Execution Trumps Ideas

𝐖𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐥𝐲 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞

The founders who have all the answers aren’t always the ones who succeed.

This week, I'm examining two founders on opposite ends of the execution spectrum. One lacks perfect answers but radiates unstoppable energy, while the other has the right market knowledge but fundamental execution risks.

The difference? It all comes down to raw execution ability.

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐀: 𝐘𝐞𝐬 ✅

I said “yes” because of their undeniable potential.

Their "bulldozer energy" was immediately apparent - they knew where they were going and wouldn’t let obstacles stop them. While they didn't have perfect answers to all my questions, their background shows they can perform in different domains.

What really impressed me was their willingness to pivot. Initially focused on male fertility, they recognized that the product had low margins and limited scalability. Rather than stubbornly pushing forward, they leveraged their research and platform to expand into the broader longevity space, where potential margins and the market opportunity are higher.

The recent pivot doesn't concern me - it demonstrates willingness to adapt rather than stubbornly pursuing a failing path. Plus, their career experience provides solid downside protection even if the business fails.

This combination made it a yes.

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐁: 𝐍𝐨 ❌  

A month of consideration led to a reluctant pass.

We really wanted to make this work given the founder's strong insurance industry expertise - they had successfully built and sold multiple insurance agencies, giving them a deep domain knowledge for their InsurTech venture.

However, the red flags were impossible to ignore: they met their technical co-founder just a few months prior to the conversation. Additionally, they were planning to outsource development for over $150K to build their app - an approach I’ve seen fail in the past. The core product would essentially live outside the founding team, making iterations costly and knowledge transfer difficult.

Despite their impressive track record in traditional insurance and a business thesis I genuinely liked, this approach to building tech rarely succeeds. The founder-market fit was excellent, but the execution approach presented too much risk. If they return with in-house technical talent instead of outsourced development, I’d strongly reconsider.

This combination made it a no.

𝐌𝐲 𝐑𝐮𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐤

𝐀 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫

Q: "Is it better to launch quickly with outsourced development or wait until I find the right technical co-founder?"

This depends entirely on your business and timeline, but companies with in-house technical talent significantly outperform those relying on outsourced development, especially in the earliest stages.

Outsourced development can lead to three major issues:

1. Expensive iterations (every change costs more money)

2. Knowledge stays outside your company

3. Technical decisions made without full business context

If you absolutely must launch quickly, consider a hybrid approach: use an outsourced team to build a minimal MVP while simultaneously recruiting your technical co-founder who can eventually take ownership.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭?

𝐂𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬

Ideas are easy. Execution is everything. The balance sheet of success always shows execution as the greatest asset.

Many investors get caught up in the perfect plan, but in early-stage investing, it's all about betting on people who can execute through uncertainty. Having all the answers often means you haven't asked the hard questions yet.

Auditing more talent next week,
Will Stringer

𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤

P.S. If you found value in this entry, add it to someone else's ledger by forwarding this email. If you're that someone, subscribe here to get inside access to how I invest in exceptional people.