The Exchanges

Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on four things from 1 to 5: directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow), precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean. Full method →

Nat Frazier no published score: no usable exchanges on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ record → ← everyone

Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5. An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression. The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.

clear all ✕

2exchanges match

0on raw tape

0redirected or not addressed

Nat Frazier ▶ 6:54 · Justin Fishner- Wolfson - 137 Ventures (Manager Meetings, EP… · Dec 23, 2021

Answered produced feed D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 5 5.00

Q What is it about the principles that made you comfortable that they would be able to implement the strategy?

A Well, We saw them execute, and we saw the portfolios play out. I remember one of the interesting case studies was an investment they made in Uber. And so this was actually a loan they extended to an individual with an Uber, collateralized by Uber shares. And after Uber's IPO, if you recall, that stock sold off pretty significantly. And for a period of time, several of the late-stage VC investors, I think it might have been in the Series E, Series F valuations, were underwater. The preferred structures that they had entered into the company within all converted to common equity. And when the common equity sold off, they were in a bad way. Whereas one three sevens loan with this individual counterparty had collateral that survived the IPO and kept them money good to a depth of stock price that fortunately the company never saw. It was like, wow, that is really different. That is really unique.

AI assessment note: “We saw them execute, and we saw the portfolios play out.”

Nat Frazier ▶ 5:54 · Justin Fishner- Wolfson - 137 Ventures (Manager Meetings, EP… · Dec 23, 2021

Answered produced feed D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 4 4.85

Q How'd you go about underwriting a new strategy like that when you first invested?

A When I first heard about it, it stood out as, as unique, and it was one that we flagged as wanting to get to know. The underwriting took place over years. I flagged this strategy way back in 2014. We actually have some friends up the street in Boulder with a multifamily office called Crestone, who were early supporters of one, three, seven, and it worked out very well because one, three, seven would come to town to visit Crestone. We had several occasions to hear the story, meet the partners, and just various opportunities to build conviction over the years, and, and was able to conduct longitudinal diligence over this getting to know you Process. And then as it looked like we might have a room in the portfolio for their new fund, we really ramped up our diligence and started reaching out to some of their counterparties, CEOs and founders of these businesses. We talked to other players in the secondary space and really understood how what one three seven is doing is different from most of the market.

AI assessment note: “The underwriting took place over years. I flagged this strategy way back in 2014.”

The Exchanges

Turn any episode into a week of clips.