“The reason they don't take some risks isn't because they got them wrong by 20%, but because they hate the median case. And they should. If you're a VC, you invest in, say, 50 companies, and you may want each of them to go 100 miles per hour against the wall, knowing the four or five who get through the narrow door will win 100x. But for an individual company, while the expected outcome would be better going 100 miles per hour, the median outcome would be massively worse. It could go from 'I end up with something' to 'I end up with nothing.' It's not irrational for these teams to protect against the downside, because they only have one life and one career.”
a16z Podcast · Startups & Venture · November 2026
Context
Asked whether single-product CEOs irrationally overweight the chance of things going wrong, Luca, who co-founded a startup that failed before Bending Spoons, says founders and VCs face different payoffs: a VC cares about the portfolio's expected return, a founder lives with the median outcome.
Transcript
50 acquisitions approximately. Yeah, maybe 60 at this point.
…your job as the CEO of a single product company. Do you think that CEOs of single product companies irrationally overweight the probability of things going wrong? I mean, if you were to go back and do your single product startup again, would you change the way that you approached your investments?
So, I mean, like I said, I did co-found a single product startup and we failed, so clearly we took a lot of risk. I think the short answer is no. I think there are probably executive teams that substantially miscalculate risks. But I think primarily the reason why they don't take some risks isn't because they got them wrong by 20%, but because they hate the median case. And they should. Look, it's like if you're a VC, and you may be better positioned than me to elaborate on this, but you may want, ultimately, you invest in, say, 50 companies. What you care about is the overall returns from the portfolio. And you may want each of these companies to go 100 miles per hour against the wall. And you know that the four or five who get to go through the door, which is very narrow, will win 100x and the others will crash and burn. Whereas if they had taken it more slowly, they would have lost the opportunity of winning, but they probably would have had better chances of being somewhat sustainable, decent businesses. For you as a VC, the more cautious approach is bad because your expected outcome gets worse and your median outcome doesn't actually get much better. But for an individual company, while their expected outcome would be better if they went 100 miles per hour, their median outcome would be massively worse. It could go from, I end up with something to I end up with nothing, right? And so it's not irrational for some of these teams…
mean, that's what I appreciate so much about what you guys do, Luca, which is that for extraordinary companies that have been innovative and have achieved scale, but perhaps haven't gone all the way to the stratosphere, they have an opportunity to keep building and creating value with bending spins.
Yeah, I think we are a very important and perhaps missing up to now element of a healthy innovation
ecosystem. Proof being that, you know, every
More from a16z Podcast
