Patrick O'Shaughnessy

Totally.

They set it up.

They're working so hard.

What makes a great sorcerer?

What distinguishes the very best of them from like the merely good?

If you think about salesmanship and the ability to do sourcing well, if I were to pull people, you've talked to so many founders, some would say bad things about Insight.

What would they say?

Would they say it's annoying how much they call me or they're trying to pull information out of me that I don't want to give?

One could be we definitely get turned off by that model.

In addition to the sourcing, which we talked about in the one fund concept, another distinguishing feature of Insight is how you've made sequential, typically small to begin bets in new deal types.

If you look today, a huge chunk of your assets are what I would call like private equity style deals, not venture rounds, not growth rounds, traditional, sometimes big private equity rounds.

How did something like that start?

What have you learned about that sizing for new types of deals?

Because this is really important.

If you look at like the last fund or two and you had to break that 12 billion or so down into deal types between traditional earlier stage venture buyout, what does it look like?

If you think about what you want returns wise for these funds, how do you even triangulate it given all these different deal types?

How do you articulate it?

If I look at some of the deals, you mentioned Wiz, talked about Databricks, you mentioned Monday, Anthropic came out in the news recently that you were an investor in this big round.

That sounds more like very traditional venture growth style investing.

I'm curious to hear the Anthropic story specifically, just since it's so extremely recent, such an exciting company.