Episode 40 - Patient Capital and Long-Term Discipleship with Tom Blaisdell and John Denniston
subscribe to the podcast
Today, we’re talking about playing the long game. So many investors work to get as big of a return as they can as quickly as they can. But the two people on the show have a different approach.
John Denniston and Tom Blaisdell are our resident experts on long-term capital, and today, they’re going to break down the benefits of patient investing, the discipleship opportunities it provides, and how all of this relates to you, the Faith Driven Investor.
Episode Transcript
Some listeners have found it helpful to have a transcription of the podcast. Transcription is done by an AI software. While technology is an incredible tool to automate this process, there will be misspellings and typos that might accompany it. Please keep that in mind as you work through it. The FDI movement is a volunteer-led movement, and if you’d like to contribute by editing future transcripts, please email us.
Henry Kaestner: Welcome back to the fate of an investor podcast, great episode today we've got two awesome guests to help us to understand the concept of permanent capital. And we live in Silicon Valley, which is really the capital of venture capital, if not more broadly, private equity. And it's interesting that we're going to be looking at this topic today with two guys that really come from a background of venture capital at the very highest levels, talking to us about a new model that we really all think might transcend the 10 year lifecycle of a fund, as Henry mentioned.
William Norvell: A big thing we want to dig into is you both have a lot of experience in capital raising, both as entrepreneurs and as venture capitalist, as a lawyer, as an investment banker. I mean, I personally think you really redeemed yourself. I mean, going from law investment banking. I mean, that's where, you know, the magic happens. I know people see them and much, much better light. I like the journey you've taken here now, but this permanent capital idea. Walk us through it. What is it? Where does it come from? Is it something brand new? Is something that's old that people are finding again? What is the essence of it and why are you too fascinated by it? Well, I can start with that.
Tom Blaisdell: I got fascinated by it when I was doing this research up at Tuck and they came at it from two different angles. One was clearly the returns angle. I was always been a big fan of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger and what they'd been doing, a Berkshire Hathaway, and they had, you know, their famous saying, know, our favorite holding period is forever. And they had this holding company, which is in essence a permanent capital structure for the companies that they're buying that give them lots of leeway to pursue their growth strategies and their missions individually as well. I also took it from the point of view of the entrepreneur, though, and that's really where I thought I saw the whole and the market was, as I said, look, I want to get more involved in mission driven entrepreneurs. You know, a mission driven on tour is on a mission. Most of the investors out there that they're going to pair up with are on a mission to make more money. And this might be a good time to talk about a really important differentiation I make between investors and what I call capital allocators and thinking. I think all the people who are listening to this podcast should be recasting in their mind, thinking to themselves as a capital allocator as opposed to an investor. And the simple differentiation is an investor. Invest money to make more money. That's what their job is. A capital allocator. Their job is to allocate capital to worthy endeavors while respecting and honoring the value of the capital. Capital is not free. Capital has costs. It has to be respected. That's what the parable of talents is about. But the capital needs to be allocated to what I would consider you would consider the individual investor a worthy cause. So if you're thinking of your job as being a steward to the capital entrusted to you, that means being a trustworthy allocator of capital, not just an investor. And I just want to say this is an extra degree of difficulty. Being a good investor is very hard. Being responsible allocator of capital is even harder. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger had this concept, the too hard pile. Generally, it's a good idea. Keeps you focused on your specific giftedness or your core competencies. But within your circle of competence, you need to be responsible in what you're investing in. And one thing I want a big takeaway from this podcast to be is don't put values align investing in the too hard pile. This is important. This is worth doing. And, you know, John can talk more about how he made that transition to taking that out of the too hard pile and putting it into action of going from an investor to actually starting a business like that.
Henry Kaestner: So I want to get into that a bit and actually dystrophin on what William was just talking about in terms of career progression. John had I think about that T-shirt which talks about the evolution of man. So it starts off life as an attorney, then investment banker and then venture capitalist being a higher form of life and now maybe the highest form of life, being a missional entrepreneur in a permanent capital type of structure. Maybe we might even get some feedback from the audiences, what they think that makes sense or not, or if there's a next progression in the in the evolution. But I actually really like the way that that's gone in in that it connotes that there are some aspects of venture capital or private equity that may have some limitations to it. So maybe it can deal with Tom and and Jon. I'd love to get your comments on this, too, when we talk about permanent capital. And I think that I'm glad that you brought Berkshire Hathaway. It's a model that a lot of people can be comfortable with and familiar with. But what are some of the inherent limitations to the traditional private equity and venture capital model that maybe permeate capital solves for.
Tom Blaisdell: Absolutely. Yeah, first and foremost. Traditionally, all venture capital funds are private equity funds have a 10 year structure, which is, you know, they raise a fun one hundred million dollars, a billion dollars, 10 billion dollars for the big P funds, and that as a 10 year life. And normally they're going to invest, make new investments in the first three years and then spend the next seven years harvesting those investments. And so a typical model for a private equity investment, for example, is they want three to five backs in three to five years. So they want to put. Money end. They went to work it for three to five years and they want to get the money out. Similarly, on the venture capital side, especially the early stage folks coming into the series A, Series B, we know that out there, the time period from initial investment to liquidity event, which is either getting an M&A getting bought out or an IPO has been extending from, you know, typically used to be five years, seven years, 10 years, 12 years. And we know that's getting longer and longer. But those are the first two constraints just built in to the venture capital. Private equity models is that 10 year fund life now immediately put that up against the perspective of the Michigan entrepreneur who is building a multi decade or maybe even a multigenerational business to attack a problem that's very important to them.
You know, what that means is you're going to have to recapitalize their business every three to five years that they're using private equity or every seven to 10 years if they're using venture capital money. And I'm not saying that that model is broken. That's a terrific model that's created tons of creative power and financial success for venture capital and private equity. The whole I saw in the market was these longer term thinking mission driven on tourism. I'll just take one more moment to talk about, you know, there isn't every entrepreneur mission driven. Sure. They all say, oh, here, here's our mission. We got our mission. We've got a vision. I have to test for what's my definition of a mission driven entrepreneur. The first question is, and this isn't I don't sort of ask this, but it's what comes out in a conversation. And as you ask what they're doing right now. And you're gonna get two answers read and get some that essentially you talk to the CEO of a startup, ABC, or private equity backed startup. They're either going to need a description that says, this is my current gig. This is what I'm working on right now. And if you talk to mission driven entrepreneur, they're gonna be telling you about their life's passion, their life's work. They wouldn't know what they would be doing if they weren't doing this. That's question number one. Question number two is. And this is more perhaps from the investor's point of view, but also a lot of funds from the private equity CEO's point of view is always begin with the exit in mind. I never make an investment if I don't know what the X is going to look like on the other end. When you're talking to a mission, you're an entrepreneur. They say, what's an exit? We're not exiting. We're solving a problem. This is our mission. This is our cause. This is what we're here to do. And so now you have these mission driven operators that are fundamentally different than the other entrepreneurs. And now if you take a traditional again, let's go back to that venture capital model. So now you go out, you raise your share easy. And all these people, you need growth, growth, growth, growth, growth.
You raise your series A. Then your series B, then you need your series C, then you need your series D.
It's hard to find the money in each round. Now find people that have values alignment in each of those rounds. Or even just financial incentive alignment. In each round in terms of what their timeframe is, et cetera. Keeping that alignment, this is almost more than just about the permanent capital. It's about the alignment of the capital. And that just becomes increasingly impossible in that traditional venture model. And then private equity model, it's essentially we have a mission for three to five years. We don't have a mission for 20 or 30 years. We have a mission for thirty five years. And that's do just start right out of the gate with some serious alignment problems.
Henry Kaestner: John, you've been on all sorts of different angles on this from the venture capital world, more permanent capital entrepreneur. How would you respond to permanent capital and make the case for that as something that really helps support mission?
John Denniston: We imagine somebody gives you a choice, an immediate payment of one million dollars or a magic penny that doubles every day for 30 days. Tell me, which do you choose?
Cash upfront, million dollars. I bet you the answer is number two. OK. That is correct. Would you hazard a guess? You can't put your calculator right now. I'm watching you. Yeah.
OK. If you got a penny at a doubled every day for 30 days, what is in your bank account at day 30?
Henry Kaestner: Tell me what can be more than a million dollars? We know that many of the owners say it's going to be a big number. Go with three point seven form billion dollars.
John Denniston: Man, are you smart that rounds to the five million dollars that it is, OK. That's the idea in our minds.
Deusen. Is it five million or five Divino I hinders that billion. OK. I don't know.
William Norvell: I think I now know we have a recording Henders a billion here. Smart enough to the right answer. But math, you know, still working on it.
John Denniston: Henry thinks big everything specked. The answer is five million dollars. Five million dollars. OK. That is an astonishing phenomenon. It's wonderful. So wonderful that Albert Einstein called that compounding the eighth wonder of the world. Now, that's the idea. And so who knows? Ten year convention came in to the private equity and venture capital world, I imagine, in my mind's eye. The early funds, they find some investors categories that don't even exist today. And the investor said, well, certainly I'll get my money back. And so the people raised in the voice, OK, well, 10 years will give your money back. I mean, something like. But there's no rhyme or reason. Here's what it does from perspective of Eighth Wonder of the World. It interrupts it. Imagine that you take your penny and 10 days in the compounding stops or slows down for a while, or you don't get the full 10 days amount because there's a fee that you pay somebody and then you have to find a reinvestment. And by the way, you're doubling with the penny that you had. And what you're reinvested in is not doubling. It's five percent growth every year. So from a financial perspective, there is a permanent capital movement taking place right now and there's a lot of the big money coming into it. Blackstone has raised hundreds of billions of dollars on this Apollo. I think roughly half of their assets under management are in roughly the category of permanent capital. Last week, KKR and our private equity firm bought an insurance company. That's how Berkshire Hathaway began. That was an insight for the purpose of getting more permanent capital. So here's the point. And now I'm coming around to answering your question. How is that relevant to redemptive imagination? The gospel in the market? How is that relevant? Because the same principle applies. Imagine there is a for profit company also delivering the gospel into the market in some form or fashion chaplains, poverty alleviation, education, health, you name it. Romans twelve says many parts of one body. Right. A lot of different ways to deliver the gospel into the market. OK, well, imagine you have invested in a company that's doing that really well, making a difference in the world. And compounding the gospel on the market over time at your 10, you're going to want to keep going with that from a redemptive perspective. And so the idea is to allow the eighth wonder of the world to be realized for both financial return and from a redemptive perspective, both.
Henry Kaestner: So it makes a big impression on me. And I think that also building off of that dynamic, which is not just the concept of compounding interest in financial return and not interrupting that, it is suboptimal time. One of the reasons why Solomon's Capital Fund, we want to twelve year funds because we saw so much agitation from co-investors in your six and seven. Looking for an exit and then taking less a lower price. But because they had to get out. It just doesn't make sense if you're getting the flywheel going on, really figuring out product market fit and really scaling a business to get out just in an arbitrary time doesn't seem to make sense. Permanent capital headset. But even more powerfully, more powerfully, I think on the spiritual side, when Tom talks about an entrepreneur warm coming about this because this is their mission and their consuming thing, especially if it has a gospel integration to have somebody on your cap tables like I'm with you. I also see this as life mission, and we're going to go, hey, let's do this together and let's not talk about the exit. Let's talk about the mission. Let's talk about it. How to reinforce success without any type of artificial, arbitrary type of thing of needing to get out. That would seem to be powerful as an investor and it maybe having a strategic advantage, because we all know if we're in the fund business, it's all about deal flow. And it's the getting the looks at the deals, which means that you need to be able to show an entrepreneur that there's something special about you and your partnership that's different. If you can say to an entrepreneur whose life has a mission is going to come on board with you and I don't need to get out. That would seem to give you an advantage versus a different funding vehicle that says we love you, but we love you for six and half years.
Tom Blaisdell: I saw a great cartoon. It was people sitting across the desk, each other. And one person was saying to the other one. Think of it as permanent capital that you have to get back in three years.
So not permanent capital. So investing, not again, is moving from being ambassador to being a capital allocator. You're not just investing your dollars for the high to maximize your return, but you're investing your dollars to solve a problem that matters to God. I picked that phrase up actually from a podcast you guys had recently, I think was Dick Blanc from Cedarville University. Somehow I pulled out from what are you saying? Were solving problems that matter to God. And there may be a terrific investment opportunity around doing the next caffeinated hard seltzer. But is that a problem that matters to God, you know? Or is there something where you're leaning in and saying, you know, even when times are tough, I can continue to lean in?
Because what we're doing matters to God. And by the way, if it's a problem that matters to God, there will be an investment return profile there as well. This is, of course, separated from philanthropy. And I don't know if you get into that. William and Henry, on any of your other podcasts, have, you know, where is that line? And that's certainly an interesting topic in itself. But I think what we're talking about here are real investments with real market returns, capital Honorine Returns. But, you know, it's capital with a mission, not a deadline. And that's what we're talking about with permanent capital. And I do think, Kendry, to your point. It's a differentiated value proposition.
William Norvell: OK, Tom. John, this may be self-proclaimed self-proclaimed provocative person on the show here. Some here in this. And I'm entrapped. I'm in. I'm actually thinking, you know, why would I ever work for someone that doesn't have personal capital? Why would I ever tell an entrepreneur to take money from someone who's not permanent capital? I mean, this is good Kool-Aid here. And Tom, you made a comment earlier. The tenure model wasn't totally broken, that it had value. But I want to dove in back. I think someone could listen to this and both an entrepreneur award investor and say, well, that's the only model. I mean, clearly, you've made a compelling case. That's what God would value, is that you're along for the mission. You don't have investors pounding on your door. You know, you can build the company as long as you want, you know, and and, of course, God requires companies to sell and opportunities come along. We always have to be looking for that.
But, man, I would never take money from a tenure fund that doesn't feel God honoring. Let me ask that question. Is that how you guys feel? And you're welcome to feel that way. I'm just interested in where you stand today as you've done this research over so many years.
John Denniston: So I think it's an excellent question. William, let me offer this perspective.
As I said, there is a growing market for permanent job, but there's also a growing market for impact, redemptive imagination, startup companies that integrate financial and redemptive for secular impact. There's the equation that I use to describe the current dynamic in that marketplace of capital and ideas.
See is greater than I. That is to say, the volume of impact capital currently exceeds the volume of great breakthrough impact or redemptive business ideas. That's a problem, but it's also a creative opportunity. And Christian entrepreneurs should consider attacking that with all the creativity God gave them in new novel ways to integrate finance and business with redemptive imagination. That's an opportunity. And we're in the early days of it. And so the thing that I'll say about shifting offers impact and permanent. We're combining the two in this podcast. But on permanent Kamper Watch is a permanent capital investor. Want permanent capital investor wants a high probability of permanence. The penny keeps on doubling every single day. So a demonstrated momentum that, yeah, I'll put my money in for more than 10 years. But if I'm a university endowment or insurance company or pension plan, maybe 20 or 30 or 50, maybe there's no limit on it. Something like that. But for me to feel good about doing it, I want to see momentum that just me a strong feel. This has some competitive differentiation and that's going to keep on going. That's what Warren Buffett has done successfully, a virtual ask away. The last thing I'll say on this. Likewise for faith driven investor would like to see the same thing. To make a permanent investment in a redemptive imagination company. See the momentum and the success that gives you a very good feeling that that redemptive activity will continue to compound going forward.
Henry Kaestner: It's if the world you know, as I'm thinking about this, I'm thinking of venture capital and private equity are getting a little bit potentially of a bad rap. Now, to be clear. Part of me looks at this through the lens of an entrepreneur. Most of my life has not been as an investor, has been as an entrepreneur. And I know how it's really encouraging when you've got somebody alongside strapped in mass with you. Just like I'm in it with you. And I'm nothing about exit, but it also makes me think about the role that venture capital plays in. I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about that with two guys who spent a lot more time in venture capital than I. But I think that there's maybe an occasion, I think particularly in both. Have you made significant investments overseas in emerging markets? John, you're living that out right now. But as I think about deploying capital overseas in places like East Africa where they need startup capital, and you look at and say, gosh, there's a generation right now of entrepreneurs that need capital, but this can be another generation of entrepreneurs who get a new capital seven or eight years. So if I have a certain amount of money to invest, if I invest in these people and it's tied up for 30 years or 40 years, then I'm not able to invest in the next generation. But it strikes me that you won't invite those entrepreneurs into this partnership. Like, here's the money Amen invest in you. And to be clear, my model dictates that I don't need to get this money back out six or seven years. I get a 10 year fund because you're going to participate. The returns that you have are going to be part of what provides the startup capital for the next generation of faith driven investor in Nairobi. That's why I'm looking for an exit, because we want to continue to invest in. And you going to be a part of that story before we completely and I want to get back to permanent capital to be clear it, before we completely dismiss all of venture capital in its redemptive purpose. Do you want to either you want to riff on that and comment on that?
Tom Blaisdell: Absolutely. Henry, and you're exactly right about the role. Venture capital plays a very specific role. Right. And if you think about it in the typical sense, you're putting that venture. It's venture money. It's very risky money at a very early time, at a point where that company's going to be growing like crazy. In fact, there's a metric out there for SAS companies. Software's a service company right now, which is a triple, triple, double, double, double. Right. So in the first two years, you triple your revenue and then after that, you're doubling your revenue. These are amazing growth rates, right? So say you do a million dollars and you're supposed to do three million dollars, which was nine million dollars and 80 million and 36 million and seventy two million dollars. That is a rocket ship, right? A rocket ship takes a different kind of fuel. And that fuel is the venture capital because they're investing in these hits misses. And some of those rock chips are going to get, you know, escape velocity and go into orbit and be amazing. And a lot of you are going to blow up on the launchpad. And so you're invested in that super risky period of the company, which is that first 10 years and really more like the first three to five years of the company. Right. So that's the role of venture capital. If you sort of zoom out, though. Venture capital is only a appropriate fuel for a tiny segment of all the companies that are going to get started in the world. Right. So every thousand companies that get start, including the local bagel shop or a car wash or a paving company, they don't need venture capital. Right. So already we're talking about out of 1000 companies, one of them needing venture cap. Now, within that world are the same people, again, as I had defined as these mission driven opener's building, multi decade or multigenerational companies. And maybe they're trying to build it on a more sustainable path. They're not going to do the triple, triple, double, double, double, but they're going to try and get profitable sooner. There's something called the Evergreen Journal, which has specifically been de Borten is building this community of evergreen businesses that are, you know, sort of safe and sane, profitable growth businesses.
And that's a terrific, different way to go. And then I'll finally just fall back on the fact what I said at the top of being a capital allocator versus an investor. It's hard. So I came out, you know, bright eyed, bushy tailed, come out of the academic world. I'm going to go to permanent capital. Right. William And the next thing I know, I've got three or four angel investments in a series seed going out to raise the series A, Series B, you know, it's who I am. It's where I live. It's the network I have. It's the model that I know works. And, you know, obviously, we're very important Vestas to have in that ecosystem as well. And to have at least one investor on your cap table who's able and you know this very well from sovereigns cap. And even just having one mission driven, faith driven investor in your cap table is a huge encouragement to the CEOs. I'm still working at this coal face. Henry of. We get more of that permanent capital to actually, you know, extend out to more of those companies that aren't the traditional targets gonna triple, triple, double, double.
Henry Kaestner: Makes me think about something from in and out burger, like a menu item before we come back into permanent capital. From your perspective to what you see as the redemptive purpose of venture capital.
John Denniston: Yeah, I think that the question of redemptive verse is venture capital. They're both good. So venture capital has provided the fuel for a great many discoveries and innovations that have done good in the world.
A great many. Now, there's a current debate about is all of that good?
I don't want to get into that, but you can read about that every single week or day in the newspaper. Get into it. So what did the focus on hypergrowth. Is very good and helpful. Or if it's just.
Well, the purpose of the company to begin with and its method and its integrity and and and and all of that. All of that, you can read about it. I'm not taking a side much, but, you know, so. Yeah, sure. Is hypergrowth required? Are there different ways to go about growth that, you know, all of that. But it's a hard growth, but also what's the purpose of the company? And redemptive companies are declaring some of them a dual purpose. Financial return. Yes. But also redemptive return through their imagination. A dual purpose.
Henry Kaestner: Tell us about that redemptive and mental purpose that you've got it shared. We didn't spend a lot of time at the outset talking about that. But what of your last five years been? Was it look like as you've sought to provide investors that have come along side? And just in a quick disclaimer. We've done some convincing to get go done some co-investor together with Tom as well. And we are a shareholder and shared ex and one and without having an exit in mind. But talk to us about the five years that you've had and what share tax does is you blend the redemptive purpose and the financial purpose.
Was it look like. Yeah, well, first and Rick, thank you for your confidence and faith in us. And actually, let me just riff off of that. One of the great joys over the past five years has been just the great, amazing set of impact, faith based other investors that are looking to do this, to looking to do this. And so we have investors from North America, South America, Europe and Asia. A lot of different categories, including faith based. And it's been marvelous, really just one of the great parts of deciding to embark on this adventure. So here's the Shattuck's. We've designed what we call an inherent impact business model, which is to say that the financial model that we have designed inherently produces impact in lifting smallholder farmers or deploying regenerative responsible farming methods. And correspondingly, the fact that we are doing good in the world itself brings financial benefit because the market wants more of that. It's in the data. Consumer markets, work or markets.
Capital markets are all there's this triple up shift and demand curves for purpose, and it's gone largely unseen under cover of darkness over the past five or 10 years. And so companies that decide in an authentic way to come in to combining the two have a very good surprise in front of them, which is they're going to be embraced to some degree by the triple up shift in those demand curves. So the question that I want a bridge off that a little bit, when you find investment vehicles like yours and others that have a redemptive purpose in them and where somebody can be brought into the mission. Do you ever see a danger with capital sources coming in and possibly distorting the market? Give me an example. Company comes out and there's some redemptive part of what they're doing. And it's a feel good story. They're providing employment or they're feeding people and because of their redemptive purpose on the economic side. So maybe they're doing a million dollars of top line. Maybe they're going at 20 percent and they come out and they say, well, we're going to raise two million dollars and we do that at thirty five million primary valuation. That would seem to be at odds with where they are in terms of their numbers. But it's a really good story. People love the impact they're making. Do you see any danger there? How do you think about pricing those deals? It's a lot of the people they can be listening to. This is like I get it. I get it. I'm listening in favor of an investor podcast motivated by my faith. I want to see a redemptive edge in what I'm doing. But I also want to still be a really good investor. And how do I think about valuing these companies at the entry point? I get what you're saying in this episode of the podcast you're talking about. Let's not focus so much on the exit, but how do I think about the entry and how do I provide counsel to the entrepreneur about the right entrance valuation riff on that bit?
Sure. Short answer is the market determines that. And.
Henry Kaestner: Lynette, but so the market determines that at a particular time, so if a company is raising a million dollars and you're saying I'm going to raise 20000 kids from five different people in your practice, have you ever seen a situation where they are able to raise money at an out of market valuation that then hurts them longer term, that it took them too long to grow into that valuation?
John Denniston: I'm sure that happens. I'm sure that happens as it does in the venture capital world. I'm sure it does. And so, yeah, just that put a risk if, you know, there's a down round and that company's future. Definitely. So that poses a risk for both conventional and a redemptive company. And I'm very sure that happens.
Henry Kaestner: Yeah. Tom, talk to us about entrance valuations, whether it's in venture capital, but then especially in permanent capital, when you find a business that's aligned on impact, but because they're not so much focused on, hey, here's how you're going to get triple your money back in four years, we're gonna be building this for long term. How do you think about entrance valuations?
Tom Blaisdell: Yeah, I think the term that comes up all the time is concessionary returns. Right. Are you willing to accept a concessionary return? So if a venture capital investment supposed to return 20 to 30 percent IRR, you know, on average, should you be willing to suggest that, you know, you'll do 15 percent or 10 percent?
Tom Blaisdell: And is that okay? It's so case dependent. And I think this also gets to, you know, how many people have to come around the table. If you have a pool of Perman capital and you can go in and you can fund the series A and B and the C and keep pure people around the table, then this becomes much less important. Right. It's just we all decide how much equity needs to be in the hands of the employees and how much equity needs to be enhancing investors. Once you start getting multiple entities around the table, that's where the alignment issues really start to perk up. I think this is also. And again, this is why William Perman capital isn't the answer to all the problems right now, because while there's a lot of permanent capital out there, there really is. It's not in structures that are very easy for entrepreneurs to tap into. And I know that's probably one question I want to talk about is where can you go find this permanent capital? But I think one thing, if you think of one source of Perman capital, especially in the faith driven investor movement, it's going to come from family offices. Right. Family foundations, family endowments, high net worth individuals. And those people need to be more active in aligning, you know, the why of how their money is being invested. There's a general problem in economics and investing called the principal agent problem. Right. Which is that the principal, who's the one who's putting up the money and the agent who say is the general partner in the fund have different incentives. Right. In terms of like how quickly they put out the money, how much they charge for fees, how quickly they sell the company and, you know, decisions they might make internal to the company about sharing the wealth with employees and how they treat their communities and things like that. So there's a principal agent problem. I actually see that sort of expanding into a principal agent, agent, agent, agent problem, which is, you know, you have the high net worth individual who has the estate planner, who hires a money manager, who puts it into a fund of funds, who puts it into a venture capital fund, who hands it to a general partner. You now have five agents in that chain who are all making different alignment choices. So, Henry, when you said his venture capital, good or bad, I think that all too easy answer is it's very simple for venture capital to be a moral right. It's just it's neither good or bad. This is what it is. And normally what's said when the money is given is maximize my value, maximize the return on my investment within the bounds of legality.
That's the guardrails. Don't break any laws, but otherwise maximize my return.
That's how you know, clearly something like Jewel, the vaping company, can get funded and can make a ton of money for investors. And it's within the guardrails. It's legal. But is that what that principle? All the way back at the beginning, that change is now with the principal wanted to do. And that's why I think the principals are the ones that have to take the responsibility or to pull that chain back in and say, I want to be in direct communication with the agent, whether that's Henry and William, sovereign's capital or somewhere else.
And I want to make sure we're on the same page about where our guardrails are, which are gonna be different than what the guardrails of society at large are.
Henry Kaestner: That has got to be an episode on podcasts. We've got to unpack that. The principal agent, agent, agent. Do you think about some of the the very large venture capital funds that have been known for saying you want to know what our investment thesis is and how we invested seven deadly. You want to know why we made investment? Jordache. That's easy. SLOSSON Gluttony. Well, it did. All the LP is all the people who provide that money behind the investment. Did they know that or is that a victim of this whole principle agent, agent, agent thing? There's a lot there. We need to come back to that.
Tom Blaisdell: I think the people listening to your podcasts here are interested in having their capital solving problems that matter to God. And if you're listening to this podcast and you care about your capital, you're stewarding, working to solve problems that matter to God. You're going to get closer to the agents that you're working with to make sure that's happening.
William Norvell: That's a great point, Tom. And yeah, it's a great lead on. It's the same in the public markets, right? You give either through a money manager or either through an ETF or most people have no idea what their money is in. And there's people out there trying to solve that problem to at some level. But it's a similar issue that I think God obviously all of us here agree. I think they got cares about that right. At some level. Probably each of us have different levels of where we think that matters. But so we did open a big topic. We had 45 minutes to get through permanent capital. How it impacts entrepreneurs, the pros, the cons. It's a huge idea. I've really just thank you both for doing that with us. I would encourage anyone to read Tom's paper. I think it does a great job in three to four pages of talking about the pros and cons, transaction costs and return thresholds and and all these different things that come about the structure and a really eloquent way. So I know we'll link to that. And as we wrap up, one of our favorite things to do is connect our listeners to our guest through the word of God. And so if you wouldn't mind sharing a quick bit on maybe where God has you in his word, that could be this morning. Something you read or heard. It could be a season that maybe God has you in meditating on a specific verse or story. Can any of those things we loved know what God's word is and how it's coming alive to you during this time today?
John Denniston: Yeah. Thank you, William, for me. I recently have been reflecting quite a bit on Matthew 13. The parable of the sower and the seed that falls on good soil yields one hundred sixty thirty fold. And so for me, I think spiritually seeing that in a new and fresh light. But also, this is true of a great number of Jesus parables based on agriculture, farming, because people could understand it. So, I mean, and actually a shirt ex were working on yield enhancement as one of the things that we do. So, yeah. Matthew 13, the parable of the Sower. Good word.
Tom Blaisdell: We recently just wrapped up an eight week sermon series actually stretching all the way back to Easter on Hope, which was really terrific and so timely for so many reasons. Just a timestamp. This we're in month five of the pandemic, the Cauvin pandemic now. And in California, we just went back into a more tighter form of lockdown.
One of the key learnings for me in that series was that in Jesus's day, hope would have been considered a character flaw, wishful thinking, by most of the mainstream religions and philosophies of the day. But the burse that we keyed on throughout the entire series was Romans 15, 13, made the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. So Paul is calling God the God of hope. For Christians, hope is a virtue, not a flaw. It's a feature, not a bug. And so hope is very different from optimism, of course. Optimism is just the expectation that things are going to turn out well. Hope, as explained in the sermon series, is a combination of imagination, desire and importantly, belief. Its trust in God. Right. And so Psalm 27, some trust in chariots and some in horses. But we trust in the name of the Lord, our God. When your revenue goes down 97 percent. Who do you trust and where is your trust? Where's your hope? Right. It's not in your bank balance. Not your contingency plan. It's not your all star board or your reseize. Nobody can or should have had a business contingency plan for this kind of havoc that's going on in the market right now. It doesn't matter whether you're an ant or a grasshopper all summer. Right. When your business literally goes to zero or all night, whether you were putting away stuff or whether you were playing, when your revenue goes to zero, it doesn't matter. So where is your hope? And so the path is it's been speaking to me is Isaiah 40 31, which says that those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength, they will soar on wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not be faint. We've been called to a mission that's much greater than our personal comfort or sustainability. And so, again, I just close with don't put faith driven investing in the too hard pile. Invest in just causes. Because it's our joy to do this work together.
Henry Kaestner: That's a great word, guys. I'm very grateful. Pray to you. Thank you for spending time. Thank you for your leadership in the movement. Thank you for being with us today.
Tom Blaisdell: Thank you so much. And Ray, William, Tom, thank you so much.
Henry Kaestner: As we finish up, we like to spotlight a ministry that is locking arms with our listeners. We know that many listening to the show are business owners and entrepreneurs looking to live out your faith in the marketplace. So this week, we want to make sure everyone knows about the faith driven entrepreneur. It's a weekly podcast, a monthly newsletter, a daily blog, along with other video Bible studies and events that help you get provisioned for. Journey you are on. Check it out at Faith Driven Entrepreneur, dawg.