Silicon Valley Has a Century-Old “New” Player in Town
Q&A with Kevin Ye, Corporate Venture Advisor and Partner at Mach49
Originally published on Medium, this story is part of the Entrepreneurship of Life series, a collection of interviews with immigrant startup founders, venture capitalists, and tech business leaders.
Introduction
What do Google and DuPont have in common?
Yes, they are both gigantic U.S. companies. What else?
Both have made some of the most successful corporate venture investments in history. Does this surprise you? You might know Google Ventures is a VC powerhouse, and some of its investments below are certainly familiar. What about DuPont?
In 1914 — the year World War I started, DuPont made one of the first corporate venture investments in history, and it was a home run: General Motors. The automobile startup was only six years old; over the next few years, its stock value appreciated seven-fold as wartime needs increased demand for automobiles. DuPont doubled down after the war, injecting cash to speed GM’s development, which in turn boosted demand for its own products, such as artificial leather, plastics, and paint. This mixed strategy blending financial and strategic aims would later come to define the business model of corporate venture capital, or CVC.
Despite their century-old history, CVCs had not been mainstream in Silicon Valley until around 2010, so in many ways, they still seem “new”. They also carried a checkered reputation, often perceived as slow and less competent than institutional venture investors. But this image is rapidly being redefined. Today, nearly half of US venture deals have CVC participation, and corporations from Intel to Qualcomm to Salesforce are establishing themselves as VC veterans. Even successful startups themselves — such as Slack and Snowflake — find it crucial to start a CVC early. Having simmered for over a hundred years, CVCs appear to be finally embracing their golden age.
Against this backdrop, I sat down with Kevin Ye, the youngest Partner at leading CVC advisory firm Mach49, to pull back the curtain on his field. Among other things, Kevin and I talked about:
Why is CVC uniquely exciting to him?
What is the CVC playbook?
What is the most common trap in CVC and how do you avoid it?
What does an ideal relationship look like between a CVC and its corporate parent?
How is performance measured?
While outspokenly passionate about corporate venture, Kevin also enjoys his many other hats, such as an angel investor, a startup advisor to the New Zealand government, a former Chinese A Capella singer, and a whiskey connoisseur from Tennessee. So beyond CVC, we chatted about angel investing and the decentralization of tech innovation. Reflecting on his Asian roots and Southern upbringing, Kevin also shared about how the two cultural identities fuse in him.
Kevin Ye is a Partner at Mach49, where he helps global enterprises develop world-class capabilities within startup venturing (partnering, accelerating, investing, and M&A). His specialty spans the entire corporate venture capital lifecycle, from the design and standup of new venture processes and structures to deal sourcing, negotiation, and closing. Throughout his career, Kevin has been a trusted venture advisor and extended team member for dozens of the world’s largest industry leaders, including TDK Ventures, Goodyear Ventures, Halliburton Labs, UPS Ventures, and many more.
Kevin holds dual degrees in Bioengineering and Corporate Finance from the University of Pennsylvania. Originally hailing from Tennessee, Kevin has an ingrained love for Southern food, whisky, and country music.
Corporate Venture Capital
What piqued your interest in CVC and led to this career path?
My initial encounter with CVC was partly by chance, but it quickly grew on me. After college, my first job was in management consulting. Working with corporate executives was fun and felt natural, but three years in, I wanted to see what else was out there. So I started looking into venture capital, a common “next stop” for consultants. I applied for both traditional VC and CVC jobs, not really knowing the difference. I ended up joining a boutique advisory firm that helped corporates connect with the broader innovation ecosystem, and there this journey began.
As an insider, I started to appreciate what is uniquely interesting about CVCs. I once considered them the “underdogs” in the venture game — Silicon Valley is often referred to as a “walled garden”: you need to both have a way in and know your way around, and neither was easy for CVCs at first. Too often, they either were left out of the best deals (often reserved for a small VC “inner circle”), or dragged their feet through the process, to the great frustration of the startup founders and co-investors.
However, the untapped potential of these “underdogs” was often overlooked. As a startup’s strategic partner, a corporate can lend its brand name, domain expertise, channel resources, and customer relationships. Many VCs promise their investments “value-add”, and in most cases, what adds more value to an emerging company than these things? If corporates can master the game of venture capital and become trusted partners to startups and VCs, isn’t this better for the whole ecosystem?
CVCs are maturing and moving from the edge of the stage to the center. It excites me to be part of this industry shift and help CVCs unlock the potential that they have.
Can you tell us about Mach49 and what you do here?
In early 2020, I joined my current firm Mach49, a growth engine for the Global 1000. Our founder Linda Yates grew up right here in Silicon Valley among entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, and she wants to build a bridge between this ecosystem and the broader world of traditional businesses out there. Our teams in North America, Europe, and Asia help established enterprises deploy a two-pronged playbook: Disrupting InsideOut and Disrupting OutsideIn. The former refers to internal innovation approaches such as incubation and creating new concepts from scratch, while the latter represents external options such as startup investing, partnership, and M&A.
I myself was the first hire by our Managing Partner, Paul Holland, to help develop our Disrupting OutsideIn practice. [Keyi note: Paul Holland has been a General Partner at leading VC fund Foundation Capital (Uber, Netflix, Clubhouse, etc.) for 18 years; previously, he was a C-suite executive at multiple unicorns.] The practice is relatively new within Mach49, but we expanded our client base over five-fold last year alone — in the middle of a pandemic — and continue to accelerate our rate of growth. We work with clients like Goodyear, Xerox, TDK, etc. across various industries.
How should a corporate choose its strategy: Disrupting InsideOut, Disrupting OutsideIn, or dual track?
Ultimately, a seasoned corporate should do both, as they are complementary. Every innovation or growth initiative will have its own optimal approach, and you want to have both strategies in your toolbox so that you never miss an opportunity.
That said, Disrupting OutsideIn is often the easier place to start. You can engage with most new ideas by leveraging what is in the market — there’s no point reinventing the wheel if other smart people already have traction. Investing or partnering can be flexible and can be accomplished in less time compared to incubating new ventures in-house.
Disrupting InsideOut can be a heavier weight approach that takes meaningful full-time resources. However, it could make sense for a strategically crucial concept for which no promising external solution exists. Perhaps the idea is not “venture-able” — i.e., unlikely to draw VC interest — due to hefty capital requirements. Or perhaps the barrier to entry is high but the corporate has a unique edge. For example, the corporate might have either a critical patent or the “right to play” in an exclusive field. If two startups bid for an Amtrak contract to diagnose malfunctioning rails, where one is run by several fresh university graduates and the other created by a reputable rail manufacturer, everything else equal, which one stands a better chance?
Is there synergy between Disrupting InsideOut and Disrupting OutsideIn?
Absolutely. The two teams should be constantly talking and cooperating. “We’re interested in an investment in this space. Have we attempted this before internally?” “This incubation concept seems interesting, what are you seeing in the market?” Keeping the teams in silos is a common mistake that leads to duplicative efforts, suboptimal decisions, and missed opportunities.
For a specific opportunity, how should a corporate choose among build, buy, invest, and partner?
My general advice is to “try before you buy”: avoid presumptions, test out your thesis in the cheapest way possible, and increase your bet only with a well-founded degree of confidence. If Disrupting OutsideIn is more appropriate, consider partnership before investment, and investment before acquisition. You won’t always have the luxury to go through all three steps, but if you can, you put less capital and time at risk by steadily escalating your engagement. The water testing lets you get to know the team, take a look behind the curtains, and validate the strategic benefits you anticipate before paying a lot for it.
What does an inexperienced CVC often get wrong?
Many people think sourcing and deal-making are the trickiest things for new CVCs. The truth is the most common pitfall lies within — it is a lack of internal alignment. New CVC investors commonly underestimate the amount of preparation, relationship building, and even politicking necessary within the corporate parent, what we call the mothership, to set the CVC up for success — even before they get to their first founder meeting.
Therefore, we often see corporate “antibodies” obstructing CVC success. Bureaucracies slow things down when speed is key; hard-fought investment opportunities are vetoed for the wrong reason; or the deal is done, but internal teams don’t work with the startup as you had planned. Passive resistance via noncooperation not only precludes strategic benefits from a deal, but it can also hurt the CVC’s reputation as a potential investor and partner to other startups.
What causes this to happen? Sometimes politics, other times cultural or mindset differences. You also have incentive misalignment where the CVC yields returns over a decade or longer, but the internal business units are primarily judged (and compensated) on their annual, quarterly, or even monthly performances.
How should CVCs avoid this problem?
Every case can be different, but here are some general guidelines.
First, secure top-down commitment in your organization. The CVC initiative should be championed by C-suite leaders or at least EVPs, who have the power and authority to quickly open doors and remove internal blockers as they emerge.
Second, preempt potential issues and prepare early. For example, the mothership’s internal processes might need to be revisited before startup engagement. If you need to onboard a 2-year-old startup vendor and your procurement system requires a 3-year operating history, that is a problem. The protocol would need some changes with involvement from your legal and procurement teams before you even go out to market.
Finally, understand and follow best practices. There are tried and true approaches to everything from internal support-building to investment decision-making. A seasoned advisor helps avoid unnecessary mistakes. At Mach49, we guide our clients through roadmaps developed and refined over decades of experience.
Your team often talks about how the CVC and the corporate are like a speedboat and its mothership, and that the former should be adequately independent from the latter but not lose touch. What does the right balance look like?
While it may seem like more independence means less collaboration and vice versa, it is not a simple tradeoff. You want independence in certain areas and close ties in others.
For example, a CVC should have decision-making autonomy to be fast and nimble, but it should collaborate closely with business units to ensure that they’re actively creating strategic synergies, while also being careful not to allow near-term thinking or incentives to prevent them from exploring frontiers of the industry.
In addition, a CVC should have its own team structure, compensation scheme, and titles to compete with leading VCs for talent. You want the team to have more “skin-in-the-game” than normal corporate pay structures can provide, so new instruments such as “phantom carry” should be considered. And you want your titles to send the right message to the ecosystem rather than confusion. Would a startup founder understand what “VP of Innovation” is? Maybe, but probably not. “Managing Director of XYZ fund” is a lot more standard in the market and makes it clearer what authority and mandate the person has.
It goes without saying, but a strong tie with the mothership is key to the CVC’s strategic partnerships. The CVC should be ready to pull from the corporate experts and resources that can help its portfolio companies. Without this access, it would just be a VC (and probably not a very good one) masquerading as a CVC.
While situations vary, and it’s often an arrangement that CVCs will work towards over time, an ideal CVC structure might be a legally independent fund with the mothership as its sole or primary LP. The fund would have an independent governance and HR system, plus a defined process to maintain engagement with the mothership, including regular meetings to share insights and resources. Nokia’s NGP Capital and Airbus Ventures are success cases of this model.
What KPIs should one use to measure a CVC’s performance? How do you quantify strategic value creation?
The financial KPIs for CVCs, such as IRR (Internal Rate of Return) and MOIC (Multiple on Invested Capital), are often no different from those of a traditional VC. But measuring strategic value creation, which is equally important to a CVC, can be quite tricky and there’s no “one size fits all” answer.
Ultimately, you want a set of metrics tailored to your strategic goals. You can have monetary measurements such as corporate savings or revenue increase driven by the CVC, or you can use something that drives the mothership to move forward more broadly, such as the number of new ideas explored, conversations with startups, new partnerships, or even internal teach-ins of market insight by the CVC team.
Unless balanced out by others, any metric alone can mislead or induce undesirable “indexing” behaviors. For example, if you fixate on incremental revenue from partnerships, you might be biased towards pursuing limited near-term benefits and forego moonshot ideas with longer payoff periods. Always use a portfolio of strategic KPIs that reflect the appropriate balance between near- and long-term goals for your organization.
What is your work like day-to-day?
I love working essentially two full-time jobs in one. The first one is to be an extension of my clients’ CVC team, involved closely from hiring and marketing to deal sourcing, analysis, and portfolio company support. I look at a number of deals each week like a venture capitalist would, except I need to cover all verticals rather than specialize.
On top of this, my other job is to help grow Mach49 as a young company and build our Disrupting OutsideIn team as “a startup within a startup”. I was the first external person hired into the team after Paul, and given the growth we’ve experienced over the last year, we continue to hire aggressively to keep expanding our reach and expertise. I help manage our P&L and budget, develop new service offerings, drive business development, and create internal processes to permit efficient scaling.
I am equally excited about both my roles, and the scope of my responsibilities keeps the job stimulating.
For young professionals interested in CVC, how do they break in?
You need largely the same skills as for traditional VC jobs, and you can find openings through the same channels — for example, I’m a big fan of John Gannon’s blog for posting my opportunities and seeing what roles are being filled out there. My only advice is to try and understand the difference between the two and see which path speaks to you more. CVC is less about building a personal brand as an investor, and more about driving large industry shifts that impact you and me by creating strategic value from the corporate-startup synergy.
Angel Investing and Innovation “off-Silicon Valley”
Can you tell us about your angel investing experience? In particular, what makes you bet on a specific company?
Angel investing is relatively new for me. I started last year and have made three investments, including one LP investment in a micro fund. All of my opportunities so far have come in organically through my network — some introduced me to founders, and others are founders themselves.
While I also evaluate their ideas and their market potential, the #1 consideration for me as an angel is always the founding team themselves. Great founders have their way of finding shots worth taking and pivoting out of bad ones.
Having interacted with hundreds, if not thousands, of founders in my career, I know I’d always back someone highly ambitious but also practical and transparent. They should dream big, sell passionately, but remain cool-headed and disciplined enough to tell you reality: where potential obstacles lie and what is best for the company, rather than what they think you want to hear. This can be a surprisingly rare combination of qualities to find in people, especially in an industry that so often feels like it runs on self-promotion and “smoke-and-mirrors.”
For one of my investments, I met with the founder through a VC friend and decided to invest after a 30-minute conversation. I asked him pointed questions about the business and heard honest, well thought-through responses. It gave me confidence that he has what it takes to make something work, whether it was the idea he presented that day or an entirely new one several pivots away.
You are a venture ambassador for the New Zealand government advising their startups on international expansion. As I’m sure you have witnessed first-hand, innovations are increasingly flourishing outside Silicon Valley, and Covid accelerated this trend.
Apart from a lower costs of living, which has more sway now given remote work is common, what other advantages do the emerging tech hubs, such as Austin, Denver, and Miami (taking U.S. as an example), have over the Bay Area?
If you think about it, historically Silicon Valley is best known for computing hardware and software, including SaaS. But if you look at other, newer tech verticals, many tend to cluster somewhere else and build upon the strength of homegrown industries developed over decades, if not a century. Think about Detroit and mobility tech: the city has a head start in this race thanks to all the OEMs, supply chain, expertise, and specialized talent amassed over a hundred years. For similar reasons, FinTech and AdTech find their Mecca in New York, Media Tech and CPG in LA, Healthcare Tech in Boston and Nashville, and AI and Cybersecurity in Israel.
As Covid makes remote work common practice, the tech industry is decentralizing faster. The once famous Sand Hill Road motto “I don’t invest in startups that I can’t bike to” is now a thing of the past.
The rise of Miami is an interesting case study. Earlier this year, tech professionals in San Francisco started to notice a large roadside billboard that says “Thinking about moving to Miami? DM me,” along with the twitter handle of Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. Many liked the idea of escaping the 50-degree Fog City for an 80-degree Sunshine State.
Entrepreneurs and VCs have been migrating to Miami at a growing pace since the start of Covid, but the momentum reached a critical point at the “Miami tech week” in April 2021. It was probably the biggest tech networking event of the year and yet completely impromptu. [Keyi note: the Miami tech week started out as a few loosely related, small-group local events organized via Twitter, which generated buzz in Silicon Valley and eventually drew a head-turning turnout of founders and investors.]
While how much of it was hype remains to be seen, the Miami tech week testifies to one of my long-held beliefs — that technology innovation should not concentrate in just Silicon Valley or a few East and West Coast regions. New startup ecosystems will sprout up if local governments and community builders leverage local strengths and think outside the box about incentives for both investors and startups. The Nevada Governor has even proposed allowing tech firms to establish their own local jurisdictions with power similar to those of county governments. The idea is highly controversial, but it goes to show the range of possible tools contemplated by policymakers.
Being an Asian American
You grew up in Tennessee in a family originally from Shanghai, China. How do you relate to these two sides of your cultural identity?
As my homestate, Tennessee has shaped me in countless ways, from a love for country music and whiskey to trying to embody the signature Southern hospitality and etiquette wherever I go. And I constantly yearn for the Southern food I grew up eating. The South lives in me even a decade after I left to study and work on the coasts.
Meanwhile, I’m also grateful for my family’s commitment to keep my brother and I connected to our Asian roots. We can read, write, and speak fluent Mandarin (Shanghai dialect, too), thanks to having our grandparents live with us and our mom who conveniently was a Chinese school teacher for our local community. Thanks to them, my brother and I never really had to rediscover our heritage, as we had been immersed in it since we were born.
Growing up in a mostly white area however, we knew we were different early on. For every kid, there is a phase where you just want to fit in, and any difference can feel like a burden. What I came to quickly realize is that once you grow up, nobody wants to just be a face in the crowd, and you realize that it is your uniqueness that sets you apart, and you come to own those parts of your identity with pride.
While at UPenn, you were a member of PennYo, the first collegiate Chinese a cappella group in the U.S. What was your favorite song performed?
Zhu Fu, a 90s mandarin pop song meaning “blessing”. PennYo actually took its name from the first two words of this song, ‘Peng You’, meaning friends.
My father always enjoyed listening to Chinese pop when my brother and I were growing up. Though the music style may seem a bit old-fashioned by today’s standards, I still love it as the lyrics often convey a depth and poetry that are hard to find in modern music. Zhu Fu was a song I grew up with, and the lyrics revolve around the blessing and reassurances that you want to give your friends and loved ones when you part ways. I originally auditioned for PennYo with Zhu Fu, and understandably, it felt fitting to choose it as my graduation song when it was my time to bid farewell. It served as great bookends for my college experience.
As an Asian American, what do you think is the #1 thing, big or small, that individuals in tech can do to make this group more visible?
One of the challenges about being an Asian American in tech is that our large numbers in the industry often obfuscate the more subtle issues we face. For example, the concept of the “model minority”, with beliefs such as “all Asians are good at math” or “Asians are smart and obedient,” has often been positioned as something positive for our demographic that makes certain paths easier. But a closer look at this myth reveals that it’s yet another tool that can be used for repression. Stereotypes like these are damaging despite their benign appearance, which only makes them easier to internalize unknowingly, even by ourselves. For example, the unspoken words behind “smart and obedient” are often that someone lacks assertiveness and leadership qualities. We must all stay vigilant and defy such biases to move the industry forward.
Meanwhile, just because we are not done fighting our own cause does not mean we cannot, or should not, support other minorities in theirs. We are fortunate that we have already gotten our foot in the door to some degree, and we should use what influence and positions we have to support more underrepresented groups.
What is your favorite media piece either about Asian Americans or by Asian Americans?
I find the HBO TV series Warrior to be a true gem. It is both made by and about Asian Americans. The series is based on an original concept by Bruce Lee and co-produced by his daughter Shannon Lee. The story is set during the Tong Wars in late 1870s San Francisco Chinatown, a tumultuous period with rising anti-Asian tensions that culminated in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.
The story follows early Chinese immigrants in San Francisco as they built the Chinatown, dealt with racism on all fronts, fought against mobs, and got entangled with various other interest groups. There were business oligarchs (who desired and profited from cheap Chinese labor), Irish immigrants and white Americans (many of whom felt economically threatened by the Chinese and were hostile towards them), and local government officials (who were eager to leverage racism for their political agenda). [Keyi Note: SF was the earliest major landing portal for Chinese immigrants due to the California Gold Rush in the 1850s and the Central Pacific Railroad construction in the 1860s.]
What’s captivating about the show is how its story portrays interracial dynamics from 150 years ago and yet reminiscent of what you still see today. For example, you still see more assimilated ‘old’ immigrants hold hostility towards newer ones, who in many ways are merely following their forerunners’ footsteps. Once “legitimacy” is deemed earned, the discriminated often joins the discriminators.
Apart from taking a bold shot at the complicated topic of racism, Warrior is also a Game-of-Thrones-like epic with beautifully choreographed martial arts scenes and badass Asian characters, who do not appear on the American screen nearly as often as they should. Also, since I live in San Francisco, it is fun to learn more about the city’s history, even if it’s a heavily fictionalized version of it. It better connects me to the streets I walk down today, through an interesting dialogue between past and present.
Keyi (Author): If you enjoyed this story, check out my other interviews in the Entrepreneurship of Life series (catalog with links at the end) and subscribe (for free) to get new stories delivered to your inbox. You can also find me on Twitter and LinkedIn.