这类极少数凭借极致超额业绩达成自动共识的机构，则能依靠绝对稀缺性免去冗长繁复的推介流程。 沟通心理学与“国务卿”外交官角色 (38:35) 金将顶级募资合伙人的职能定义为基金的“国务卿”（Secretary of State）。不同于财政或能源等内部部门，国务卿面对的是不受自身权力支配的外部主权实体。募资负责人并非普通销售或投资银行家，而是代表创始人在谈判桌前行使外交职权的外交官，必须对行业全局和创始人心态兼具深刻理解。对于从事此项职业的人而言，选择追随具备强大号召力的领袖以赢取规模与财富，抑或追随价值观完全契合的使命型领袖以获得内在回报，是需要明确衡量的路径取舍。 在微观沟通上，高层级说服的内在核心在于“放下自我”（Ego Detachment），将自身视作对方脑海中的客体，根据对方的认知节奏进行适配。金推崇奥普拉·温弗瑞（Oprah Winfrey）“善意的推广”（善意与坚定信念的结合）作为建立信任的典范，她熟练调动互惠、权威、共识引擎与稀缺性维系了长久信任。在面对LP的具体诉求时，募资者可借助卡普曼戏剧三角（Karpman Drama Triangle）识别LP的制度性痛点，通过展现真诚共情并把自己定位为化解矛盾的英雄，将充满阻力的谈判转化为高度同频的长期合作。 金的论述揭示了大规模资本配置背后的非理性与人际本质：巨额资金的聚合依赖于对复杂叙事的精简、对制度性恐惧的化解以及跨越周期的共识构筑。然而，该框架也带来了一个核心权衡——当机构为了获取主权基金与巨额养老金的共识而牺牲初始差异化、追求制度化妥协时，是否会陷入规模扩张与超额阿尔法收益之间的经典悖论，依然是百亿美元级资产管理者无法回避的现实难题。

## Background 本期节目由投资与商业播客平台 Colossus 旗下的《Invest Like the Best》（第482期）于2026年7月14日发布。对话嘉宾为全球顶尖募资家、前 General Catalyst 首席客户官兼 Lila Sciences 董事长兼企业发展总裁 John Kim，他同时也是《筹款之道》（The Tao of Fundraising）的作者。节目简介指出，这是一场关于如何募集数十亿美元资金的顶层指南，深入探讨了“说服力 = 渴望 - 恐惧”、相信与信任的本质区别、募资物理法则以及调动海量资本所需的共识构建体系。 ## TL;DR John Kim 结合其操盘数十亿美元基金与前沿科技融资的实战履历，深入拆解了资本运转与人性心理的底层规律。他提出“资金依信任的速度流动”，并建立起“说服力 = 渴望 - 恐惧”的核心公式，警示从业者莫陷入单纯依赖数理逻辑“合理化”的误区。对话归纳了差异化定律、权衡定律与管线定律三大募资物理法则，并引入卡普曼戏剧三角与奥普拉的影响力模型剖析出资人的心理机制。此外，他将顶尖募资人比喻为穿梭于外部世界的“国务卿”，强调最高境界的说服是将自我完全投射进对方心智的内在修行。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期对谈在冷静犀利的商业解构与深邃包容的哲学洞察之间达成了绝妙平衡，充满了高密度的智性交锋与人情洞见。主持人 Patrick 抽丝剥茧的递进追问，引导出 John Kim 极具穿透力且金句迭出的剖析，两人之间的交流如同一场高段位心智的同频共振。叙事节奏从硬核公式与机构博弈的理性推演，逐步升华至对善意、谦逊与人际真实连接的深层省思，并在尾声回顾 50 岁生日惊喜时流露出真挚的情感温度，令人回味悠长。 ## Bulletin - `02:02` 资金永远依信任的速度流动，而说服力的本质是“渴望减去恐惧”（Persuasion = Desire - Fear）；只要信任足够化解恐惧，达成交易所需的渴望门槛就会大幅降低。 - `18:36` 募资物理学三大铁律确立了核心约束：差异化得分等于（历史表现 + 差异化特征）除以叙事复杂度；规模、速度与条款三者不可兼得；总募资额则严格遵循管线总量、转化率与单笔支票金额的数学乘积。 - `33:49` 逻辑只是促成交易后的事后“合理化”工具，而非输入端；促成巨额资金流动的关键在于构建机构共识并诉诸情感与价值观共鸣。 - `38:35` 机构内部的募资负责人应被定位为能听懂并说出外部世界语言的“国务卿”，而非单纯的销售员，其职责是在不可控的外部生态中为领袖投射信任与战略形象。 ## Key takeaways - `02:02` 混淆“相信”与“信任”是募资失败的主因：相信停留在认知与逻辑层面，而信任代表愿意克服恐惧、将真实利益托付给对方。 - `05:06` 启动募资必须从“硬性连任基数”即既有信任铁票仓起盘；在大型机构募资中，首期关账金额往往预示着最终总额的大致天花板（约为其两倍）。 - `08:03` “说服力 = 渴望 - 恐惧”超越了传统的“贪婪与恐惧”说：绝大多数机构投资人并不享受超额收益分成，纯粹用财富贪婪去推介从一开始就找错了靶心。 - `10:00` 金融界所谓的“风险偏好”本质上是伪命题，投资者只是在脑海中将风险合理化，募资者的核心任务是通过建立信任消除投资人的恐惧。 - `12:20` 募集数十亿美元的本质是打造“共识运动”：机构投资委员会极少进行逆向下注，唯有逐期积累主流机构背书并跨越鸿沟，才能成为无争议的必选赢家。 - `15:00` 扩大规模必然伴随“创新的窘境”：如果既想扩张资产管理规模，又想留住早期的逆向小型出资人，往往会陷入两头不讨好的困境。 - `15:58` Benchmark 凭借长期的绝对超额业绩与极致稀缺性打破了常规法则，得以将基金规模压缩、用极简的沟通实现闪电募资。 - `18:36` 差异化定律的核心公式指出，叙事复杂度是信任的头号杀手；募资者必须提炼出一句能让内部推动者直接复述给决策委员会的金句。 - `21:40` 真正的差异化必须伴随巨大的代价与牺牲；没有付出代价的声明（如顺应潮流反水防务投资）只是见风使舵的公关噱头，会彻底毁掉信誉的一致性。 - `24:13` 权衡定律证明规模、速度与条款无法三者兼得：人为制造虚假稀缺性一旦被识破会导致信任归零，而单方面让步条款并不能缩短机构漫长的合规流程。 - `25:40` 管线定律将募资转化为工业化执行：在单笔支票金额和客观转化率确定的情况下，达标的核心就是全力铺开管线并付出极致的差旅拜访执行力。 - `27:52` 推介会中可巧妙运用卡普曼戏剧三角：敏锐捕捉出资人当下的受害者心境，要么针对其痛苦成为拯救问题的“英雄”，要么深切同理扮演倾听的“治疗师”。 - `30:42` 奥普拉·温弗瑞展现了顶级信任的本质是“至善”——兼具极致同理心与不可动摇的坚定信念，并通过互惠、共识与一致性构筑深层影响力。 - `33:49` 过度依赖逻辑是募资通病：“合理化”（Rationalization）本质是事后为感性与本能冲动编造体面理由，逻辑推演只是交易促成后的输出工具而非输入前提。 - `38:35` 顶尖募资人应当是机构的“国务卿”：关键不在于精通内部投资交易，而在于能否听懂并精准运用外部出资人生态的文化与诉求语言。 - `45:40` 募资者的内在境界在于“将对方视为宇宙中心”：放弃单向自我展示，完全移情到对方的思维空间，顺应其深层渴望并构筑契合的认知体验。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### `02:02` 顶尖募资家的心法：从《筹款之道》到“资金以信任的速度流动” 在播客开场，Patrick O'Shaughnessy 隆重介绍了本期嘉宾 John Kim。John 是全球顶尖且极为高产的募资大师之一。在 General Catalyst（GC）担任首席客户官（Chief Client Officer）期间，他主导募集了数十亿美元的旗舰基金，亲手推动 GC 跃升为全球规模最大的风险投资机构之一。如今，他担任 Lila Sciences（一家致力于构建科学超级智能、已完成超过 5 亿美元融资的前沿科技公司）的董事长兼企业发展总裁，同时也是《筹款之道》（*The Tao of Fundraising*）一书的作者。 Patrick 提及两人在录音前的闲聊：如果为那本书重新拟定一个名字，John 会如何命名？John 坦言，当初取名为《筹款之道》，是因为他内心怀揣着一种哲理追求——募资绝非单纯的话术与说服技巧，它本质上是一种将对方置于对话核心的“处世之道”（a way of life）。当你深入洞悉人性运作的规律、洞察人们对不同人设与刺激的反应时，这种洞察力既可以被用于自私的操控，也可以用于成就善举，因而伴随着沉甸甸的道德责任。然而他自嘲道，世界上并没有多少人真正醉心于这种哲学思辨，绝大多数人真正关心的只有一件事：“到底怎样才能拿到钱？” 正因如此，John 表示如果重写书名，他会直接将其命名为《资金以信任的速度流动》（*Money Moves at the Speed of Trust*）。资金和资源习惯于在特定蓄水池中抱团停滞，所有人都试图引导这股洪流流向自己。许多人懂得如何博取关注、制造兴趣，但真正能够打开终极闸门的钥匙只有一个——信任。很多人极擅长通过逻辑论据（Logos）在理智层面说服对方，让对方连连点头，但最终依然换来一声拒绝。这其中的根源在于人们混淆了“相信”（Belief）与“信任”（Trust）： - **相信（Belief）**：“你说的逻辑完全成立，合情合理，我相信你。”这停留在认知与理智层面。 - **信任（Trust）**：“但我不把身家性命押在上面，我缺乏那种把筹码托付给你的确信。” 为了说明两者的致命差异，John 举了跳伞与恐飞的生动例子：“那些极度恐飞的人，难道不相信机长拥有完备的飞行资质吗？当然相信。”认知上的认同并不等于克服内心的恐惧并交付信任。绝大多数募资者铩羽而归，正是因为他们止步于让出资人“相信这个设想行得通”，却从未走到让对方“信任你能够真正兑现承诺”的最终阶段。 --- ### `05:06` 筹款战役的第一步：从“铁票仓”与信任杠杆起盘 Patrick 将情境拉回到一切的起点：假设一个人胸怀抱负或全新项目，迫切需要资本或关键资源入场，但除了想法本身之外，往往不知从何下手。很多人往往低估了资本对于将愿景化为现实的催化作用，而具备顶级募资能力的人更是凤毛麟角。针对这种“起手式”，John 详细剖析了募资者应当如何正确定位并打响战役。 John 指出，开启任何募资征程的第一件事，必须回到原点自问：“在这个世界上，究竟有谁已经信任我？”这就是创投界常说的“亲友轮”（Friends and Family）。然而，John 彻底打破了外界对“亲友轮”是做慈善的虚幻神话。他直言，借朋友的钱往往是“代价最昂贵的一笔钱”，因为如果把钱亏光了，友情往往也就彻底破裂；亲友对亏损的真实承受力可能远低于专业机构。他们之所以掏钱，绝非无视亏损风险，而是因为他们对你的信任，使得他们“渴望看到你成功”的情感压倒了“害怕资金受损”的恐惧。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 募资启动与信任放大模型 accDescr: 展示从既有信任基石（铁票仓）到杠杆放大募资总额的动态逻辑 subgraph Base["1. 锚定既有信任基底"] A["排查人脉网络<br/>谁已具备原生信任？"] --> B["锁定'硬性连任基数'<br/>(Hard Re-elect Number)"] end subgraph Mechanics["2. 心理博弈机制"] B --> C["渴望压倒恐惧<br/>(Desire > Fear)"] C --> D["跨越致命鸿沟：<br/>从'逻辑相信'跃升至'托付信任'"] end subgraph Scale["3. 信任杠杆放大"] D --> E["首期关账背书<br/>(First Close)"] E --> F["募资规模翻倍兑现<br/>(基数 10 亿 ➔ 终局 20 亿美元)"] end ``` 在战术层面，John 借用了政治选举中“硬性连任基数”（Hard Re-elect Number）的概念——即无论政局如何风云变幻，都会铁定把选票投给你的核心底盘。募资者必须首先清点出这笔自然就会流向自己的底盘资金： - 如果亲朋好友和既有信任圈能凑出 100 万美元，那么理性的募资目标应当设定在 200 万至 300 万美元，通过这 100 万美元确凿的信任基石作为杠杆，撬动外围更广泛的资本。 - 无论体量大小，这一倍数法则惊人一致。John 总结自己的长期经验：在大型机构募资中，“如果你的第一期关账（First Close）是 10 亿美元，你的最终总额通常会在 20 亿美元左右见顶”。首期关账往往就是你的“铁票底盘”，募资战役必须以此为锚点层层推进。 --- ### `08:03` 核心方程式：说服力 = 渴望 - 恐惧（超越“贪婪与恐惧”的狭隘认知） 针对这一公式，Patrick 追问：为什么 John 会把看似极其繁复的人性博弈，精炼为“说服力 = 渴望 - 恐惧”（Persuasion = Desire - Fear）这样一个极为简洁而优雅的公式？ John 回忆道，大约十年前他曾与一位华尔街的顶级风云人物（Masters of the Universe）交谈。当时对方带着轻蔑的口吻调侃道：“得了吧，天下人人都知道是贪婪与恐惧（Greed and Fear）驱动一切，这有什么新鲜的？”但 John 敏锐地意识到，“渴望减去恐惧”绝不是“贪婪减去恐惧”的同义词重复。公式的力量不在于辞藻的平实，而在于重新定义了正向驱动力的本质： - **贪婪（Greed）纯粹是自私的**，它只关乎个体对财富的掠夺与占有。 - **渴望（Desire）则博大得多**，它承载着整个人类精神世界与自我的深层追求。正是因为渴望超越了狭隘的贪婪，人类才会慷慨解囊做慈善、才会不计回报地呵护子女、才会心系生态环境、才会渴望构建留存世间的丰功伟绩。 在另类资产投资（如 PE/VC）的世界中，初出茅庐的投资经理（GP）最容易犯下的致命错误，就是将自己的心理模型生搬硬套到出资人（LP）身上。年轻的 GP 们往往满腔热血，在路演时滔滔不绝地展示投资回报率、内部收益率（IRR）以及能为 LP 赚多少个亿，心里想的是“赚得越多，我就能买更大的私人飞机”，并理所当然地认为作为受托人的 LP 也必然以此为核心动力。 然而，John 揭露了机构募资中一个残酷的“公开秘密”：极少有 LP 内部的投资经理能够直接从 GP 的投资收益中拿到业绩提成（Carry）。虽然极少数 LP 可能会将部分年度奖金与投资组合的整体 IRR 挂钩，但绝大多数出资人根本不会因为 GP 创造了超额回报而暴富。如果募资者只懂用“超额回报与财富贪婪”去说服他们，从一开始就找错了心理靶心。 ### `10:00` 另类投资中的利益错位与“无风险偏好”的真相 另类资产（Alternatives）的商业模式存在一种天然的尴尬：一笔投资究竟是好是坏，往往需要等待长达十年才能见分晓。这就带来了利益绑定的扭曲——虽然机构承诺根据内部收益率（IRR）来支付报酬，但谁也无法立刻判断业绩的真实含金量，普通合伙人（GP）甚至可以通过当今市场上各种高超工具来粉饰 IRR。与此同时，许多掌管机构资金的配置者，其个人收入并不会因为基金赚钱而大幅增加；既然没有直接的“贪婪”驱动，募资者就必须去探寻他们坐在那个位置上的真正动机。 在说服的等式中，“恐惧”（Fear）扮演着核心角色，而恐惧的解药正是“信任”（Trust）。一个人心中的恐惧越多，如果你能建立起足够的信任，促成交易所需要的“欲望”（Desire）反而可以越少；若对方对你百分之百信任、觉得毫无风险，他们就会毫不犹豫地出手。John Kim 直言，金融圈尤其是对冲基金常挂在嘴边的所谓“风险厌恶”或“风险偏好”根本就是无稽之谈： > “我觉得那纯粹是扯淡。世界上根本没有什么风险偏好（Risk-loving）。从来没有人会带着巨大的风险感去投资，人们只是极擅长在脑海中把风险合理化掉，让他们自以为承担的风险远低于现实，以此证明自己追求回报的正当性。这就像赌徒走进赌场一样。” ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 说服力动态平衡 accDescr: 展示信任如何抵消恐惧并降低对欲望门槛的要求 subgraph Mindset["投资者心理天平"] F["感知风险 / 恐惧<br/>(Fear)"] T["建立绝对信任<br/>(Trust)"] D["所需渴望程度<br/>(Desire)"] end T -->|"消除/合理化"| F F -.->|"恐惧降为零"| D ``` 投资中的大量认知错误，正源于人们在巨大潜在回报的诱惑下，硬生生把实际风险脑补缩小了一半。募资者的关键，就是通过建立信任，帮出资人扫除这层恐惧。 --- ### `12:20` 募集数十亿美元的核心：打造共识与穿越“跨越鸿沟” 当基金从早期走到中后期——比如 General Catalyst 筹备第八期旗舰基金或创业公司进行 Series D 轮融资时，游戏规则已经发生蜕变。早期面对的是“根本不知道你行不行”的完全不确定性，而中后期则是“资金流向已经在顺畅运转的事物”。此时募资的终极策略，是一场深思熟虑的“共识运动”（Campaign of Consensus）。共识是一种能够撬动整个市场的宏观力量，甚至如同在最佳与最坏语境下的宣传战一样，彻底重塑宏观认知。 建立共识通常有两条路径： 1. **跨越鸿沟模型**：遵循创新者、早期采用者、早期大众、晚期大众到落后者的技术采纳生命周期。一旦跨过从早期采用者到早期大众之间的巨大鸿沟，共识便会爆发，对岸的胜者往往通吃一切。 2. **攻克机构委员会机制**：掌握大钱的巨型机构往往躲在八九人的投资委员会身后，而委员会投票本质上就是在做“共识决策”。委员会几乎从不进行逆向投资（Contrarian bets），除非其机制被特意设计为支持逆向。 想要让庞大的机构群体达成共识，靠的是极其严密的“一致性”（Consistency）。募资者必须精准摸清目标客群的核心诉求并精准兑现：州养老金、主权财富基金或投资顾问到底想要什么？是联合投资权（Co-investment）、更优费率、独特资产准入、极致透明度、底层知识产权，抑或仅仅是高质量的招待沟通？找准诉求并稳定输出，当你拿下第一家主权基金、第一家州养老金之后，消息就会迅速传导开来，下一轮融资的规模便能直接翻倍。 - **共识的本质**：一种影响全市场的宏观视角，是消除机构投资委员会“恐惧”最坚固的盾牌。 - **委员会特征**：大资金依附于群体投票以规避个人责任，天生排斥逆向下注。 - **逐期递进策略**：每一期基金都要极有针对性地积累特定机构背书，从而在主流出资人圈层中成为“毫无争议的必选赢家”。 --- ### `15:00` 创新的窘境与 Benchmark 的极致极简主义 要将机构打造成共识之选，往往需要付出代价——你必须有勇气承受“创新的窘境”（Innovator's Dilemma），承受失去最早陪伴你的逆向投资者的痛苦。当机构规模越来越庞大，曾经在高净值家族办公室、大学捐赠基金或小型母基金（Fund of Funds）眼里的独特性便不复存在，他们会直言“你对我来说已经太大了”。如果既想扩大资产管理规模，又想留住过去的每一个小体量支持者，最终只会一事无成。 当然，市场上存在极少数跳出这套规律的异类，例如 Benchmark。他们的业绩在全行业中高耸入云，其差异化和历史回报强悍到了令人难以置信的程度，以至于出资人根本不需要顾问背书，也完全挤不进去。 > “我曾经问过 Benchmark 的一位合伙人：‘你们究竟是怎么做募资的？’他回答说：‘我们就在周二晚上发一封邮件，然后周三早上新基金就正式启动了。’” 这种不可思议的募资效率，建立在绝对的“稀缺性”（Scarcity）与长久以来的“极度稳定高回报”之上。他们不需要为主资人提供复杂的附带利益或讨好关系，回报本身就让出资人在同行面前脸上有光。这种靠稀缺与共识换来的特权，让他们得以将基金规模死死压小，把募资所耗费的精力卡路里降至冰点。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 募资范式对比 accDescr: 对比大规模基金的共识扩张路线与Benchmark的极致稀缺路线 subgraph ParadigmA["大规模共识扩张路线（如 General Catalyst）"] A1["逐期满足主权/养老金诉求"] --> A2["建立跨越鸿沟的机构共识"] A2 --> A3["壮大规模，舍弃无法跟投的早期小型LP"] end subgraph ParadigmB["极致稀缺路线（如 Benchmark）"] B1["长期超额业绩支撑"] --> B2["人为制造极端稀缺性"] B2 --> B3["周二发邮件周三完成，零多余能耗"] end ``` --- ### `18:36` 募资物理学第一定律：差异化定律 募资领域存在三条如同物理定律般基础的原则：**差异化定律（Law of Differentiation）**、**权衡定律（Law of Trade-offs）** 与 **管线定律（Law of Pipeline）**。 差异化定律的核心可以用一个简洁的公式概括： $$\text{差异化得分} = \frac{\text{历史表现 (Track Record)} + \text{差异化特征 (Differentiation)}}{\text{故事的复杂度 (Complexity of Story)}}$$ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 差异化定律结构 accDescr: 展示历史表现加差异化特征除以叙事复杂度的数学模型 subgraph Numerator["分子：正向价值要素"] TR["历史表现 (Track Record)<br/>业绩、言行一致性、行为模式"] DIFF["差异化特征 (Differentiation)<br/>逆向布局、重度运营、独特资产、巨额GP自投"] end subgraph Denominator["分母：信任杀手"] COMP["故事的复杂度 (Complexity)<br/>冗长借口、层层假设、过度解释"] end TR & DIFF --> Score["最终差异化吸引力"] COMP -.->|"大幅削弱"| Score ``` - **历史表现（Track Record）**：不仅局限于账面投资收益，更关乎长期的言行一致性与行为习惯。正如民选官员的历史表现是其投票记录和媒体形象一样，机构展现出的一致作风就是其履历。 - **差异化特征（Differentiation）**：为大型机构投资组合提供不可替代的增量价值。大钱都在管理高度分散的资产配置，如果新资产与现有组合自相关性（Auto-correlated）过高，配置就是失败的。差异化可以体现为专注于逆向布局、极重度的投后运营、独家切入特定冷门市场的能力，甚至是极其庞大的 GP 自投（GP Commit）比例。 - **故事的复杂度（Complexity）**：公式的分母，也是信任最大的天敌。需要解释的环节越多，信任消耗就越快。这就像半夜两点才回家的女儿面对门前盘问，原本规定午夜回家，如果她开口就是一段漫长曲折的借口与巧合，听者心里唯一的反应只有深深的怀疑。 ### `20:00` 复杂性是信任的杀手：给决策者一句能转述的话 复杂的叙事对募资的破坏是毁灭性的，主要体现在两个层面：第一，它直接稀释并侵蚀了人与人之间的信任；第二，在商业实操中，经常出现一种情况——与你面谈的人已经被打动、真心想投资，但他无法向内部真正拥有决策权的人（如投委会或董事会）解释清楚你到底在做什么。因此，募资者必须在推介时给对方准备好一句极度精炼、能直接复述给第三方的口号，让对方用这句话去说服别人。 最典型的例子莫过于辛普森案（O.J. Simpson trial）中辩护律师约翰尼·科克伦（Johnnie Cochran）的名言：“如果手套不合适，你就必须宣判无罪”（"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."）。当时如果没有这句极度抓人眼球又无可辩驳的总结，陪审员们根本不敢走出法庭面对全球媒体去解释为何判其无罪。他们不可能向大众长篇大论公民裁决法律的复杂职责，只要简单说一句“手套戴不进去，我别无选择，只能判无罪”即可。这给约翰·金带来了极大的震撼，让他彻底理解了“说服”的本质。在募资过程中，哪怕商业模式或投资策略本身包含客观复杂性，也必须提炼出一句能斩断所有杂质的核心金句。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 募资信任与说服力公式 accDescr: 募资公式展示了过往业绩、差异化以及复杂性对信任的影响机制。 subgraph Numerator["分子：放大渴望与信任"] direction TB A["过往业绩 (Track Record)"] B["差异化 (Differentiation)"] A ~~~ B end subgraph Denominator["分母：降低阻力"] C["思维复杂度 (Complexity of Thought)"] end Numerator --> D["说服力 / 资金流动速度"] Denominator -.->|"压制"| D ``` 在操盘实际募资时，必须像宗教信仰一样严格审视并系统性优化这三个变量： - **美化并凸显业绩（Track Record）**：持续在潜在投资人眼中强化过往表现的含金量。 - **强化差异化认知（Differentiation）**：让自身的不可替代性愈发鲜明。 - **削减思维复杂度（Complexity of Thought）**：把复杂逻辑提炼为极简、可复制转述的沟通语言。 --- ### `21:40` 差异化定律：大机构为何存在，以及真正差异化的代价 当风险投资机构扩张到通用催化剂（General Catalyst）这样的体量时，能够长期维持地位的只有极少数。长期维持大规模的机构通常会找到自己的“存在理由”（Why）——不仅解释“我们为何需要这么大规模”，还要向出资人（LP）讲透“为什么这种庞大体量能为你们带来独特的利益”。反之，那些仅仅认为“我现在拿到钱变大了，所以要继续硬推扩张”的机构，最终往往会重新被打回原形。 真正的差异化必然伴随着巨大的代价与牺牲（"Great differentiation requires great sacrifice"）。如果某项宣示没有付出代价，它就仅仅是浮于表面的品牌公关噱头。一个生动的反面教材是风险投资界对待军工防务投资的态度： - 在2019年前后，绝大多数主流风投公司都公开宣称“我们绝不投资武器防务领域”。 - 几年后，国防科技（Defense Tech）成为最火热的风口，当年信誓旦旦声称不投武器的同一批投资人，如今纷纷冲在领投军工项目的最前线。 - 这种出尔反尔彻底摧毁了他们立场的连贯性。他们永远无法因为当年宣称的价值观获得真正的差异化，因为出资人会看清那只是见风使舵的品牌包装。 优秀的募资顾问必须协助团队保持坚守差异化的勇气与纪律；一旦丧失纪律，所谓的差异化便不复存在，外界迟早会看穿伪装。 --- ### `24:13` 权衡定律与管线定律：资金流动的数学本质 募资的第一项铁律是**权衡定律（Law of Trade-offs）**：在规模（Size）、速度（Speed）与条款（Terms）之间，你永远无法三者兼得。这与工程建设中“质量、成本、速度三选二”的法则类似，但在募资场景中，速度的底层是信任，即“资金依信任的速度而流动”。 许多人对这三者的互动存在严重误区： - **规模与稀缺性驱动速度**：如果一个基金故意把募集额度（Size）压得很小，创造出真实的稀缺性（Scarcity），出资人决策的速度就会呈几何级数加快（如 Benchmark 的运作模式）；若没有真实的稀缺性，资金流动的速度就会极其缓慢，完全取决于建立信任的漫长周期。 - **虚假稀缺性的毁灭后果**：绝大多数募资人喜欢假装额度紧张，但成熟投资人一眼就能识破谎言。一旦戳穿，信誉和信任立刻归零，资金的流动速度也随之彻底停滞。 - **让步条款不能换来真速度**：募资人往往误以为“我主动降低管理费或给更好条款，对方就会签得更快”。事实上，哪怕条款再诱人，大型州养老金计划（State Pension）依然必须走完长达四个月的合规尽调流程。降低条款只有在一种情况下能加速——让对方意识到抢占份额的窗口期即将关闭。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 募资管线转化模型 accDescr: 展示潜在出资人管线经由转化率与支票金额最终生成募集总额的数学逻辑。 subgraph PipelineStage["管线漏斗"] P["潜在出资人管线 (Pipeline)"] --> CR["转化率 (Conversion Ratio)"] end subgraph Execution["产出结果"] CR --> B["平均支票金额 (Bite Size)"] B --> F["募集总金额 (Total Raised)"] end L1["业绩表现"] -.->|"杠杆调节"| CR L2["差异化程度"] -.->|"杠杆调节"| CR L3["故事极简化"] -.->|"杠杆调节"| CR ``` 第二项铁律是**管线定律（Law of Pipeline）**。募资的核心数学极其简单：**总募集金额 = 管线总量 × 转化率 × 单笔支票金额（Bite Size）**。全球顶尖的大型资产管理机构早已看透这一点，将其转化为纯粹的工业化推进行动： - 单笔金额在正态分布曲线上基本是相对固定的，而募资人唯一需要全力关注并优化的核心指标就是**转化率**。 - 一旦剔除那些无条件重复续投的老出资人（Hard Re-elect），进入公开市场发现真实的转化率是 10% 或 20% 时，整个募资就变成了纯粹的执行力问题。 - 只要确认了转化率，剩下的就是“取消圣诞节、取消复活节、取消情人节，打包行李彻底泡在路上见客户”。 --- ### `27:52` 卡普曼戏剧三角在推介中的应用：受害者、迫害者与英雄 当完成价值定位、明确权衡取舍并进入推介会实战后，心理学中的**卡普曼戏剧三角（Karpman Drama Triangle）**为理解出资人的心理提供了极具威力的分析视角。 人类通常很难坦然承认自己对生活拥有完全的主动权（Agency），因而往往习惯性地陷入“受害者心理（Victim Consciousness）”，认为厄运都是外部环境强加给自己的。一旦某人感到自己是“受害者（Victim）”，他就会在环境中寻找造成痛苦的“迫害者/大反派（Villain）”，并极度渴望找到一个拯救他的“英雄（Hero）”。 在面对出资人的推介会中，识别并运用这一角色机制能够极大提升沟通胜率： - **成为出资人的英雄**：如果出资人感到在某些环节被体制或市场盘剥（例如正在为高昂的管理费痛苦抱怨），与其冷冰冰地回复“规则就是这样，别怪打法”，不如针对其痛点提供结构性减免或优化方案，直接化身为解决其具体困扰的“英雄”。 - **无法成为英雄时，化身为倾听的治疗师**：如果你无法提供直接的解决方案，就转而对他们面对的“迫害者”展现出深切的同理心，顺势切入心理治疗师模式。商业社会中从来没有人会因为对方“过于理解自己的痛苦”而将其拒之门外；相反，深度的共情是建立极端底层信任的最快捷径。 推介会的核心就在于迅速侦测：坐在对面的这个人身上，到底正在上演怎样的戏剧冲突？他心目中的反派是谁？而你又该扮演拯救他的英雄，还是抚慰其痛苦的盟友？ ### `30:00` 信任的大师课：奥普拉·温弗瑞与“至善”的影响力机制 在化解人际互动中的戏剧冲突时，募资者首先要思考的是：自己能否成为对方困境的解决方案？如果做不到，至少要对他们的处境产生深度共情，这样对方才会把你的提议当成对他们真正有用的东西。找到彼此合拍的心灵波长，让对方感到全然放松与舒适，这几乎是所有成功销售与募资的核心要义。当被问及谁是他所见过的建立真诚信任的终极大师时，约翰·金（John Kim）毫不犹豫地给出了一个名字——奥普拉·温弗瑞（Oprah Winfrey）。 约翰·金将奥普拉的处世与沟通哲学定义为“对至善（Goodness）的弘扬”。他阐释道，“至善”是善意（Kindness）与坚定信念（Conviction）的结合体。现实中，很多人空有善意却缺乏定见，或者信念极强却冷酷无情；而奥普拉每次开口表达，都兼具了无微不至的善意与不可动摇的信念。在某种意义上，她是当代播客主持人的先驱，始终清楚自己要从嘉宾身上挖掘出什么呈献给世界——有时是痛苦与创伤，但更多时候是直击人心的灵感。 在面向大众构建深层信任的过程中，奥普拉将影响力法则运用到了极致： - **互惠原则（Reciprocity）**：通过极其直观的赠予来拉近距离，最著名的莫过于演播室现场的狂欢：“你有一辆车！你有一辆车！每个人都有一辆新车！”（"You get a car. You get a car."）。 - **共识机制（Consensus）**：创立了堪称“共识之母”的奥普拉读书俱乐部（Oprah's Book Club）。她推荐的书目能够直接重塑出版界格局，其塑造全美阅读共识的力量甚至超越了各大畅销书排行榜。 - **权威背书（Authority）**：借助自身平台吸纳并赋能各领域权威，公开探讨那些原本缺乏主流舞台的社会议题，扮演了公共议题放大器的角色。 - **喜好与共情（Liking）**：作为一名非裔女性，她跨越了极其复杂的文化与人口结构鸿沟，在美国中西部传统受众群体中赢得了普遍且深厚的爱戴，凭借的是不可思议的同理心。 - **一致性（Consistency）**：受众清楚知道，只要打开电视看奥普拉，就绝不会感到沮丧或扫兴，离开荧幕时必定满载振奋与灵感，这种数十年来始终如一的情感交付构成了她坚不可摧的个人品牌。 - **稀缺性（Scarcity）**：她极少客串其他脱口秀或接拍泛滥的商业广告，公众只能在《奥普拉·温弗瑞秀》里看到她。这种高度的专注与稀缺感，进一步放大了公众对她的信任。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 奥普拉的信任构建飞轮 accDescr: 展示善意与信念结合所形成的至善底色，以及支撑信任的六大影响力支柱 subgraph Core["核心底色：至善 (Goodness)"] K["善意 (Kindness)<br/>极致同理心"] --- C["信念 (Conviction)<br/>清晰的立场与价值导向"] end subgraph Levers["影响力支柱"] L1["互惠：慷慨赠予"] L2["共识：读书俱乐部效应"] L3["权威：赋能议题先锋"] L4["喜好：跨圈层的亲和力"] L5["一致性：永远交付振奋与灵感"] L6["稀缺性：高度克制的公众曝光"] end Core --> Levers Levers ==> T["无条件的深层信任"] ``` --- ### `33:49` 募资的最大误区：过度依赖逻辑与“合理化”陷阱 在审视无数失败的募资案例后，约翰·金指出创业者和基金经理最常犯的一个通病：**在逻辑（Logos）上用力过猛，却彻底忽视了情感（Pathos）与品格信念（Ethos）**。正如西蒙·斯涅克（Simon Sinek）在黄金圈法则中阐述“Why”的重要性一样，人类决策的真正引擎是情感、直觉与价值观，而大脑皮层的前额叶往往只是负责为这些底层的本能感受编造体面的解释。 很多人误以为只要罗列出亮眼的投资回报率和完美的业绩报表，钱就会自然流进来。但这只是基础门槛（Table stakes）。约翰·金用两个生动的视角剖析了为何纯逻辑无法达成交易： 1. **信念不等于信任（Belief vs. Trust）**：你可以用极其严密的数理逻辑让对方“相信”这架飞机失事的概率只有数百万分之一；但在起飞的那一刻，如果他内心依然感到恐惧，他就绝不会登机。资本的转移同理：**无法消除对方心中的恐惧，资金就绝不会流动**。大多数募资者只顾着向受托人的技术指标汇报，却完全无视了房间里那个活生生的人所承受的心理恐惧。 2. **后缀“-ization”的语义真相**：在英语构词中，“-ization”意味着将原本不存在某种状态的事物强行塑造成该状态。例如，“文明化”（Civilization）是将野蛮粗暴的状态转化为文明；“组织化”（Organization）是将混乱无序的状态规整为有序。那么“合理化”（Rationalization）究竟是什么？**它指的是把本质上非理性的直觉冲动，强行包装成看似理性的逻辑结构**。换句话说，人们在商业展示中所说的逻辑，其实只是事后编造出来的理由，用来合理化他们当下的内心感受。 说服的核心公式永远是“**说服 = 渴望 - 恐惧**”（Persuasion = Desire - Fear）。渴望与恐惧完全属于情绪和伦理的范畴。募资者必须首先赢得人心，让投资人在本能层面感到安全并产生强烈的伦理或情感共鸣，随后的逻辑推演才能发挥作用——**逻辑绝不是促成交易的“输入端”（Input），而是成功说服之后的“输出端”（Output）**，它仅仅作为投资人向投委会证明自己决策合理的工具。 面对这一洞察，主持人总结道：在约翰·金早前提出的差异化公式中，所谓的“复杂性”对应着“恐惧”，“历史业绩”其实是事后的“合理化说明”，而真正决定胜负的“差异化”，本质上就是激发对方的全部“渴望”。约翰·金对此深表认同，这正是商业募资中理性与感性博弈的真谛所在。 --- ### `38:35` 募资者的角色定位：寻找你的“国务卿” 谈及募资团队建设的战术层面时，约翰·金提出了一个发人深省的问题：创始人或管理合伙人应当寻找什么样的人来代表自己？是普通的销售员（Salesman）、客户服务人员（Service Provider），还是寻找一位能够独当一面的“**国务卿**”（Secretary of State）？ 在内阁体系中，财政部、能源部、卫生与公众服务部乃至国防部，总统对其预算和组织架构都拥有绝对的行政控制权；但唯独在外交领域，美国总统无法掌控中国，也无法控制英国。因此，总统必须委任一位地位极高、理解复杂地缘博弈的国务卿代表国家奔赴海外，即便总统本人不在场，对方也能确信该特使全权代表总统意志。顶级募资人的职能正是如此——他们不仅需要代表创始团队的意志，更要在一个完全无法被自身控制的外部资本生态中穿针引线。 约翰·金指出，挑选这位“国务卿”的核心考量，在于创始人希望在自己缺席的场合向外部世界投射出何种第一印象。他列举了三位美国总统极具策略性的用人案例： - **理查德·尼克松与亨利·基辛格**：尼克松需要展现出冷酷、精明且极度讲求实用主义的“现实政治”（Realpolitik）风格，基辛格的学者风度与战略手腕完美契合了这一国家画像。 - **比尔·克林顿与马德琳·奥尔布赖特**：克林顿需要弥补自身早年在国际威信上的短板，奥尔布赖特作为资深政策专家和前联合国大使，其卓越的国际政策信誉精准地传递了克林顿政府专业、深思熟虑的外交形象。 - **贝拉克·奥巴马与希拉里·克林顿**：奥巴马主打“变革”与鼓舞人心的理想主义，但他自身极度缺乏外交经验。他选择党内初选时的强劲对手希拉里掌管国务院，既展示了他跨越政治分歧的宏大格局，又直接借助了全美经验最丰富的外交元老为其全球政策奠定信任基石。 许多基金在招募募资负责人时往往陷入误区，盲目青睐那些号称“熟悉资本体系”的投行家或前交易合伙人。约翰·金强调，这通常是完全错误的选择。一个合格的“募资国务卿”核心素质不在于懂得内部交易如何运作，而在于**能否听懂并说出外部世界的语言**。如果一位国务卿只知道总统心里想什么，却对中东或亚洲的地缘政治、深层文化和动态诉求一无所知，那他在外交谈判中将毫无作为。顶尖的募资者必须兼备两重视角：不仅能与发起人同频共振，更要深刻体察出资人（LP）所处的文化生态与现实利益，在两者的交叉点上促成数以亿计的资本合力。 ### `40:00` “国务卿”的自我修养：选择领袖、克制自负与人性的红利 对于立志成为顶级投资人关系（IR）专业人士——即机构中的“国务卿”——的人来说，该如何挑选一位值得追随的领袖？John Kim 认为这完全取决于个人的抱负。在政治和募资的世界里，这就像选拔你要辅佐的候选人：有些人不在乎候选人拿到巨额资源后能否真正改变世界，他们只要加入能打胜仗的队伍；只要候选人具备极强的选举号召力，一旦胜选，“国务卿”自然就能分享到权力和地位的溢出红利。候选人越强大，幕后的国务卿就越显赫。然而，募资者必须保持终极的谦卑：认清自己永远只是在代言他人的卓越。即便处于募资巅峰，你也只是别人光芒的投射器。 因此，从业者必须自省：为了这位候选人，你是否愿意做出牺牲，并压制自己的虚荣心（ego）？人生和职业生涯的不同阶段，答案大相径庭。年轻或重视财富积累时，你可能只想找一个能带来最丰厚经济回报的强人；而到了另一阶段，你或许更愿意为一个在道德和使命上让你深信不疑的人筹集资源，哪怕规模较小也甘之如饴。如果能遇到一位既擅长吸纳资本、建立人脉，又让你在伦理和情感上由衷敬佩的领袖，那就像买彩票中了大奖。 尽管如此，IR 工作绝非成败分明的零和博弈，它本身蕴藏着巨大的内在乐趣。只要你对世界充满好奇心、热爱探索他人、不畏长途差旅，这几乎是世界上最好的职业： - **置身于人性前沿**：IR 从业者每一分每一秒都在与活生生的人打交道，进行深度的精神探寻，随时能获得强烈的智性刺激。 - **信任沉淀的真正红利**：募资的核心在于跨越信任的鸿沟。长时间下来，这项工作最大的副产品根本不是账面筹到的资金，而是那些在建立真实信任过程中结下的深厚友谊。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 选择支持领袖的双重路径 accDescr: 展示募资者在追求商业权力与精神认同之间的选择取舍与终极平衡。 subgraph Motivation["从业诉求与心态"] A["个人抱负与心智阶段"] --> B["追求高胜率与高回报"] A --> C["追求伦理认同与使命感"] end subgraph CandidateMatch["候选人匹配"] B --> D["极具募资号召力的商业领袖"] C --> E["深得内心敬重的愿景领袖"] end subgraph Outcome["职业结果与回报"] D --> F["经济收益与权力溢出"] E --> G["精神共鸣与使命达成"] F & G -.-> H["终极理想：彩票级完美领袖"] end ``` --- ### `45:40` 顶级说服的“内在游戏”：在对方的脑海中构筑自我 当谈及顶级卓越者的“内在游戏”（The Inner Game）时，John Kim 阐述了他多年募资生涯锤炼出的心法：将房间里的另一个人作为整个宇宙的绝对中心。在他看来，自己的物理实体在交谈中其实是次要的，“如果不是因为在这一刻存在于你的脑海中，我其实并不存在；我只是你大脑中的一个客体，正被对方所有的认知框架所处理”。 基于这种意识，最高层次的说服不是单向宣讲“我是谁、我有多好”，而是完全移情到对方的思维空间里去思考：对方的大脑正在发生什么？我该如何呈现，才能让对方感到被理解、被满足？正如 Kim 在现场对 Patrick O'Shaughnessy 的观察那样，他感知到了对方极度深邃的求知欲与耐性，因此选择以长篇深度剖析的方式来回应这种期待。Kim 指出，这正是通灵大师、催眠师、顶尖心理学家乃至一切顶级沟通高手所共有的心智模式：走入对方的大脑内部，顺应对方的渴望，提供最契合的认知体验。 --- ### `47:38` 最善之举：50 岁生日那场精心筹划的爱与摇滚 当被问及“他人为你做过的最友善的一件事是什么”这一标志性收尾问题时，Kim 感慨这引发了他内心无尽的感恩。他坦言自己能有今天，全赖无数人的善意与支持，而其中最持久、最伟大的善意，来自他的妻子。多年来，妻子始终包容并全力支持他在募资生涯中承受的身心极限与疯狂节奏。 如果必须挑出最难忘的一个瞬间，那是他 50 岁生日（Kim 生于 1967 年，热爱 70 和 80 年代摇滚乐，最崇拜 Styx 乐队）： - **量身定制的舞台惊喜**：会弹吉他的 Kim 在生日派对上被叫上舞台，现场乐队正准备演奏他最喜欢的 Styx 歌曲。 - **全套签名的梦幻吉他**：当琴盒打开时，里面躺着一把经过 Styx 乐队每一位成员亲笔签名的吉他，盒内还附带着乐队下一场演出的门票和后台通行证（Backstage Passes）。 - **动员亲情的秘密合谋**：妻子甚至秘密说服了 Kim 比他小 5 岁的弟弟——一位平时极度繁忙的职场人士——专门为这场演出学会了用钢琴弹奏名曲《Come Sail Away》。当弟弟坐在钢琴前弹响前奏时，Kim 既震惊又感动得大笑。 Kim 动情地表示，这份善意之所以无可替代，是因为它不仅仅是一份昂贵的礼物，更是妻子花费巨大心力、动用无数资源去摸索并兑现的一场深情表达。这不仅是对他的深爱，更是对他整个人生与个性的崇高礼赞。 ## Notable quotes > `02:02` 资金以信任的速度流动。 — John Kim > `05:06` 借朋友的钱往往是‘代价最昂贵的一笔钱’，因为如果把钱亏光了，友情往往也就彻底破裂。 — John Kim > `05:06` 如果你的第一期关账（First Close）是 10 亿美元，你的最终总额通常会在 20 亿美元左右见顶。 — John Kim > `10:00` 我觉得那纯粹是扯淡。世界上根本没有什么风险偏好（Risk-loving）。从来没有人会带着巨大的风险感去投资，人们只是极擅长在脑海中把风险合理化掉，让他们自以为承担的风险远低于现实，以此证明自己追求回报的正当性。这就像赌徒走进赌场一样。 — John Kim > `15:00` 我们就在周二晚上发一封邮件，然后周三早上新基金就正式启动了。 — Benchmark 合伙人 > `20:00` 如果手套不合适，你就必须宣判无罪。 — Johnnie Cochran > `21:40` 真正的差异化必然伴随着巨大的代价与牺牲。 — John Kim > `24:13` 取消圣诞节、取消复活节、取消情人节，打包行李彻底泡在路上见客户。 — John Kim > `27:52` 商业社会中从来没有人会因为对方‘过于理解自己的痛苦’而将其拒之门外。 — John Kim > `30:00` 你有一辆车！你有一辆车！每个人都有一辆新车！ — Oprah Winfrey > `33:49` 它指的是把本质上非理性的直觉冲动，强行包装成看似理性的逻辑结构。 — John Kim > `45:40` 如果不是因为在这一刻存在于你的脑海中，我其实并不存在；我只是你大脑中的一个客体，正被对方所有的认知框架所处理。 — John Kim ## Mentioned John Kim, Patrick O'Shaughnessy, General Catalyst, Lila Sciences, The Tao of Fundraising, Benchmark, O.J. Simpson, Johnnie Cochran, Stephen Karpman, Oprah Winfrey, Simon Sinek, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Styx, Come Sail Away ## Video description Today my guest is John Kim. John is one of the world's top and most prolific fundraisers.&nbsp; He was chief client officer at General Catalyst, where he helped raise many of the firm's flagship funds. He is now chairman and president of corporate development at Lila Sciences, a company building scientific superintelligence, where he has helped raise several hundred million dollars.&nbsp; He is also the author of The Tao of Fundraising.&nbsp; This conversation is really a guide on how to raise money from someone who has done it at the highest level. We talk about why persuasion equals desire minus fear, the difference between belief and trust, the laws of fundraising, and how to build the consensus that moves big pools of capital.&nbsp; Please enjoy my conversation with John Kim. For the full show notes, transcript, and links to mentioned content, check out the episode page ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.&nbsp; ----- Become a Colossus member to get our quarterly print magazine and private audio experience, including exclusive profiles and early access to select episodes. Subscribe at ⁠colossus.com/subscribe⁠. ----- ⁠Ramp’s⁠ mission is to help companies manage their spend in a way that reduces expenses and frees up time for teams to work on more valuable projects. Go to⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠ramp.com/invest⁠⁠ to sign up for free and get a $250 welcome bonus. ----- Trusted by thousands of businesses, ⁠Vanta⁠ continuously monitors your security posture and streamlines audits so you can win enterprise deals and build customer trust without the traditional overhead. Invest Like the Best listeners get a special offer of $1,000 off Vanta when you go to ⁠vanta.com/invest⁠.&nbsp; ----- WorkOS⁠ is the infrastructure B2B and AI-native companies use to sell to enterprise. It covers everything enterprise security requires: SSO, SCIM, RBAC, Audit Logs, AI governance, and more. Trusted by 2,000+ fast-growing companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, and Vercel. ----- Rogo is the AI platform for finance. They're building agents for Wall Street that are trained to understand how bankers and investors actually do work: from diligence and modeling, to turning analysis into deliverables. To learn more, visit rogo.ai/invest. ----- ⁠Ridgeline⁠ has built a complete, real-time, modern operating system for investment managers. It handles trading, portfolio management, compliance, customer reporting, and much more through an all-in-one real-time cloud platform. Visit⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ridgeline.ai⁠. ----- Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant. Timestamps: (00:00:00) Welcome to Invest Like The Best (00:02:02) Introduction of John Kim (00:02:39) Money Moves at the Speed of Trust (00:05:06) How to Start a Fundraising Campaign (00:08:03) Persuasion Equals Desire Minus Fear (00:12:20) How to Raise a Few Billion Dollars (00:15:58) The Benchmark Story (00:18:36) The Law of Differentiation (00:24:13) Law of Tradeoffs and Law of Pipeline (00:27:52) The Karpman Drama Triangle (00:30:42) Oprah Winfrey (00:33:49) Most Common Fundraising Mistakes (00:38:35) Secretary of State (00:45:40) The Inner Game (00:47:38) The Kindest Thing [Source](https://traffic.megaphone.fm/CLS8349497052.mp3)

[2:02] John Kim: 资金以信任的速度流动。 [5:06] John Kim: 借朋友的钱往往是‘代价最昂贵的一笔钱’，因为如果把钱亏光了，友情往往也就彻底破裂。 [5:06] John Kim: 如果你的第一期关账（First Close）是 10 亿美元，你的最终总额通常会在 20 亿美元左右见顶。 [10:00] John Kim: 我觉得那纯粹是扯淡。世界上根本没有什么风险偏好（Risk-loving）。从来没有人会带着巨大的风险感去投资，人们只是极擅长在脑海中把风险合理化掉，让他们自以为承担的风险远低于现实，以此证明自己追求回报的正当性。这就像赌徒走进赌场一样。 [15:00] Benchmark 合伙人: 我们就在周二晚上发一封邮件，然后周三早上新基金就正式启动了。 [20:00] Johnnie Cochran: 如果手套不合适，你就必须宣判无罪。 [21:40] John Kim: 真正的差异化必然伴随着巨大的代价与牺牲。 [24:13] John Kim: 取消圣诞节、取消复活节、取消情人节，打包行李彻底泡在路上见客户。 [27:52] John Kim: 商业社会中从来没有人会因为对方‘过于理解自己的痛苦’而将其拒之门外。 [30:00] Oprah Winfrey: 你有一辆车！你有一辆车！每个人都有一辆新车！ [33:49] John Kim: 它指的是把本质上非理性的直觉冲动，强行包装成看似理性的逻辑结构。 [45:40] John Kim: 如果不是因为在这一刻存在于你的脑海中，我其实并不存在；我只是你大脑中的一个客体，正被对方所有的认知框架所处理。

[2:39] John Kim: Money Moves at the Speed of Trust [8:03] John Kim: Persuasion = Desire − Fear [15:00] send an email on a Tuesday night and the fund starts on Wednesday morning. [18:36] If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit [24:13] John Kim: Fundraising Target = Pipeline × Conversion Ratio × Bite Size [33:49] John Kim: The most important thing to remember is that if you want to get to yes, it's desire minus fear. But desire and fear are both emotional states... then the logic will follow and the logic just helps define or helps justify the decision they want to make. The logic actually is an output of a successful sales pitch, not the input.

[0:00] Ramp is the only platform built to make your finance team leaner, faster, and better, saving businesses 5% annually on average so you can stay focused on growth. Ramp customers grew revenue 3.2 times faster than the average American business. Visa, Vercel, Cursor, Stripe, Notion, 11Lab, Shopify, and 70,000 other businesses all run on Ramp. Mine does too, and so should yours. Learn more at ramp.com slash invest. Felix by Rogo is a personal finance agent that turns a single prompt into finished client-ready work using your firm's own templates, context, and standards. Send Felix an email like, take these comments and turn them for me, or update my tracker with the context of these emails, or run the ability to pay math on this buyer, and Felix sends back finished PowerPoint decks, Excel models, and sourced research. Felix works the way your team already does, delivering work quickly and accurately around the clock. Learn more at rogo.ai slash Felix. The best AI and software companies from OpenAI to Cursor to Perplexity use WorkOS to become enterprise ready overnight, not in months. Visit WorkOS.com to skip the unglamorous infrastructure work and focus on your product. Hello and welcome everyone I Patrick O and this is Invest Like the Best This show is an open exploration of markets ideas stories and strategies that will help you better invest both your time and your money If you enjoy these conversations and want to go deeper, check out Colossus, our quarterly publication with in-depth profiles of the people shaping business and investing. You can find Colossus along with all of our podcasts at colossus.com. Patrick O'Shaughnessy is the CEO of Positive Sum, All opinions expressed by Patrick and podcast guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of Positive Sum. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment decisions. Clients of Positive Sum may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this podcast. To learn more, visit PSUM.VC. Today, my guest is John Kim. John is one of the world's top and most prolific fundraisers. Over his career at General Catalyst, he helped raise billions of dollars and turned GC into one of the largest venture firms in the world. Today, he's chairman and president of corporate development at Lila Sciences, a company building scientific superintelligence, which has raised over $500 million. John is also the author of The Dow of Fundraising. This conversation is really a guide on how to raise money from someone who has done it at the highest level We talk about why persuasion equals desire minus fear the difference between belief and trust the laws of fundraising and how to build consensus that moves huge pools of capital Please enjoy my conversation with John Kim. We were chatting before and you said if you were to rename your book, you had an idea what you'd call it. How would you rename it? As I wrote the book, The Dow of Fundraising, I had this idea that I wanted to put something philosophical out in the world because fundraising isn't just a idea of persuasion. It's actually a way of life that the actual interacting with people through the lens of them as the center of your conversation is a way of life. And that way of life requires a certain level of responsibility. When you start to get good at understanding how people work and how people react and how they will react to me or to you or to other personas, you can actually use that for your own selfish needs or you can use it for good. So I call it the DAO fundraising. But in the end, I don't know how many people actually care about that philosophy. What most people want to know is how do you get money? I think I probably would have just renamed it Money Moves at the Speed of Trust because the entire book really is about that how money pools in areas and people hold onto it and resources And we can put a lot of words around what actually motivates people to move in a direction And that really important making sure that you say, hey, I want the money to move in this direction, not that direction. The real trick is that most people know how to get people's attention and get interest moving in the direction. That last unlock of trust actually is the magic key. So many people do such a good job of using logos or logic to actually get somebody to a yes. And they still say no, because it's the difference between belief and trust. I didn't write this in my book, and I wish it was the first chapter. Belief is like, I believe you. Yes, what you're saying makes sense. I believe you. Trust is very different. I don't have faith in it. I don't trust it. And people say, well, how can you believe something and not trust it? Have you ever gone skydiving? You know, or people who are terribly afraid of flying, do you believe that the pilot is qualified? Of course you do. And so trust, you can get people and people, unfortunately, just don't get to that last piece where they get people to believe that this is going to work. They believe that. [5:00] it is the right thing. They just don't trust that you're going to actually fulfill what they need. And that's very complicated. I want to go to the situation where I'm a person, I have an idea, something I want to do. It requires capital or resources of some kind. What people should understand about that starting state that you've learned and where people then tend to fall down. Like, I think one of the interesting messages that you and I have talked about before is, of course, a good idea is important. A good product, the thing you're trying to build or sell or what have you, but that people maybe underestimate the role that capital can play in making that thing happen. And therefore, this skill that you've learned a lot about and done a lot of is just unbelievably valuable, but no one really knows how to do it beyond the idea. At the very beginning, orient us around that combination of idea plus capital and the importance of the relationship. First, you have to look and say, okay, who are the people who trust you. This is why they call it friends and family. What is friends and family? I trust. I trust. I don't think it's totally true that friends and family are people who will give you money They not afraid to lose it Their tolerance for loss actually may be much much worse than an institution That I think kind of an urban myth that oh go to friends and family because they give you the money as charity I think the most expensive money is borrowing money from your friends because you don't give the money back. Your friendship is not the same anymore, but they trust you and they want to see you do well. And their desire minus fear, which is we talk about persuasion, their fear of losing money is subordinate to their desire for you to do well. And they know that in order for you to do well, you need resources you don't have. So as an individual, first, you need to find out who trusts you. Who are the people who desire your success more than they fear, or they trust you're going to make money for them. They desire to make money and they don't fear that you're going to lose it because they've seen you in action in other places. So that's where you have to start. But politicians call this the hard reelect number. The hard reelect number is some base number where no matter what you do, they still will vote for you. So you first have to figure out naturally who would give me money. And then from there, you sort of multiply it. You say, well, if I think that my friends and family are going to give me, let's say a million dollars then maybe my goal sure is two or three million dollars Because from their trust I can leverage their trust to see Now maybe you could do better than that but you have to start from there You not going to raise million off a friends and family of a million but you should do better than By the way that tends to be my experience. If your first close is a billion dollars, you tend to tap out at $2 billion because your first close almost always is your hard relic number. That has been my experience. First, find out how much money do I really think trusts me already. And then from there, let's build on it with a campaign. And then we could talk about the actual mechanics of doing a campaign. Before we do that, I'd love you to dig deeper into this very simple idea of persuasion equals desire minus fear. Like it's an incredibly simplifying, elegant way of thinking about this. Why is that the reduction that you've arrived at versus some other one? This is like a decade ago. I was talking to one of the masters of the universe. I was talking about, well, I think it's desire minus fear. And thanks, Mr. Obvious. Everything's, you know, greed and fear. And I looked and I said, wow, that's actually not true. The simplicity of it isn't the wisdom of the phrase. It's the nature of desire. It's the nature of the positive side. It the invitation to say that people can be inspired by something that is not just self Greed is self The human condition has so many things it desires The ego has so many things it desires Otherwise we would never give money away. Otherwise, we would never do things that are generous for people. Otherwise, we wouldn't care about the environment, care about our children, care about desire. So when you're talking to somebody and trying to persuade them, too many people, and this is maybe one of the most important lessons that people seldom get right when they first start fundraising. In the alternatives world, an investing professional talks to somebody on the other side, they call limited partners, and they just are so passionate about how much money they're going to make for them and the returns. Because the more money they make, the bigger the plane or whatever it is. because they're motivated that way. And of course, as a fiduciary, you're saying, well, this has to be what you care about. But the dirty secret to the relationship is that very few, some do, very few limited partners are actually compensated on the returns that the general partner makes. Very few are. Some are. Some are compensated on IRR. [10:00] Right? Because the alternatives business, you have to wait for 10 years to see if something's good or bad. So it's really kind of an awkward alignment of interest. Say, okay, I'm going to pay you on an IRR, but we don't really know if this is really good. So I could pay you a ton of money. And the general partner could be tricking up the IRR and there are lots of great tools to do that these days. That's a misalignment of interest if I'm giving you my money to actually manage. So therefore, there are a lot of people who just simply don't make money if you make money. So in other words, there is no greed. So there's got to be some other motivation. So when you're trying to raise money, look for that motivation that they have because they're in that spot for some reason. The fear piece is also really important. And fear might as well be, in other words, of saying trust, you know, as the antitrust. The way to inoculate yourself against fear is trust. In fact, the more fearful somebody is and the more trust you can develop, the less desire they need. If they just trust me absolutely, then everything else will pair in comparison. If they have no fear, in other words, it's riskless, they will do it. And this is one of the things that ties into so many hedge fund professionals that appear on your podcast as well We talk about risk risk aversion I think that kind of bullshit I don really think there such thing as risk risk aversion I think that there are only people who perceive there's no risk. I think that no one actually really invests with a lot of risk. I think that people actually convince themselves that the risk is far less than what it really is in order to justify the risk they're taking so they can receive the reward. And where do we see this gambling? The casino. It's part of the human condition that we rationalize away the risk. And so somebody says, I'm risk loving. No, you're not. You're just really good at rationalizing away the risk. and not to zero. But if you know your outcome is gigantic, you just have to rationalize the risk to half of what it really is. And you'll say yes. And that's where a lot of cognitive mistakes are made in investing for sure. A lot of this equation is you've talked about applying it early to get going. I'm also very curious about applying some of these ideas much later on. So if I think about your time at General Catalyst or something, you're on fund eight or whatever, you're established, People know who you are. There somewhere in the book you said the path of least resistance is often that money goes to stuff already in motion Fund eight let say or series D or whatever you already in motion What have you learned about doing a really great job at that stage? What happens there that's distinct from just like the early stuff of total uncertainty? We don't even know if you're any good. How would you do that even? I'm even thinking literally about you sitting down like, okay, we're going to go raise this thing. So we basically set out on a campaign of consensus. So one of the ways to get rid of fear is consensus. Consensus, by the way, is the hardest, maybe one of the most powerful things to move entire markets because consensus is a macro view. And by definition, you have a macro view. You've influenced the macro world. So you'll see this white propaganda in its best and worst forms creates a consensus. There are a couple of ways to go about it. You could argue that there is the classic innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority laggard, in which case you have to close the gap and lots of people have written wonderful books about early adopter to early majority. Once you cross that gap, it all of a sudden consensus starts to happen. That is a really powerful framing. So we know the winner on the other side of that gap is actually winner take all So therefore it worth it The second way you can get at it is that big money tends to hide behind committees Because if you got a committee of eight or nine people and you have to vote what then by definition is happening You have a consensus decision. I have never seen a consensus decision-making process make a contrarian bet unless the group is designed to make contrarian bets. That's very hard to do. And that's why it's very hard to find good venture capital firms because they tend to be contrarian firms. So how do you build consensus? You build it with consistency. Find people who you can do things for that are actually part of the group that you want consensus around state pension plans, let's say. Consultants, sovereign wealth. Do they care about co-investment? Do they care about fees? Do they care about access, transparency? Do they care about intellectual property? Do they care about just being entertained? Find it. Give it to them. They come back to you. Build. Now you've got a sovereign wealth plan. Now you've got a pension plan. From there, you start to meet people and they say, hey, you realize that this state pension plan is invested, this. Next thing you know, the next round, you end up doubling it. And so if you take a look at the experience, all of a sudden, general capitalists and others are starting to become consensus. And this is true for any of the other folks who have amassed capital. There's a consensus that they're the winners of the collectivism. [15:00] class. And general catalyst created a consensus. And so that was the whole goal. But you had to do it fun by fun by fun. But it was very intentional. And by the way, here's the thing. You have to have the courage then to lose the people who actually were the people who invest with you because you were contrarian. In other words, you have to have the courage to get past the innovators dilemma. And so if there's a set of folks, high net with family offices, endowments or whatever it is, or small fund of funds that say, hey, you're now too big for me. You're going to lose them. And you have to have the courage to do that. The only way you're not going to succeed is if you actually want to have your cake and eat it too. Now, there is a truth to if your performance is so dynamic, you're so differentiated, then you'll be able to run the table. And there are firms who do that. You can't get into the fund. You can't because their performance, their track record is so absurdly strong relative to the industry that you trust that they're going to actually develop these hurt returns again. I remember once one of the partners at Benchmark, I asked them, how do you fundraise? And they said, well, we send an email on a Tuesday night and the fund is going to start on Wednesday morning. Right, right, right. So in that case, let talk about trust So their consistency right They consistently perform exceptionally well Consensus is they actually one of the best funds in the world And there scarcity You don have to have experts like a consultant say, well, that's the best. Like, look, I already know consensus is there. They don't have to do anything for you. There's no reciprocity, but returns. And by saying, but returns, again, that isn't everybody's desire. It's most people's desire because it makes them look good. But it's really about the consensus and the scarcity that allows them to have the advantage and the privilege of keeping their funds small and keeping their fundraising energy or calories very low. Vanta automates security and compliance for over 16,000 fast-moving companies like Ramp, Cursor, and Harvey, keeping them audit-ready around the clock. It's the number one agentic trust platform, and it now helps companies like yours watch for the risks that show up between audits across your vendors, your AI tools, and your whole environment. Every new tool your team signs up for, every vendor that turns on AI features, is an opportunity for something to go wrong. And most security programs weren't built for AI's pace of growth. The Vanta agent works like a 24-7 GRC engineer in the background, finding issues, drafting fixes for you, and cutting vendor assessment time by up to 50%. Whether you a fast startup or a global enterprise Vanta helps you earn and prove trust Invest like the best listeners get a special offer for off at vanta slash invest Ridgeline is the first end-to-end system of record with embedded AI for investment management firms, running portfolio accounting, reconciliation, reporting, trading, and compliance on one unified platform. Firms are moving off legacy technology and onto Ridgeline because of how far ahead Ridgeline's AI features are compared to anything else in investment management software, which is why I believe that firms that come out ahead in the AI era will be the ones running on Ridgeline's unified platform. If you're serious about your firm's AI strategy, Ridgeline should be part of that conversation. You can request a demo at ridgeline.ai. You mentioned the word differentiation before. Can you explain your law of differentiation? If anybody wants to learn three laws of physics that are the most important in fundraising, law of differentiation, law of trade-offs, and law of pipeline. Let's talk about law of differentiation. This is the law, right? This is your track record plus your differentiation, and you divide all that by the complexity of your story So track record that isn just your returns but is how do you behave So if you an elected official your track record is your voting record right Or it's the way you show up in the media. It's your consistency. Differentiation can be anything. Like it can be I can take contrarian bets. It can be I only do one or two things, but when I do them, I'm highly operationally intensive. It can be I access this part of the market that no one else does. It could be my GP commit is abnormally large. That's right. So let's take those two positive features. When you're trying to build a portfolio, because almost everybody at the institutional, at the big money, not the small money, the big money has a portfolio. So you have a portfolio of diversified assets, and you try to have those assets not replicate what each other is doing, because if they're auto-correlated, then you didn't do a great job. So you kind of want people who are differentiated. And so you're trying to add something that is additive to your portfolio somehow, some way. All right. Then complications. Complications are usually the enemy of trust. The more I have to explain, like when my daughter comes back late at night and I said, look, you know, you're supposed to be back at midnight, but gosh, it's 2 a.m. and explain yourself. And there's this long story of this and that. I'm like, I. [20:00] trust this. My daughter's pretty smart. She knows, oh, dad, you know what? I just blew past it. I was having fun. Sorry. Sorry. Like, well, I trust her. Complications gut you. They gut you for two reasons. First, they gut you because it ruins or it just dilutes trust. But the second is really much more commercial, which is I've seen with my own eyes many times where people trust and want to do something, but they can't explain it to somebody else that is making the decision. You better give them that phrase that they can repeat to somebody else because that's how somebody else will then trust what they're saying. And that is the most famous examples of this is, of course, the O.J. Simpson trial. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. One of the most famous lines in the history of the world. Well, do you really think that if he didn't have that, these folks would have actually been okay walking out of the courtroom, finding him not guilty or being hung as a jury and having to explain to the media why they did that? No way. But he was smart enough to say, okay, guys, you going to have to defend yourself to everybody It very complicated why They not going to want to hear about your civic duty to adjudicate the law You say look I had no choice The glove didn't fit. I had to quit. Changed my life when I saw that, by the way. I looked at it. Wow. That's what persuasion looks like. So if you have complications, make sure you give them that phrase that allows you to cut through those complications, even if you have complications. And so when you were doing a fundraiser, would you literally go through these three variables and try to improve each one systematically? Very much so. Very, very much. Religiously. That track record plus differentiation divided by complexity of thought, you're constantly trying to make the track record look better in their eyes. You're constantly trying to make your differentiation look better, and you're constantly trying to reduce your complications. Differentiation piece is back to the question you asked me about general catalysts. Okay, what do people do when they get to that level? There are two kinds of people who sustain. There are those who find their why. Why are we this big? Why do we exist? And there are those who just say, now I've got the money, I'm now big, and I'm going to continue to push forward. Those who do that actually get small again Those who find their why like why do we need to be this big Why is this size helping us And why is this helping you And the why can be a branding because every why has a cost Every differentiation has a cost Great differentiation requires great sacrifice And if you're willing to say, I am never going to invest in weapons, well, then you're going to miss out on a generational amount of investing that's happening right now in the venture community. Take a look. You can go back 2019 and the vast majority of venture capital firms say, We will never invest in weapons. It's the hottest area right now. The same people who said they would never invest in weapons are actually not leading the weapons charge. It's unbelievable. Great differentiation requires great sacrifice. They will never be differentiated for what they say. They've lost their consistency. So in the long run, if anybody remembers, they'll remember, hey, you said you're never going to do this. Now you are doing it. And that's you lost your why. You lost your why you're doing it because it was just branding. As a great advisor, as a fundraiser, you're always trying to say, hey, you got to have the courage to stay disciplined in your differentiation because if you don't, there's not differentiation and people will see through it ultimately. Then the other two laws, just really quickly, is the law of trade-offs, size, speed, and terms. I cannot tell you how obvious it is and how no one believes this that if you want to raise a fund or you want to raise an investment your trade is how much money you want to raise how fast you want to raise it, and what kind of terms you're going to give. And is it as simple as you hear this about quality, cost, and speed in building a house or something, like you get to pick two? Yeah, you get to pick two, right. But the difference here though, Patrick, is that it gets back to money moves at the speed of trust. So size and terms really trade off from each other. Speed actually is trust. And that's the part where it drives me crazy when I try to explain to somebody like, no, no, this isn't just a discussion of mechanics. Okay, let's use scarcity. I take my size, I shrink it up to the scarcity, a real scarcity. People will move faster. Let's say I don't have scarcity, now geometrically they're gonna move slower. That's straightforward. So back to your example of a venture capital firm. I'm saying, look, I just send it out, and next week they bring it in. It's very scarce, money moves fast. But let's say you don't have scarcity, and now money's gonna move very, very slowly. It's gonna move at the speed of trust. Then there's the terms. Well, the terms, lowering the terms, actually may make the person move a little faster, but they're gonna move faster because they think that you won't have capacity [25:00] Now that you've actually come to this tipping point where, oh my God, if I don't move, I'm going to miss out and I was here early. That's how it moves faster. It doesn't move faster because, well, I lowered the turf. Why aren't they coming in faster? No, the state pension plan still has to go through its four months of diligence and this and that. And people miss that tradeoff versus quality, speed, and cost. They actually truly do trade off from each other. You could have speed if you have scarcity. Very few people I know will actually legitimately use scarcity. Benchmark does. Wonderful. Most people like to bullshit their way through scarcity. Oh, well, if we have room and the investor 100% knows that they're lying and you immediately lose credibility. So I never let my candidates, the people I represent, I never let them play that game because they see through and you lose trust. If you lose trust, you lost the velocity of money. Then, if you take a look at just the loft pipeline, you need to run a campaign where you have a pipeline and you have to shove it through a conversion ratio and there's a bite size. The only thing you care about is your conversion ratio. Only thing. Why? Because if you know your conversion ratio is 20 then you know it just a matter of effort If you know your bite size is going to be a certain amount just plus or minus on a bell curve and you know your conversion rate is this then all you do is say okay cancel Christmas cancel Easter cancel Valentine I'm just going on the road, and I'm going to meet people. And by the way, who figured this out? Just the largest asset managers in the world. They're just like, look, we're just pushing our product through a conversion ratio. And our levers that we get to pull are how do we improve that conversion ratio? You can do it by having better performance. You can do it by having better differentiation. You can do it by reducing the complexity of your story. And now all of it ties together. Now, I appreciate you have to get past the hard reelect number because that conversion ratio is artificially high. But once you get past your hard reelect number and you start getting the market, you're like, wow, one in 10 people are saying yes. That is just really a matter of, hey, how much do you want it? Like, what do you want to get to? And so it's literally just pipeline times conversion ratio times bite size. That literally is the only math that is important for a fundraise. I really like the simplicity of thinking through you're raising money for a company or for a fund or whatever, starting with the law of differentiation, then thinking about these tradeoffs, like being deliberate about intentional about what you going to care about And then it just the actual motion of like going to do it or conversion ratio is the thing that allows us to come now to this idea of the drama triangle So here my value proposition Here's how I'm thinking about what I want. And like, here's the equation that's going to determine if I'm successful. They actually literally just go sit and do meetings. And so I'd love you to describe this idea of the drama triangle and personas, because I think it's a really useful frame on if you're doing 100 meetings, it's a helpful thing to know. There is a psychological framework called the Carpenter Drama Triangle. And the idea is that we as people have a hard time accepting that we have agency in our lives. So therefore, we have a victim consciousness. And so when something bad happens, it happened to us. Life happens to us. When life happens to you, you're a victim. But when bad things happen, you're a victim responsible for that. And then when you're a victim, you're looking for a villain. And usually you're also looking for a hero. In a sales pitch, if you already know that this person is feeling victimized or feeling something some ways happening to them, if you can find out what that is, it is very easy then to craft a story that allows you to alleviate that pain And if you can do that then you become heroic So for instance someone complaining about the fees You can rather than saying hate the game, not the player, which isn't so useful, you can talk about how you can mitigate fees if that will help them say yes. It's your choice. You can do that. And that allows them to say, okay, I've found a hero for my problem. I found a solution for my problem, right? That's really what they're looking for, a solution. But that's a heroic idea. If you can't be a solution, then you look at the villain and you just have deep empathy for the villain that exists. And then you just move into therapist mode. I've never met somebody who isn't better off by being empathetic to that problem. Like I've never met the person who has been shunned because they're overly empathetic to somebody's real problem that they've discovered. In fact, it's quite the opposite. You learn to trust them. And it is a very simple way to manage a meeting is to find out what is the drama? Is there drama in this person or these people? Do I have the ability to be a [30:00] solution to that drama. If I cannot be a solution to that drama, can I empathize with that drama so they're listening to my solution as something that is useful to them? And in its own way, that's almost as much as you need to actually make sure that almost every sales call goes well if you could find a wavelength to the person where they actually feel comfortable with you. When I asked you, who are the great masters that you've encountered of building real trust, who comes to mind and what is it that they're doing so effectively? Oprah Winfrey. And I would call Oprah's game a promotion of goodness. And people wanted that in society at that time. And frankly, I think people want it today. So what I mean by goodness, goodness is the combination of kindness plus conviction. You can be kind, but not having conviction. You can have conviction and not be kind. I think that whenever you saw Oprah open her mouth or whenever she presented something, there was a kindness to her, but there was a conviction that she stood for something, that she meant something. In some ways, she preceded the podcaster in that she had a conviction of what she wanted to get out of the person for the rest of the world to hear Sometimes it was about pain Sometimes it was about inspiration Usually it was about inspiration. And so in terms of engendering trust, she did a wonderful, wonderful job of engendering trust with bigger audience. She exhibited more institutional trust-building exercises like reciprocity. She would literally give gifts to the audience. You get a car. You get a car. Right. But she also created consensus. I mean, she had the Oprah's book club. That was the mother of all consensus. Like, hey, the idea that this book club or these books are the best books for people to read, she became as powerful or I would argue more powerful than any of the bestseller lists. And that's a consensus idea. Like, who wants to read these things? authority. She was able to use and recruit people with authority to talk about issues of our society that otherwise wouldn't have a stage. That's the podcasters sort of zone of influence today. She was able to create liking, which is a way of creating trust. I like you, you like me. And imagine how incredible this is in a population that she an African woman that she able to sit and she is a beloved individual in the Midwest which tends to skew different demographically But she's able to engender liking and she's incredibly empathetic. And so consistency, she's very consistent with the way she actually brings people on stage and what she says and what she believes and how she was always able to give somebody something inspirational in a conversation. You never left a conversation with Oprah thinking, well, that was a downer. It just never happened. So if you know consistently, I'm going to turn on the channel, I'm going to see Oprah, and I'm going to be inspired, then that's her brand. And then the last one is scarcity. She had a scarcity about her in that she really didn't show up anywhere else but Oprah. You didn't see her in a lot of advertisements. You didn't see her on doing other talk shows. You didn't see her doing anything else. She just was Oprah and that's all she did. So if you want to see Oprah, you had to tune in to that and that creates trust. So in this process that we've laid out, what are the most common mistakes that you see people make? Most common mistake is super easy is that people over on logic It blows me away Logos ethos pathos right Logic emotions and values Simon Sinek talks about the question why, which is actually your emotional and your value or your intuitive engine that actually makes you make decisions, and that the frontal lobe actually is what actually just puts meaning to all of the feelings. Well, as it turns out, that's generally true. There are two ways I get people to remember this, that don't get confused with a here's the logic of why you need to do it. And usually the logic is my returns are so great. I do such a great job. It's table stakes. But I always remind people of two things. First, I say, well, back to the difference between belief and trust. You can win the belief. This plane's not going to crash. I'm still scared. Money's not going to move. So in other words, you got to get them past the fear. And people don't address the fear in the room. Biggest mistake is they stay with logic. They don't address the person in the room. They address the fiduciary objectives in the room. Second, the way I get them to remember it is the phrase ization, right? Literally means to create a condition. So you think of civilization means... [35:00] To take something that is hedonistic or brutish and to make it civilized. So you create civilization, but it does not start out as civil. To create organization, something that's chaotic and dispersed, and you are creating that from something that is not naturally in its state into something that is now organized. Well, then what is a rationalization? Rationalization is you're taking something that is not rational, And you're actually forcing it into becoming something that it is not, which is rational. In other words, rationalization is just the thing that we make up in our head to explain why we feel the way we feel. The most important thing to remember is that if you want to get to yes, it's desire minus fear. But desire and fear are both emotional states. They're both ethical states. and you have to win the hearts and bodies of the people and get them to a place where they are not instinctively scared, they trust you and they have an emotional desire or ethical desire to do this then the logic will follow And the logic just helps define or helps justify the decision they want to make So the first mistake that everybody makes is that they think that the logic is where you're winning it. The logic actually is an output of a successful sales pitch, not the input. If I try to take that very helpful insight and put it in terms of what you said earlier, Is it fair to say that in your equation of differentiation, fear is complications, track record is rationalization, and that differentiation is really the remainder, is like all this desire stuff? Well, that's pretty good, actually. I think that gets you to quite a great description. Yeah, I love this. I've spent maybe 15, 20 years talking about track record, place differentiation, divided by complexity of thought. And it's a trinity, just like any other trinity, size, speed, and terms, logocity, those math, those, and yeah, yeah. it does fit in that. After doing this in so many different interesting ways and seeing others do it in so many interesting ways, is there anything we've left on the table about the process and purpose of really good fundraising in a business that I haven't asked about? The tactical part is what kind of person are you and what kind of person do you want to represent you Are you looking for a salesman a service provider Are you looking for a secretary of state And what is a secretary of state Secretary of state one of the most powerful people in the cabinet who actually is the one department where you actually don't have control over the constituents. You have control as a president over the treasury. You do have control over energy. You do have control over health and human services. You do have control over national security because You control budgets. You control influence. You do not have control over China. You do not have control over the UK. So therefore, you have to have a secretary of state that actually allows you to interact with them and helps you create that and can represent you when you're not there. That's what a great fundraiser is. When you can send that person in and say, ah, this person is here. I know you speak for the president. And that's really hard to do. And it's fascinating how many people get this wrong. It's fascinating how when somebody asks me, well, what kind of Secretary of State am I looking for? I always say to them, well, what is the first impression you want people to make when you're not in the room? So if you think about presidents of the United States, President Nixon, he had Kissinger, kind of that look and feel of real politic. You take a look at President Clinton he had Madeleine Albright policy wonk of the highest order United Nations ambassador incredible reputation of having the deepest international policy experience ever exactly the image that President Clinton wanted And then you take a look at Barack Obama. Barack Obama, he looks and says, well, you know what? I want to be changed that you can believe in. I want to be inspirational. And he also has very little foreign experience. So he hires his opponent to show he can cross the bridge and also happens to be one of the most experienced people to ever sit in that chair, Hillary Clinton. It just harvests out who do I want you to see? And that person has to be of industry. So when I meet somebody who says, well, the reason why I could be such a great fundraiser as an investment banker, as an ex-deal partner, is because I understand the system. I look and go, that's exactly the wrong person. The person that you want as Secretary of State is someone who actually understands the language and what's going on. If you do not understand what's going on in the Middle East as Secretary of State, but you understand policy and how the president thinks, that's not so helpful. If you don't understand what's going on in Asia and how all that dynamic works and the culture and the politics, it's not so helpful to the president. But you understand what the president wants, great. But you have to understand what they want and that intersection of who they are and what you are is [40:00] intersection of what a great investor relations professional is. Now, speaking to the people that want to go be the secretary of state, not the people that want to hire them, but the people that could be that representative, what should they look for in a leader to go work for? It depends on what your ambition is. In the end, the easy way to think about it is what kind of candidate do you want to support? There are people in the world, and I'm not judgmental about this, who say, look, I just want to be on a winning team. And there are candidates who are really strong candidates who aren't necessarily people that giving them substantial sums of resources are going to do great in this world. But they're great candidates and great candidates allow you to get elected. And when you're elected, there are benefits to the secretary of state, period. I mean, in other words, the more powerful your candidate, the more powerful the Secretary of State. In some ways, many people who have these fundraising jobs, myself included, one of the humilities that we need to commit to is that we really are only as great as the people we represent That I when I was at my peak as a fundraiser still am representing somebody else greatness And that really important So you have to then say is it worth it to make the sacrifice and the ego deprivation for this candidate? And at different stages in your career and at different stages of your life and different stages of your egoic development, you'll make different decisions. You'll say, look, I want to make a lot of money for me and my family. So I'm going to find the best candidate who I can monetize. I want to be in a powerful place. And there are other places to say, look, I really actually want to try to attract resources to this individual because this individual is a candidate who I really believe in. And I'm okay if we only have a small amount of resources because I'm doing something that I believe in. And if you can find both, then you hit the jackpot. It's a little bit like marriage or careers in general. Why does everybody get married when 50% or more of people don't stay married? And actually maybe 75% of people shouldn't be. It's because when it works out, it's one of the most magnificent things that life can possibly give you So the payout great It a little bit like jobs When you find that candidate who is is magnificent in their ability to attract capital and develop relationships and they happen to be somebody who also is somebody who you ethically and emotionally just adore and want to see do well that like winning the lottery But unlike a bad marriage, it's not a binary experience. My experience is that to be a secretary of state, be a head of investor relations, to have many powerful benefits and great intrinsic joys, because the flip side of it is that if you enjoy the job, you do like your job, you enjoy the job of curiosity and meeting people and learning. Well, if you like traveling a lot, frankly, if you like interacting with people and playing the game of discovery of the person, and this is about as good a job as exists because you get to play the exploration of people every minute or every day. When you're a secretary of state or you're head of investor relations and you're meeting all these people, you sometimes get some great intellectual stimulation. But you always get a opportunity to actually engage at the coalface of the human condition And it amazing what you get to experience And you know I say that this is true for anybody who done this job for a long time or the job that I used to do for a long time is that you make some incredible friendships because by definition, you spent all this time trying to get to the other side of trust. Well, what is the other dividend? It's not the money that you actually were able to attract. is that you actually became friends with the person. Cannot be any other way. If you're authentically developing trust, then you're authentically creating a friendship. If you think about your whole set of experience doing stuff like this, you were talking about this idea of inner games before we started recording. You're being interested in the inner game of interesting, exceptional people. How would you describe your own version of that? What has the inner game been like for you across this period? The inner game of fundraising is really about putting the person in the room as the center of all conversation. That I actually don't exist but for the fact that I'm in your mind at this moment in time. I actually am just an object in your mind. And that object in your mind is being processed by... [45:00] I, all the stuff that is Patrick O'Shaughnessy. And so now that I'm living in your mind, what can I do to, in this case, make myself interesting, make myself compelling, make myself somebody you want to meet again, make myself somebody that you are satisfied that you actually invited onto your podcast because I'm inside your mind. And what is going on inside of there? and when I look at you, I see such a deep curiosity. I see incredible patience as well. You're allowing me to have these long form explanations. So when I'm talking to you, I really myself don't even exist over here as much as I exist inside your head. And that's the inner game of the highest level of persuasion. Mentalists do this. They get inside your head. Hypnotists do this. Psychologists do this. Anybody who's engaged in a mental discussion, if they're really good, they're not just saying, here's what I am. It's like, who are you? And how do I address you in a way that actually is satisfying to you? And I hope I've done that in today's podcast. I think you know my traditional closing question for everyone What is the kindest thing that anyone ever done for you First of all thank you for asking it because it opens up such a cornucopia of gratitude in my life because there no way I be where I am today without the charity of others And so the hardest part was finding that one moment. When I thought about the nicest thing, I thought, you know, it's actually the body of work of niceness. And that has to be my wife. the body of work of things that she does for me that is kind and nice. So the nicest thing she's done for me is support me and all of the lunacy that actually is connected to being a fundraiser and how hard it is and physically how difficult it is. But I'll tell you that the one story that about my wife. So I'm 58 years old. So eight years ago, I had my 50th birthday and I was born in 1967. And so I grew up loving 80s and 70s rock bands. And my favorite rock band is a band called Sticks. And so on my 50th birthday, and I happen to play guitar. And so she got a band to play. And I happened to be able to play several Sticks songs on my guitar. And so they called me up on stage and said well your 50th birthday you know why don we have John come up and play one of his favorite Sticks songs And so I like great They opened up the guitar case and my wife got me an autographed guitar from every band number of sticks. And then inside there was actually tickets to the next show. And I got, I check out my backstage passes so I can meet the band. Amazing. Amazing. And it's the nicest thing to this day that anybody's ever done for me. It was incredible because not only was it such a rare gift to give somebody, but she had to go figure this out and she had to have the resources to go do this. And by the way, just so you know, not only did she get me on stage to play a Styx song with this band, but my brother, my younger brother, who's five years younger than me, plays piano. She got him to learn the song on piano, come sail away. So my brother gets on stage, starts playing the piano and I'm laughing like, oh my God, my brother's a very busy guy. Like, wow, I'm sorry that you had to learn this. And so the whole thing was an expression of love, but it was an identity of me. It was a celebration of me. You can't ever take that away. Beautiful. Wonderful place to close. You've taught us a lot today. Thanks so much for your time. Well, thank you. It was great to be here. If you enjoyed this episode visit Colossus You find every episode of this podcast complete with hand edited transcripts You can also subscribe to Colossus our quarterly print digital and private audio publication featuring in profiles of the founders investors and companies that we admire most Learn more at Colossus slash subscribe you know how small advantages compound over time that's true in investing and just as true in how you run your company your spending system is your capital allocation strategy ramp makes it smarter by default better data better decisions better economics over time see how at ramp.com slash invest as your business grows vanta scales with you automating compliance and giving you a single source of truth for security and risk learn more at vanta.com slash invest the best ai and software Thank you. [50:00] of the veg. Visit ridgelineapps.com to see what they can unlock for your firm. Every investment firm is unique and generic AI doesn't understand your process. Rogo does. It's an AI platform built specifically for Wall Street, connected to your data, understanding your process and producing real outputs. Check them out at rogo.ai slash invest.