VC Fund Dossiers

360 Capital is one of Europe's most successful old-school VC shops that actually delivers results—their Preligens exit to Safran for €220M in 2024 and backing Exotec to become France's first industrial unicorn proves they know how to pick winners and get liquidity. Founded in 1997, they've survived multiple cycles and have the conviction to back deep tech when others chase software. Fausto Boni is a genuine operator with McKinsey pedigree who sits on boards and gets his hands dirty. The dual Paris-Milan setup gives them unique access to Southern European talent that coastal VCs miss. Their 71% seed to Series A conversion rate (92% including exits) is exceptional. Watch for their climate tech focus with the new €140M 360 LIFE II fund—they're betting big on energy transition when others just talk about it.

Adobe Ventures is basically Adobe's corporate development arm disguised as a VC fund - they're scouting acquisition targets, not building a traditional venture portfolio. If your startup fits their ecosystem, you get incredible platform access and potential acquirer interest, but don't expect them to lead rounds or fight for you against other acquirers. Scott Belsky brings real credibility and founder empathy, but remember that Adobe's strategic interests will always trump pure financial returns. They're great for martech and creative tool companies that want Adobe partnership, but probably not your best bet if you're building something completely orthogonal to their business.

This is a classic Nordic operator-turned-investor story done right. Maria Ahr brings serious Goldman pedigree and operational chops to a fund that has genuine conviction in the Northern European tech ecosystem. Their track record speaks volumes - Trustly became a fintech giant, Mentimeter is a SaaS darling, and Acast went public. What makes them different is they actually stick around post-investment and take board seats across their portfolio. The Goldman connection gives them real credibility with later-stage investors when it's time to scale. However, they're not writing massive checks - typical investments seem to be in the $3-10M range, so don't expect them to lead your Series B.

Amadeus is one of the rare VCs that actually walks the walk on deep tech—they've been at it since 1997 when most funds were still figuring out what the internet was. As one founder, whose startup ContactEngine was acquired by NICE Systems, put it, landing investment from Amadeus meant securing one of "the best VCs in our space." Hermann Hauser's track record speaks for itself (he basically created ARM), and Anne Glover has built this into a proper institution. They are active investors who commonly take board seats and provide strategic advice, recruitment support, and introductions to international networks and corporate partners. The firm prides itself on being supportive yet measured, understanding when to step back and let the founders steer their company. The exit track record is genuinely impressive—multiple billion-dollar outcomes across different cycles. But here's the rub: they're extremely technical and will grill you hard on IP and defensibility. founders should be prepared for rigorous technical due diligence from Amadeus's experienced partners, many of whom bring a deep scientific background themselves.

American Express Ventures is the classic corporate VC play - they write decent checks but the real question is whether you want AmEx as a strategic partner. If your business could benefit from AmEx's merchant network, customer base, or payments infrastructure, they can be genuinely valuable beyond just capital. The team is professional and knows their lanes, but like most corporate VCs, they move slower than pure financial investors and every deal gets scrutinized through the lens of strategic fit. They're not going to lead your round or fight for you in a down market the way a traditional VC might, but they're solid co-investors if the strategic alignment makes sense. Don't expect them to be your primary champion.

Anthos is the definition of a focused, disciplined fund that actually knows their lane and stays in it. Raj Kapoor and team have legitimate enterprise software chops and don't chase shiny objects or trendy sectors they don't understand. They're genuinely helpful on enterprise sales strategy and have real relationships with CISOs and CTOs who can be early customers. The downside? They're pretty conservative on valuations and won't get into bidding wars, so if you're hot and have multiple term sheets, they might not be your highest bidder. But if you want investors who will roll up their sleeves and help you build a real business rather than just pump up your next round, they're solid.

Armilar is the real deal - they've backed three unicorns (OutSystems, Feedzai, Sword Health) and have genuine deep-tech credibility spanning 25+ years. Their track record of generating returns is grounded on backing founders throughout their journey, not just writing checks. However, they work on 16 percentage points less than the average amount of lead investments, meaning they're selective but might not always lead your round. The fact they successfully raised €120M in 2025's brutal fundraising environment speaks volumes about LP confidence in their returns. The senior team has been working together for a decade with 60+ years of cumulative VC experience - this isn't a new fund with untested dynamics.

Axon is that rare breed - a publicly traded VC (BME: APG) with €685 million AUM that actually knows what they're doing. With 1 unicorn (Forto), 7 IPOs, and 11 acquisitions in their portfolio, they've got the track record to back up the hype. The dual consulting-investment model is either genius or a distraction - it gives them deep sector insights but might split focus. Francisco Velazquez landing on the EU Innovation Council board shows they have serious Brussels connections, which matters for regulatory-heavy sectors. They're heavy on Spain/Southern Europe but expanding globally, so perfect if you're a Spanish startup needing local expertise and international ambitions. The climate tech push feels authentic given their track record, not just trend-chasing.

B Capital is basically BCG's VC arm with Facebook money backing it. The BCG connection is their real differentiator - they can actually open enterprise doors that most VCs can't. Raj Ganguly is the operational heavy lifter while Eduardo provides the Silicon Valley credibility. They're genuinely helpful on sales strategy and international expansion, especially into Southeast Asia. The downside? They can be pretty hands-on and expect you to leverage their consulting network, which isn't for every founder. Also, their enterprise focus means consumer startups might feel like second-class citizens.

This is the Bertelsmann money machine with Chinese characteristics - Annabelle Long built one of China's most successful VC franchises from scratch and it shows. Since 2008, she's led the team to achieve more than 18 IPOs and more than 40 unicorns, including Linklogis, Lexin, NetEase Cloud Music, SF Intra-City, Stori, Keep, PingCAP, Mobike, and others. The Bertelsmann backing gives them patient capital and global network access that pure financial VCs can't match. They're genuinely good at spotting Chinese companies that can scale globally - see Stori becoming Mexico's newest unicorn. Long is old-school media savvy (started as a TV anchor) which translates to strong founder relationships and board presence. The downside? They're betting heavily on China-to-global expansion at a time when geopolitical headwinds are only getting stronger, and their sweet spot might be getting squeezed by rising US-China tensions.

Baird Capital is the investment arm of a major investment bank, which cuts both ways. On the upside, they have incredible deal flow from Baird's banking relationships and can actually help with M&A when you're ready to exit. They're also not fundraising every few years like independent funds, so they're patient capital. The downside? They're not exactly known for taking big swings on unproven markets - they like profitable, predictable businesses that fit neat categories. Their sweet spot is being the growth capital for companies that are already working but need fuel to scale. Don't expect them to lead your Series A or get excited about your moonshot AI idea.

Ballistic is what happens when enterprise software VCs get really serious about cybersecurity. They actually understand the technical nuances and aren't just riding the security hype wave. Their partners have real operational experience and can open doors at large enterprises. The downside? They're highly selective and move slowly on deals outside their core thesis. If you're building anything security-adjacent but not pure-play cybersecurity, they'll probably pass quickly.

Battery is the rare VC firm that actually knows what they're doing with industrial tech and vertical software — not just another fund chasing consumer trends. Their partners have genuine operating experience and they stick around post-investment. The downside? They can be painfully slow to make decisions and their process is more rigorous than most founders expect. They're also not the fund to go to if you want quick checks or flashy brand names. But if you're building boring software that makes real money, particularly in industrial or B2B contexts, Battery gets it in a way that most Sand Hill Road firms don't.

This is KBank doing corporate VC right – they actually understand the synergy game. They're laser-focused on startups that can integrate with Thailand's largest bank, not just spray-and-pray investing. Thanapong has serious street cred and real exits under his belt, which matters more than most founders realize. The sustainability angle through their Impact Fund isn't just ESG theater – they're putting real money ($17M+ deployed) behind climate tech. Four unicorns in their portfolio including Grab and NIUM proves they can spot winners early. However, being a corporate VC means they move slower than pure-play funds, and you'll definitely be expected to play nice with KBank's strategic interests. Joy deLeon adds solid finance chops and international perspective, but the team is still relatively small for a $255M fund.

BIP is the rare regional fund that actually punches above its weight class. David Cummings built serious credibility with the Pardot exit, and they've parlayed that into a legitimate Southeast franchise. They're genuinely helpful post-investment and won't try to relocate you to Sand Hill Road. The catch? They can be pretty selective and sometimes move slowly on decisions. Also, while they talk a good game about supporting underrepresented founders, their portfolio still skews pretty traditional. If you're building B2B SaaS and want investors who understand the business without the Silicon Valley ego, they're worth the conversation.

They've delivered 20%+ annual returns since 2014 with portfolio value exceeding SEK 7B, but here's the reality: they rebranded from Bonnier Ventures to Bonnier Capital to signal they're moving upmarket to bigger, later-stage deals. The 'we're different because we're not a fund' pitch is real - they have patient capital from the 200-year-old Bonnier media empire. They lead fewer deals than average but exit more often, suggesting they're selective but effective. The Bonnier Group network can genuinely open doors, especially in media and Nordic markets. However, team is only 6 people for a portfolio this size, so don't expect hand-holding.

This is the corporate VC arm of a massive government consulting firm, which is both their superpower and their limitation. They're incredibly well-connected in federal circles and can open doors that traditional VCs simply can't touch. Portfolio companies get access to Booz Allen's 29,000+ employees and deep government relationships. However, they're not your typical Silicon Valley fund - they think in government timelines, move more cautiously, and their investment committee includes corporate stakeholders who may not understand startup urgency. Great if you're building dual-use tech and need government validation, but don't expect the same hustle mentality as pure-play VCs.

Bow River is a solid regional PE shop that punches above its weight in healthcare and B2B services. They're genuinely hands-on operators, not just check-writers, which is refreshing but means they want real control and input into strategy. Paul Reilly and team have built a reputation for being founder-friendly within the constraints of PE economics, but don't confuse this with VC-style minority investing. They're looking for businesses ready for institutional ownership and operational scaling. If you're a healthcare or B2B services company in the Mountain West looking for growth capital with operational expertise, they're worth talking to.

Bright Pixel is basically Sonae's corporate venture arm with €250M deployed across 60+ companies, which sounds impressive until you realize they're essentially a retail conglomerate trying to stay relevant in tech. The good news: they have four unicorns including Feedzai and Arctic Wolf, proving they can spot winners. The reality check: as a corporate VC, they're always going to prioritize strategic value over pure financial returns, which means potential acqui-hire pressure down the road. Their team seems genuinely knowledgeable about cybersecurity and retail tech, but founders should expect longer decision cycles and more stakeholder management than with pure-play VCs.

Bvalue is solid if you're a CEE founder or want access to that market, but they're not going to wow Silicon Valley with their network. They actually know their region well and have produced some legitimate exits, which puts them ahead of most regional European funds. The partners are former operators who get their hands dirty, but don't expect them to open doors in SF or lead your Series B. They're best as a local champion who can help you navigate Polish/CEE expansion and provide tactical support. The fund size means they can't write big checks, so plan accordingly for future rounds.

Capital One Ventures is the corporate VC arm that actually behaves like a corporate VC arm - meaning they're laser-focused on strategic value, not just financial returns. They're solid partners if your startup could genuinely benefit from Capital One's customer base, data, or banking infrastructure. But don't expect them to lead rounds or move quickly - they're methodical to a fault and everything gets filtered through 'how does this help Capital One?' The upside is real operational support and potential acquisition interest. The downside is they'll ghost you if the strategic fit isn't obvious, and their investment committee moves at big-bank speed.

This is Narayana Murthy's family office, which means you're getting the Infosys playbook applied to venture investing - obsessive focus on corporate governance, process over charisma, and long-term value creation. Corporate governance has been at the forefront since day one, with reputation protection being a key priority for this family office. Padaki is notably disciplined on valuations and won't chase inflated deals, warning that struggling startups are selling at 30-40% discounts. They explicitly push founders to build original solutions rather than copy Western models, focusing on global competitiveness and job creation in India. The manufacturing thesis expansion feels strategic given India's moment, but this isn't a fund that'll coddle you through governance issues or overlook fundamentals for growth-at-any-cost narratives.

Here's the thing: CBRE doesn't actually run a traditional VC fund called 'CBRE Ventures.' They're a massive brokerage doing corporate venture investing to stay relevant in the proptech wave. Their approach is tactical - they throw money at companies that can make their brokers more efficient or give them data advantages. The $100M VTS investment shows they're serious about buying rather than building. Connor Hall seems sharp and well-connected in the ecosystem, but Vikram Kohli just left after 31 years, which creates some uncertainty around their tech strategy continuity. They're basically trying to tech-enable a traditional brokerage model rather than disrupt it.

CCV is the rare fund that actually delivers on its unicorn promises — 35% unicorn formation rate in first decade is legit eye-popping. Wei Zhou's KPCB pedigree runs deep and founders seem to genuinely respect his operator-first approach rather than typical VC interrogation style. The Ximalaya exit to Tencent for $2.4B shows they can navigate complex China market dynamics and actually get liquidity when others can't. But here's the thing — they're effectively a one-man show built around Wei's personal brand and network. CCV is the A-round leading investor in 80% of its investments which means they're conviction-driven, not spray-and-pray. The 'go global' messaging feels forced given their China-heavy portfolio, and you're basically betting on Wei's continued Midas touch in an increasingly challenging cross-border investment environment.

CDH is old-school China PE royalty with genuine institutional chops - these guys were making deals before most VCs knew where Beijing was. The founding team has been together for 30 years and actually knows how to execute massive, complex transactions (see: $7B Smithfield acquisition). They're not flashy Twitter VCs - they're the fund you want if you're a serious company needing serious capital and operational expertise. The downside? They move slow, do extensive diligence, and if you're not already a market leader or clear path to becoming one, you're probably not on their radar. Also, heavy China focus means geopolitical headwinds affect everything.

CDIB is Taiwan's legacy PE giant trying to evolve into a modern institutional player - think of them as the KKR of Taiwan, but with more government ties and less global polish. William Ho's CVC pedigree is legit and they've got serious capital ($25B+ AUM), but this is fundamentally a relationship-driven, Taiwan-centric shop that happens to have some Silicon Valley exposure. The 'China Plus' strategy sounds fancy but really means 'help Taiwanese companies expand to China and vice versa.' They're conservative, well-connected in Asia, and have genuine operational expertise in traditional industries, but don't expect the cutting-edge thesis or hands-on value creation you'd get from top-tier US funds. If you're building in hardware, manufacturing, or need Asia expansion, they're solid. If you're doing pure software or need Silicon Valley connections, look elsewhere.

Here's the thing nobody tells you about Chengwei: you're not just getting an investor, you're potentially getting entangled in one of China's most politically prominent VC personalities. Eric Li founded the nationalist news site Guancha.cn and serves on boards at China Europe International Business School. Despite the nationalist rhetoric, the fund represents a marriage of Chinese and American elites, with early investors including Donald Rumsfeld and Yale University. Data shows they're 19 percentage points more likely to achieve exits than average VCs, but 20 percentage points less likely to lead rounds. They prefer to follow rather than lead, which can be good or frustrating depending on what you need. The political connections cut both ways - great for China market access, potential baggage for global expansion.

CGC consistently wins entrepreneur popularity awards, with Haiyan Wu specifically recognized for being founder-friendly. They manage $1.2B across RMB and USD funds since 2006 and have genuine sector expertise rather than generalist spray-and-pray. Wu Haiyan's recent comments about missing DeepSeek but leading SiliconFlow's round show they're still hunting for AI alpha. They claim to 'proactively assist with talent acquisition and go-to-market strategy' - and their enterprise software wins suggest they actually deliver on operational support. The risk? Their thesis that 'consumer opportunities are saturating' might be early and their bet on enterprise/B2B could face headwinds in China's slowing economy.

Cisco Investments is the classic corporate VC - they're shopping for their parent company, not optimizing for pure financial returns. The good news: they have deep pockets, patient capital, and can open massive enterprise doors. The reality check: you're essentially auditioning for an acquisition, and if Cisco decides to build instead of buy, you might find yourself competing with your investor. They're professional and well-connected, but don't expect them to fight for your independence if Cisco comes calling. Best case scenario: you become the next Duo Security (sold for $2.35B). Worst case: you get caught in Cisco's strategic shifts and left hanging.

Citi Ventures is corporate VC in its purest form — they want strategic value first, financial returns second. If you're building something that could integrate with Citi's massive customer base or banking infrastructure, they're golden. But if you're looking for pure venture capital behavior, you'll be frustrated. Decisions move at bank speed, not startup speed. They're great at opening doors within Citi and providing regulatory guidance, but don't expect them to lead rounds or move fast. The team is competent but constrained by corporate bureaucracy.

Columbia Capital is the rare VC that actually knows how to sell to the government - and that's both their superpower and their limitation. If you're building something that touches federal agencies, healthcare systems, or heavily regulated markets, they're legitimately one of the best checks you can take. Their rolodex is insane and they'll get you meetings that would take years to land on your own. The flip side? They're pretty rigid about business models and go-to-market strategies, and if your product doesn't fit their government-contractor playbook, they might try to force you into it. They're also notorious for being very hands-on post-investment - some founders love the support, others feel micromanaged. Not the fund for consumer plays or bleeding-edge tech, but if you're in their wheelhouse, they're operator-investors who actually operate.

Comcast Ventures is the definition of strategic capital done right - they actually deliver on the corporate partnership promises that most strategic VCs just talk about. If your product can integrate with NBCUniversal content, Xfinity services, or Comcast's advertising stack, they'll open doors that pure financial VCs simply can't. The flip side is they're laser-focused on strategic fit, so don't waste their time if you can't articulate clear synergies. Their check sizes are meaningful ($5-25M range) and they move fast when they see strategic value, but they'll pass quickly if the corporate angle doesn't make sense.

Contrary is legitimately different from other VCs — they actually back founders from unexpected backgrounds and geographies, not just Stanford dropouts. Eric Tarczynski has real conviction and moves fast, but he's also known for being extremely hands-on to the point where some founders feel micromanaged. Their sourcing is genuinely impressive and they'll take meetings others won't, but expect intense diligence and strong opinions on strategy. They've had some real winners, but their portfolio construction can be scattered across stages and sectors.

Cue Ball is old-school Boston VC done right - they actually know enterprise software and aren't just throwing money at anything with 'AI' in the pitch deck. Their partners have real operational experience and their portfolio companies generally speak well of them post-investment. They're not flashy or brand-name, but they write meaningful checks and stick around through the hard times. The downside? They can be slow to make decisions and their Boston-centric network might limit your access to West Coast talent and follow-on investors. If you're building boring-but-profitable B2B software, they get it.

DCM is a solid, no-nonsense shop that actually helps you scale internationally if that's your thing. They're particularly strong if you're building B2B software and want access to Asian markets - their network there is legit. Jason Krikorian is sharp on product strategy and won't sugarcoat feedback. The downside? They're not the flashiest name on your cap table, and their marketing game is pretty weak compared to peers. They tend to be methodical rather than aggressive, which is great for steady builders but might frustrate founders who want rapid-fire decision making.

DTC claims 95th percentile returns performance compared to early-stage VC firms - that's either the real deal or excellent marketing. The corporate VC advantage here is real: they're connected to Dell's massive enterprise platform with Fortune 1000 customers, world-class technologists, and partnerships. Founders consistently praise their enterprise sales knowledge and ability to land large customers through Dell introductions in early days. No dedicated fund size gives them flexibility on check size and stage, they've invested $1.8B across 165 companies, make 15-16 new investments annually. The downside of corporate VC applies: they're ultimately strategic investors serving Dell's interests, not just financial returns, so expect them to push for partnerships and integrations that benefit the mothership.

These folks are the real deal in supply chain investing — they're the country's only logistics technology venture capital fund and have grown from an idea into one of the largest venture funds in the Southeast. Kline Hill Partners bought a significant stake in Fund I creating returns over 4x and signaling strong conviction in Dynamo's portfolio, with overall performance placing the fund in the top decile of its vintage. The operator backgrounds are legit — Ted Alling and Barry Large built a logistics company that sold to UPS for $1.8B, so they actually know this space inside and out. They promise speed and clarity, claiming they can move from first meeting to term sheet in four weeks or less. The downside? If a business does not check one of these boxes they are not the right investors for you. Given the background of the fund's founders, the company will always be slightly more biased towards the supply chain — so if you're not squarely in their wheelhouse, don't waste your time.

Edison is what growth equity looked like before everyone went insane with valuations and spray-and-pray tactics. They call themselves 'old-school' and disciplined, focusing on 'thoughtful, high growth, but not growth at all costs.' The Edison Edge platform isn't just marketing fluff — founders actually rave about it, with more than 90% of portfolio companies actively engaged and averaging 70-80% annual revenue growth. Being named to Inc.'s Founder-Friendly list for five straight years isn't an accident — they genuinely seem to care about operators over financial engineering. The catch? They're picky as hell and focus outside Silicon Valley, so if you're not in their sweet spot of $10-30M revenue fintech/healthcare/enterprise software, don't waste their time.

Each partner makes just one investment annually and the whole team works on every deal - this isn't marketing fluff, it's their actual model and they have zero partner turnover with sustained support throughout your journey. The founder testimonials are unusually specific and glowing, suggesting they actually deliver on the white-glove treatment. Eric Yuan calls them 'family' and says they were Zoom's first Silicon Valley institutional investor. However, their selectivity is real - only 5-7 deals per year means you're competing against the entire enterprise software universe for their attention. Co-founder Jason Green stepped back in 2021 after 30 years, so you're working with the next generation, though Gordon Ritter is still very active and made Forbes Midas List four times.

Emergence Capital is the definition of conviction-driven investing—they've mastered the art of going all-in on a tiny number of bets and hitting home runs. Their one-investment-per-partner-per-year model isn't marketing fluff; it's real, and founders feel the difference. The Zoom and Veeva wins created generational wealth and cemented their reputation as B2B SaaS kingmakers. What's impressive is their zero partner turnover culture and internal promotion track record—Jake Saper and Santi Subotovsky both worked their way up, creating genuine institutional knowledge. They're obsessed with AI-enabled services and 'deep collaboration' themes, sometimes to a fault—they can get thesis-heavy and miss opportunities outside their framework. Post-investment, they're genuinely helpful operators who understand enterprise sales motions and hiring, not just check-writers.

F-Prime is what happens when you take Fidelity's $2 trillion checkbook and 50+ years of VC experience and point it at early-stage companies - they're one of the few funds that actually creates companies from scratch (30+ times) rather than just writing checks to existing startups. "I have seen the F-Prime team at work from the perspective of a founder and as a venture partner," Eric told us. "They have a massive wealth of knowledge and supportive resources at their disposal. If they aren't able to help portfolio companies with a problem, they almost certainly know someone who can — and they're always happy to make the introduction." The "technical-risk-yes, regulatory-risk-no" filter is smart - they'll back CRISPR but avoid antibiotics. Their healthcare track record is legitimately impressive (Toast, Flywire, Beam, Denali), and having no external LPs means they can be patient capital when others are panicking. Stephen Knight has been there 20+ years and knows what he's doing.

Fifth Wall operates with an unprecedented platform of 115+ strategic LPs spanning the world's largest real estate owner-operators, creating powerful network effects where portfolio companies gain access to vast distribution channels and pilot opportunities with real-world customers. Their LPs are the 'must have' customers for real estate tech companies, and their adoption can be game-changing, which means Fifth Wall doesn't spend much time on deal sourcing as top deal flow is typically referred to them. With 19 unicorns, 6 IPOs and 21 acquisitions including Opendoor, Lime and ClassPass, they've proven the model works. The downside? Glassdoor reviews mention hard, long hours and high pressure, and their consortium model means they're heavily tied to traditional real estate players who might be slow to embrace truly disruptive innovations. If you're building something that threatens their LPs' business models, this might not be your fund.

Fin Capital is the real deal - they're "FinTech Nerds with Capital" who've scaled from $0 to $1B AUM in three years, which is genuinely impressive momentum. Their strict focus on repeat founders in fintech greenfields means they're not fucking around with first-time entrepreneurs or copycats. The AI-driven sourcing infrastructure they built (called "Lighthouse") suggests they're actually using their own tech stack, not just investing in it. The SMBC partnership putting Logan and Christian on the investment committee of a $300M fund shows they've got serious institutional credibility. However, with 129+ companies in their portfolio and only making 4 investments in 2025, they might be getting pickier as they scale - could mean longer decision cycles for new founders.

First Analysis has earned serious street cred - University of Chicago's Steven Kaplan calls them one of the best early-stage investors in the Chicago area, noting 'He makes investments he understands. He sticks to his knitting.' With 40+ years of expertise and $880 million invested, they're the greybeards who actually survived multiple cycles. Their secret sauce is combining VC with transaction advisory - they see deal flow from both sides of the table, which gives them market insights that pure-play VCs miss. Their track record speaks volumes: 16 IPOs and 77 acquisitions including Upwork, Pluralsight and Equifax. But here's the founder-friendly reality: they're methodical operators, not swing-for-the-fences types, which means they'll work with you to build sustainable businesses rather than push for hockey stick growth that might not be realistic.