David Weisburd

You mentioned references.

I'm sure you end up doing multiple dozen references per GP, but at which point do you get a really good sense?

Let's say you have an 80 or 90% confidence on that manager.

Is this reference three, reference eight, reference 12?

Give me a sense for how quickly you ascertain whether this is a manager that you really want to double click into.

What is that telltale sign?

What are you looking for to know that something's a glowing reference versus a good reference?

Because there's a game theory to this where no founder wants to speak poorly on the VC.

Double click on how you really assess whether it's a glowing reference.

Oftentimes, some of the metadata is how long the person being interviewed actually speaks on the reference party, how long they talk about it, how much more they volunteer versus saying good or he was excellent or using these kind of generic words.

I would argue it's really one of the main aspects that an LP could add alpha.

References are kind of ground truth.

Everything else kind of looks very undifferentiated, to use your term, but references are one of those things where the truth really shines.

You went early in your career from being an inch deep and a mile wide to today being an inch wide and a mile deep.

How's that transition been?

And what are the biggest trade-offs between those two ways of investing?

Double click on this fun math.

It's one of these things everyone repeats as if it's an agreed principle, but many people have different philosophies.

What's your philosophy when it comes to fun math?

One of the hardest things of investing is seeing what's shifting before everyone else does.