Taylor Adams is with me here today in Venice. Taylor and I have crossed paths in a few different capacities because Taylor has a lot going on and wears a lot of different hats. In one capacity, Taylor is helping family offices build venture funds. Simultaneously, he has built Rise Together Ventures, combining venture funding with philanthropy.

As I said, like you've got a lot going on. I'm not even sure I summarized it correctly.
Yeah, I mean, one of the challenges I have is that from the outside looking in, it looks like I have my hands in a lot of things. And for me, I understand how the different puzzle pieces fit together

I thought for you maybe starting kind of at the beginning of maybe your family.

Yeah. I grew up in LA so unlike most Angelinos, I'm, uh, actually a sixth generation Angelino, so my family came out here in the 1890s. And, I'm fifth generation with respect to a family office, and so I've always been around kind of business and investing and, uh, joined the office formally in 2007 after graduating from USC.

At the time, we had a team doing direct private equity so I was part of
that team for a few years.
Then transitioned to the real estate side, which is our family's bread and butter, so multi-family and industrial real estate. But throughout my twenties and even in college, I was moonlighting as an entrepreneur.
So I started my first tech company while I was an undergrad at usc. And then, uh, co-founded at advise a number of, companies , in my twenties.
And around,
uh, 20 14, 20 15 decided after getting a master's in real estate development, decided that real estate wasn't exactly entrepreneurial enough for me, and so decided.
Pivot fully
into tech, learned how to code, got trained as a product manager. Spent a year at an LA incubator And I was helping three companies raise seed rounds. didn't
have much experience in venture previously that our office had done some angel investing, but um, you know, started to help these founders
realize I was actually
really good at, coaching founders and was like, I like these companies.
I want to invest in these
companies. And, so I naively started my first venture fund, which is no name ventures.
And was that part of your family office? That's a
separate No, it was completely
separate.
Okay. So You
left the family office?
And raised outside capital and. On
Great. Got it. And like, how many people are in your family office? Like how does that operation work?
It's a
of 16 and like half are on the administrative side, so accounting and tax and the other half are on the investment
side, huh? Yeah. It
it's a world, I just don't know.
Yeah.
Yeah. I mean, it's,
One, like the definition of a family office, like there isn't really one, there's an expression that if you've seen one family office, then
you've seen one family office.
So they're all different. Usually they're, kind of gauged or measured by aum. I find that's like not the most accurate descriptor of the complexity of a family office.
Right.
So I think more accurate descriptors are, you know, the number of family members served or the number of entities managed.
So Oh.
and after, we're on
sixth generation
now, and so, you know, somewhere around 175 different family members.
Wow. So it's pretty, it's pretty,
complex when you think about all the different tax returns, all the. Different K one s, like it's a, can be a
complex.
you know, when I was, getting ready to raise my, my second fund, I was talking to a lot of family offices and kind of gauging their venture ambition. And what I
realized was, ,their venture ambition went beyond writing LP checks.
The majority of them actually wanted to write direct
checks and like actually play the game. Mm-hmm. , which makes
sense considering, you know, family offices are essentially successful entrepreneurs post liquidity event, and they, they wanna roll up their sleeves and, get in the game with the entrepreneurs.
But the challenge is, is
like, you know, they're exposed to adverse selection like everybody
else. Mm-hmm.
and deal flow, when you're a family office in the beginning usually looks like, oh, my, cousin's college roommate started this
company.
And, you know, we listen to the pitch and it's like, oh yeah, that, that makes sense.
That sounds good. Like,
let's throw some cash
in it.
And oftentimes,
like those kind of companies never even make it onto the venture train where they have, you know, more institutional VC
actually backing them. Mm-hmm. . And
so you know, these, families that. Had ambition to do venture
capital and
were , mainly only doing directs, I realized is wow, , they need help.
And so for the last three or four years, been running , a venture platform that essentially partners with family offices and helps them originate and manage their own direct venture capital practice. And then in the process of doing
that over
a number of times, I think we stood up five different funds and kind of realized, wow.
From the family office perspective, we actually skipped a pretty critical step, which is to, rather than just build a direct venture capital fund
with the office,
we should probably originate a venture capital allocation. and do things like, you know, cash flow modeling and portfolio construction at that level.
And then what
we started to also do is play with this idea of what we call blended platform approach, where you combine fund to fund investing, fund investing. With a third bucket that is direct investments. And so, you know, generally we start off with getting fund to fund exposure and what you're, what we're targeting there is getting market coverage getting some credibility through being an LP and fund to funds like it's really powerful.
When I made my first fund to fund investment, then I asked that fund manager to intro me to managers , that they had
invested in. when you
get introduced as your LPs, lp Right. It carries a, level of gravitas that you don't normally get
where it's like
they might think, wow, Taylor's my LPs lp so he must be a really big fish and I should probably super serve him.

you're the, top of the food chain there,
Yeah. It, Definitely changes things. But the, bucket for fund to fund investments, what we're targeting is, coverage, credibility, and then
benchmarking
And then the next bucket is the direct fund
bucket. And generally
it kind of looks like emerging managers, Cause what
you want there is, access and collaboration. So being able to share deal flow channels and, collaborate on co-invest.
And then the third bucket is for your direct investments.
And what you're looking for there is alpha and you know, actually like collaboration in the, innovation economy. . . And as a rule with thumb, it's like if you're emerging manager program or your direct fund bucket and your, direct company bucket isn't beating your fund to fund perform.
Then either you're doing something wrong or you probably
shouldn't do it at all. , so for the last few years I've been
helping family offices to originate their overall venture allocations. but I'm also, like, I have
that same, like, I want to do direct
investing, disease as
well.
And so , haven't stopped doing direct investing in all the years I've been in,
Venture. Then more recently kind of blended my experience around philanthropy and the non-profit ecosystem with my experience around venture capital to start rise together ventures.
So I wanna have like a whole discussion about Rise together, but let me just keep picking at.
the, You helping family offices set up venture funds.
It's a fun, It's a fun topic. It's, yeah,
I
think it's relevant , to founders, it's relevant to emerging managers. Like the family office term is like really hot right now. I think if
you think about how much
wealth was created in the last 30 or 50 years It's pretty mind boggling. Mm-hmm. . And,
you know, , in my career, I've, there's never been a time where I've seen more family office formation than
right now. Mm-hmm. .
I'm taking at least a call a week with a family
what does it mean to set up a family office versus just like
Investing
money?
So there's a lot of different
types of family offices. there's multi-family offices, there's single family offices. There's things like virtualized family offices that I can talk more about. But the alternative is essentially, Put your capital on a wealth
management platform. Yeah. Which by the way, this might be kind of controversial to some people, but like multi-family offices are, essentially wealth management platforms. They just use different
branding because they want
the families to feel like, oh no. Yeah, you, you have family office, but it's,
it's an institutional wealth management
platform. And so one,
Way to think about
the difference between using , a multifamily office or a wealth manager and having your own single family office is that a single family office is a cost center. It's not a profit center. the family's not running that , as a business per se. Whereas if you you know, park your wealth at
a multi-family office
or wealth management platform, that's somebody
else's profit center,
that's someone else's business and they're, you know, generating profit off your money.
I
think you know, reasons for families , to start a family office is, that they want to retain The ability to, build new value creation capabilities.
The only
thing that a family can't outsource is continued wealth creation, like actually doing the entrepreneur. You can't hire somebody to
do that. Right? And I think multi-generational family flourishing is really about , just preserving that culture of value creation
but I think that's different than, like, I would say conventional wisdom says
The value is wealth preservation.
Right? And I think you're saying
something
different.
so.
The standard
assumption is that it's
wealth preservation. and that's what the industry generally talks
about. Yeah.
I have a contrarian view on like what the family office operating philosophy should be.
And I think this
preservation mindset is actually the cause of so many of the problems that we see in multi-generational wealthy families.
if you think about it in like mathematical notation, like
F of X if that's the equation for creating
value, uhhuh, wealth creation is building the f it's actually building the value creation function. Cause wealth creation implies that wealth doesn't exist before
that.
Mm-hmm. .And so
x, which is the input to the function
is capital, right? And so if ,you don't
have capital to put it into the function, then like the only way to create wealth is to build the value creation function in and of itself.
and then,
you know, wealth preservation is this idea of, alright, , let's allocate capital to other people's functions and hope that it
compounds. But the,
one of the main flaws in this wealth preservation
mindset
is that you know, no matter how well you compound that wealth, the family will grow faster than the wealth will compound. And so on a per capita basis, you know, wealth preservation is a losing strategy. but more important than that is that a wealth preservation strategy tends to be a passive
strategy, ,which means
there's not an opportunity for family members to actually participate
in the value creation. And all
it takes
is one generation of a family to be void of an active value creator, an active entrepreneur
for that
entrepreneurial spirit to absolutely leave the family.
And then it's
very easy
for the default to be that you have generations of default value consumers rather than default value creators.
So wealth preservation,
I think leads to protectionism. It's like, all right, , how do we help them succeed and set them up for success?
And then there tends to be an aversion for risk taking and a fear of failure.
But
success is, in my mind, is nothing more than a continuous stream of compounding failures, just learning how to actually fail forward and fail
small
there's other things like have this document called The four Horsemen of Destruction enterprising Families,
preservation is
number one, protectionism is number two. This idea of stewardship
is number three for me
because I think, , you know, my perspective is that,
somebody only
cares about stewarding something that was built in the past when they can't envision a future for themself that's more compelling or more abundant than what already
exists. Mm.
, and people tend
to kind of, you know, champion stewardship as a virtue. But I'm all about creating new things and, and disrupting what currently exists. I think, you know, sometimes the multi-generational mandate , is you know, come inside the family business, see where you. Which by the way, is a, mandate that you don't see in anywhere else in normal
businesses.
Like,
Oh,
let's see where you fit. Come inside, see where you'll fit. And maybe you can kind of steward , this ship and , be the captain in the next generation. I think , the much more exciting mandate is, Hey, can you figure out how to disrupt us? Can you figure out how to kill us?
Because if you don't, then somebody else will.
And like,
to me, that's really exciting.
And then the last, uh, horseman of destruction for enterprising families is , collectivism. families oftentimes have this,
Not often, but always like,
they were like, I just want the family to stick together.
I want to keep us together. There's so
many stories of people fighting and then,
you know, consultants are brought in to create these really rigid, top down governance frameworks that like force everyone to make decisions together.
And then all of a sudden,
you know, the family's in a room and there's arguing and should, it's the fan.
And , it's interesting that in this multi-generational space, I find there's like a lot of paradoxical outcomes, meaning that the, strategies are created that end up accelerating the very thing that those strategies are trying to prevent. Hmm.
That's true in a lot of government
structure. It's the law, unintended consequences.
Right.
So interesting. Okay, so what you said though, the FFF X, if I understand it correctly, is that ability, you're not trying to preserve wealth in the next generation. You're trying to preserve the ability to. Create in the
generation. Yeah, Yeah, Create value. Yeah. Like that, that's, one thing that, somebody can't really take away from you.
Like, if my balance sheet was wiped
out today, I'd be okay. Cause I know that like tomorrow I can figure out how to create value .
And make a living on it. But you know, I, I don't think just generally in society, I don't think value creation is, talked about
enough or taught, taught to people. Like just the fundamentals of like economics and how value is, not just exchanged, but actually created.
Sure.
But layers and venture capital with this Layers and venture capital. not quite rise together yet, but like how
about why
is it relevant to family
offices now? Sure. Now more than ever. Yeah.
I think
if you think about the
legacy economy, like the businesses that have been operating for the last 30 or 50
years and like , the wheels , been turning
and just,
, it does its thing and it, creates cash
flow. Yeah.
I think now, , the legacy economy, businesses are becoming hyper aware of disruption.
Mm-hmm. now that the innovation economy is geographically decentralized, it's happening in every single industry.
And they're starting to see that if I don't pay attention to this, at some point, some startup is gonna creep up on me. And it's, gonna be in a situation where, you know, three years from now they chop our legs out from under us.
And at that point it's like, it's too
late. Right. And
so I think there's a lot more willingness to prioritize innovation or creative destruction within their own
business. Mm-hmm. ,
I think
it's also just venture is really exciting.
, , venture capital is an asset class unlike any other, like, oftentimes people think it's a subset of
private equity. It's
not. And I, I think what it really is, it's like venture capital is this like portal or dimension into the future. And we're
essentially, Buying call options on different segments of what we think the future might
look like.
and that's exciting for
families. And so,
and if you also think about generational transfer, like right now, you know, the, the boomers are, churning out
and there's different estimates, but anywhere from 30 trillion to, , 70 trillion in private
wealth, we'll be transferring to subsequent
generations. And there's a lot of, power and influence that comes with that. But, , you know, future generations want to do venture capital. They don't want to do kind of the legacy industries that their
parents did. Actually, an
interesting statistic is, Next generation inheritors,
only 2% of them end up using the same service providers and wealth
managers as the previous generation did. , Then there's the performance aspect. It's like, venture has done so well over the last 10 years that, you know, even if you were a family office doing direct venture capital and your performance happened to be like bottom quartile, even if you didn't know it, you were still benchmarking.
10% or 12% IRR relative to like maybe like six or eight that you were getting in other asset
classes.
And you're like, wow, we're doing really well. But you know, there's a lot of, a lot more room adventure with, return dispersion. So a lot of family offices are, taking a look at venture and they, they want get more involved and don't want to do it simply as passive capital allocators.
Right. They don't wanna be the dumb capital in the room
thing. And. you were saying you were making an interesting point earlier about how actually family offices can bring a lot of value. And I think people are just catching on to family office value as investors. Kind of like cbc.
I've been having conversation
with
cdc.

yeah. I mean, if you think about family
offices and you put it alongside corporates, it's actually, they're not that
dissimilar. I mean,
, it's, similar, structures, similar mentality.
they operate in a lot of the same ways, but if you think about family offices and their, their role in the innovation economy, I think it can be really
powerful. and you know, like, let's say emerging managers, for
example, .you might have
two gps and like if
they're, if they're really doing well
doing.
an ea
yeah, yeah. Yeah.
and their reason for existing is cuz I have the ability to source incredible founders and I have the ability to add value to my portfolio companies.
Mm-hmm. well beyond, you know, what, those managers unique capabilities are , and their knowledge
networks. Mm-hmm. , there
isn't like huge tangible capabilities behind
them. They can leverage. Right.
a dog or ne yay.
Whereas
, with a family office, there might be a huge business in a certain industry behind that family office or a suite of different businesses.
And , if done effectively, then you can actually productize a value ad that's really compelling,
whether it's through
like, you know, sales channel partnerships or just being able to leverage the knowledge network that those organizations have behind them. There's a lot of trapped value to be cultivated in the form of value add support.
And by the way, I think
Venture funds should, invest more thought and effort into figuring out how to cultivate the collective value add of their LPs , and, uh, make that available to portfolio
companies. Because
I think Institutional LPs don't necessarily want to be value
add.
They are like
the definition of passive
allocators. Mm-hmm. ,
but family office LPs, they want to be involved. They wanna roll up their sleeves and, and get
family.
It's such an interesting point and something for GPS to consider. And also for family offices to do a better job of productizing, as you say, Yeah let's move on and tell me about rise together and your current work
Yeah. So in, parallel to
getting started in a venture in 2015,
I
was also getting philanthropically involved.
So, you know, my start was basically , joining a board of a, relatively large nonprofit here in Los Angeles and serving on the board for three years.
It's homeboy,
right? Yeah, homeboy.
Yeah,
exactly. It's amazing.
Yeah, homeboy Homeboy's awesome. Father Boyle is like just an incredible human being.
Do you wanna say like one second about what
Homeboy
does? Yeah. Yeah.
So Homeboy
Industries is the largest essentially like human service organization with wraparound services for the formerly incarcerated and formally gang involved. And. The secret sauce to their model is they run a number of, social
enterprises.
So like for profit companies that are, , all their employees are formally incarcerated and formally gang evolved. So they have a bakery, they have a catering service, they have a, electronics recycling company. And so serving on that board for three years and then being in venture capital, I really wanted to help prioritize innovation within the
organization. Cause I think one challenge I observed with 'em is they have their own social enterprises. And so when they hire people and, and they're good, they tend to want to keep them.
But that isn't really necessarily designed for throughput through
the organization.
And so after my board term, I ended up founding my own non-profit in service to homeboys. Um, and it was called the Meaning Foundation. And so we would source candidates that were formerly incarcerated and then we'd place them in employment positions mostly in specialized
manufacturing. And
then also what I realize is like the nonprofit structure itself is, what we've essentially done is legislate out the profit incentive, which the profit incentive is like a really natural and reasonable and compelling
thing. Mm-hmm. .
And actually, the only reason why, , like the philanthropic or non-profit kind of world exists is because it's in the IRS code. It's, you know, if an organization is designated
non-profit, then
philanthropists can give to
the non-profit. and get a tax deduction. but I think that the unintended consequence of this is you essentially are operating an organization that, doesn't have those like natural incentives , for growth and compounding mm-hmm.
And so my perspective is that governments and and non-profits tend to scale
linearly, whereas, you know, for-profit startups are capable of scaling
exponentially. Mm-hmm.
, and with the problems that our society is facing today, we don't need linear scaling solutions.
Mm-hmm. ,And so what I want to do is, kind of revolutionize, create a new paradigm in the philanthropic world where we're actually empowering for profit startups to fully embrace their ambition to change the world.
By having the right incentives and mechanisms to be able to, take their core capabilities and what they do best, and simply leverage those to create value within what we would traditionally deem as like philanthropic domains.
so how does that actually play out in terms of like money
flows?
the way we run the platform is that there's actually two separate pools of capital. Mm-hmm. .
So we
have a, you know, just a
straight. Normal venture
fund.
This Is it
Rise
together?
Yeah.
Yeah. Uhhuh.
And on the other side we have a, donor advised fund, so pool of philanthropic
capital. Mm-hmm. .
And so what we do is, , we leverage something that we call philanthropic
mirroring, which is matching an equity investment with an equal amount of philanthropic
capital. And one way to think about it is essentially
we're using that philanthropic capital to see the company's hypothetical dot org.

because these founders have an ambition to change the
world. And they don't want to just limit that to a narrow subset of the market based on what their product market fit is.
They wanna reach outside be able to do amazing things. And I think , giving maybe a couple examples would probably be helpful. Mm-hmm. . so
Postmates,
before they were acquired by Uber, Had a program that was called Food
Fight. And essentially it was a program that, collected surplus food from restaurants at the end of the day and brought it to homeless
shelters. Now you think about that, it's like a no brainer. Like they
already have the infrastructure. , And , the transportation logistic stuff is already, it's turnkey,
right? But if you think about,
if a social entrepreneur wanted to start a nonprofit , to accomplish the same thing,
what are they gonna
do? Like, build Postmates, like
Good luck.
Mm-hmm. ..And what what sort of investment does it actually look
like
for Rice together?
Yeah, so right now we're,we're fully capitalized fund one in stealth for writing checks between a hundred and $500,000. We're running a, barbell approach, so we're, experimenting with early stage and then also late stage. And so
if we create a structure , where founders are empowered to effectively, like, expand their product market, fit by even just a little bit into more philanthropic
domains. Mm-hmm.
meaning segments of the market that can't really
pay for things , they can really fully embrace , their vision for the future.
and I think that, you know, , our intention is, for this not to be a distraction, like what we want is it, for it to be core to the business
where them
doing , the creating their own dot org is actually an accelerant to their own, success and their own
scale.
Mm. Very cool. Do we have time to move to questions
about
you?
Yeah, let's

Well, I think it's, I think it's very dynamic.
So like
this is also. Rings true for like just the founder journey in
general. Mm-hmm. ,
It's, you know, we're creating this vision for the future. Like, what can the future look like? And that's not necessarily like, what can my future look like, but like what does it all look like?
And then what role
do I want to play in you kind of shaping that,
like, which segment
am I gonna be the one that paints the, brush strokes on, right?
Mm-hmm. . And interesting, , interesting thing about the founder journey is like, people often use wealth as a measure of
success.
.But I think, you know, the wealth is, is simply a byproduct. Like the success comes
before
the
wealth. Mm-hmm. .
And
it's really with founders, it's like, , all you have in the beginning is this vision for the future
and what you're gonna build for
it. and you don't
necessarily have the
capabilities to be the person that's running that company in that future
state.
So part of the journey to building a company is actually like, first you have to transform yourself
before you even have the opportunity to transform what the world looks like.
and then
only after that it's like, does the, the company exist? And is the wealth created?
I actually wanted to pick up on that point, cuz you've said this before, which is like, when you
look at
a pitch,
you're really thinking, , can that founder make that
journey? Right.
Yeah. I mean, , so I,
I have a little workshop
where I do, fundraising coaching , for
founders. Mm-hmm. .
And the framework that
I use
is, there's three points in time. And those three points in time create directionality of purpose. So there's who were you, who am I today,
and who do I believe I'm going to become? And so go into the pitch
and in like 30 seconds nuts and bolts, like, who are you right
now?
Like, , what is the company? And then as quickly as possible, move towards what is the
vision for who,, who, you can become mm-hmm. .
And I think , when you're taking an investor or, or anyone really a perspective hire from that present point to that future point. either subconsciously or, or maybe consciously, they're asking themselves,
is the journey to that place
meaningful?
And do I wanna align myself with that journey? Do I wanna be
part
of
it? not because I'm kind of calculating the
ROI of getting to that place. . But is it,
Like am I willing to change , my own directionality of purpose and realign it a little bit with that founder's directionality of purpose?
Cause I just want to be part of the
journey. Yeah. And I think that
kind of you know, math from that present point to that future point is where an investor or a perspective hire or anyone really gets to a place of desire. Like the reality is people, don't pull
out their wallet unless they have a desire
for something.
Right. But
we still have to do
diligence and stuff like
that. Yeah. And so I think
once that desire point has been reached then it's time to actually look at the third dot, which is like,
where do they come from?
And you actually look under the hood and. Is there
alignment with this
founder's background, what
they've done to date in this company?
But I'm curious,
is that, does that ring true for you? When you take the first call with the founder and you're like, know, there's that, first pass
moment where it's either, it's very binary,
Yeah.
, it brings true, but I think that too often I'm thinking about what is this the vision for this company? And I think you've added on
a lot more
about
where is this founder going to be? Like the journey they're gonna have to go through, not just the journey, that company's gonna have to
center. Yeah. Before that founder
can be the CEO of a billion dollar business.
They have to become the person that's capable of running a billion dollar business.
Big transformation.
Totally. It's huge.
Yeah.
And yet I don't think you totally answered my question about like who you are becoming, like, you've done a fair amount of work on just thinking about personal brand. , how do you even, I just don't even have time in my life to think about my personal brand. Like
how do you approach
that
question?
There's a lot
to unpack there. I think like the
root of it
is and I hope this doesn't like sound, you know, too grandiose or whatever, but I think like at the root of it, it's, the mission is to advance human progress.
And
I think one really interesting thing is that I think people generally think about their life in a timeline that is their lifetime. And I think what's really interesting is like, what happens if we actually create a timeline about what we wanna accomplish that goes beyond. Our own life. And
that's actually
the reason why I love the family office stuff, because unlike, you know, a publicly traded company that's just trying to figure out how to, , pump next
quarter's earnings you know, family offices are thinking multi-generationally by
design. And you know, if you can, you can ask yourself the question of like, you know, what's possible If I think on a thousand year, 10,000 year timeline,
I think
the future, what you can envision becomes incredibly compelling. And so, you know, , my vision is to find ways to accelerate human progress on a multi-generational timeline.
And that's part of the reason why
I think that the, you know, working within the innovation economy
as either
a VC or a, founder is just, is so compelling cuz it's, you're essentially, like, you're working through this like porthole of the future. Building things that, you know, may or may not exist, 10 years from now, or could totally change the world.
Mm-hmm. .
Do you think your own experience being part of a, being a sixth generation, like,
you
know,
was that
good for
you? Hard
for you? Yeah. I mean, I think, I think,
uh, growing up with a successful father, like there was never a mandate that like
you have to be successful,
but there is this internal kind of thing where you feel like in order to be, you know, loved and respected by, my environment, I need to be as successful as, or more successful
as
they are. So there, there is that element. I think also, one of the most powerful forces in, How we become who we are is just simply emulation. It's
like, you know, we become who we are
around mm-hmm.
and, , growing up around, , generations of entrepreneurs you know, I think I just emulated a lot of entrepreneurial characteristics mm-hmm.
, and, you know, , people think that , the boardroom table is where, you know, all the information is really shared and where like , the real stuff
happens. Mm-hmm. ,
I think the dining room table is where,
you
know, the
real stuff comes out. Amazing. And just having the opportunity to observe, you know, business building , throughout my life, I think has been, been really powerful and empowering.
And, um, I think on a, you know, sometimes I ask, family offices, like, what do you think
is more
powerful? Compounding financial
returns or compounding human
capital?
And . I've never gotten the answer of that. The more powerful force is the compounding financial returns, , which is like apparently the most powerful force in the universe.
Like compounding human capital is something that's really, really powerful. Meaning that future generations are empowered to do more
because they
have access to more knowledge and more tools than the previous generation had access to.
. It's so interesting and I think how you want to empower your children is super relevant for all parents, not just like family offices. Um, I've always found the world of family office, like very black box and I guess similar to how a lot of VC is kind of black boxed to people who aren't quite in the VC world.
Yeah, yeah.
No,
it's, it goes both ways. Like I think VC is the most like
insular black
box. it's
pretty clubby
too.
Oh,
totally.
Like
in the
club
and there's so much inside baseball. It is. Um, and family offices are similar, but you know, they're also.
Generally designed to not be found.
Right. Well, I was commenting on
on earlier .
Yeah.
that's, part of it.
But yeah, you think about , the legacy economy as this like previous bell curve that's kind of, has matured in its declining and the, a future economy is being born out of the innovation economy.
Yeah. And you think about, alright, this is essentially like, creative destruction.
Like, Joseph Sumter, 1950s economists. That's like creative destruction is this incessant force
, in the economy. Where
it's like disrupting itself from within and, never ends.
Like the world's gonna be transformed.
, I don't think
there's any doubt about
that.
and so, You know, what we could visualize is like that this legacy economy will, continue like a slow decline and a future economy will be born out of it. And the question I like have is like, How efficient, how equitable, how inclusive will the transition from the legacy economy be
to the future
economy? And so I think when I think about like what is the role of the legacy economy aka like family offices or corporates or whatever, and participating in how,, what the future economy looks
like. Yeah.
You have to like catalyze some actual collaboration there. Right. but I think it, I don't think it's being done super effective to date. Like even when you look at, corporate venture capital, it tends to look like them creating their own direct investment
practices. Mm-hmm. ,
which is mostly strategic investments, which is probably not the best way to, do investing. Cuz you're asking yourself, is this company strategic?
It's like, I think CVC 2.0 is actually corporates having their own robust, like, essentially. Personalized fund to fund programs where they're actually investing in managers and
finding
ways to collaborate with those managers and then using that allocation to essentially feed an m and a
practice.
That's a really interesting perspective on the CVC in innovation. But one more personal question. I always like to ask my guests, how do your friends describe. You My wife would describe me as a, gentle giant.
Aw. Um, but also one thing about me is I'm, I'm a total introvert, and so I'm capable of being extroverted, but
only if we're talking about something that I like
talking
about.
Yeah.
So I think , my just friends, like friends that I don't have overlap, career overlap
with. Yeah.
Definitely see a different side of me that's quieter and, passive and less
like, fully engaged. Like, I'm not, I'm not gonna talk about sports. I'm Not gonna talk about the weather.
I don't do small
talk.
Me neither.
, so I mean, my closest friends are the people that I do business
with , and collaborate
with mm-hmm. and
they might describe me as, uh, as sometimes having my head in the clouds and being a dreamer. Which, you know, , I can take as, both a compliment but also as a criticism.
But yeah, that's
that's where I
exist. . I've always had this imaginary land in my head that I like to play, so,
Uh we um you said you like to play in your imaginary land.
Oh no, I'm serious. Like it,
it was, uh, imaginary land called Csco, and like every day I'd, like tell my family the adventures I had in Csoo
and I
was, yeah, it was called Cuscos and
I was
the mayor and I was a real estate developer, and I, uh, I had six dogs and like a helicopter I mean, it all happens in Kcu.
I love it.
I love it.
exit.
It's amazing.
I have found you extremely thoughtful to talk
to.
so thank
you.
yeah. Wonderful to hear more about your journey. Thanks for
coming
on the show
today.
Thank you
so much. It's been fun.