Meet Tasneem Dohadwala, Founding Partner at Excelestar Ventures
Investor Spotlight
Hi FemWealth Friend,
In the new ‘Investor Spotlight’ series, meet Tasneem Dohadwala, Founding Partner at Excelestar Ventures and Managing Partner of Golden Seeds. Excited to further women’s leadership and women in business, she believes that investing in women is the best way to bring more women into leadership roles.
Tasneem’s notable investments include Augmenix (acquired by Boston Scientific), nVision (acquired by Boston Scientific), Terecircuits, Instylla, Conformal Medical, Brixton Biosciences, Sealonix, Starten, and Altiostar Networks (acquired by Rakuten). She is actively deploying capital in Series A rounds and beyond.
I had the pleasure of speaking with Tasneem about her mission at Excelestar Ventures, what she is passionate about in her venture career, strategies to close the gender investment gap, and more:
FW: What is your mission at Excelestar Ventures and what are you passionate about?
TD: First of all, Excelestar Ventures is an early-stage venture firm that invests in medical devices as well as B2B technology platform companies. So for the technology side, we do software, hardware, or a combination of both.
We’re focused on a couple of things. Number one, we really focus on whether the technology is truly innovative. Is it truly disruptive and innovative, and where are those technical advantages going to come in? We zoom into the technical details of the company and the innovation. The second thing we look at is the market size. Is the market timing right? What about the competitive dynamics? We look at all the market factors. And then the third piece we focus on is how well the team can communicate the value proposition across the whole spectrum of the opportunity and what they’re trying to do. I think if these three pieces check all the boxes and look well thought-out and compelling, and they build a really powerful narrative, then that is a tell-tale sign that the founder and the team are also very strong. So it’s sort of an objective way of also then evaluating the team because they’ve picked an opportunity that makes sense across multiple dimensions. We spend a lot of time on our due diligence. We have a proprietary quantitative and qualitative way we do our diligence, and we rely on a lot of primary research.
I’m obviously very passionate about all the things we invest in. On the MedTech side, we’re really passionate about cardiology and interventional radiology. We are also really passionate about devices that deliver therapy; we really want the devices we invest in to actually have therapeutic benefits.
On the personal side, I’m very passionate about investing in women. While we don’t solely invest in women, we definitely look for diversity amongst the team. If you come to me with a completely white male team, I’m going to raise my eyebrows at that, and I’m totally fine calling teams on it and saying “this doesn't look like a winning team.” If you don’t have diversity at the table, then I’m not sure you’re the best winning team, because it’s known that diverse teams win all the time and perform better.
When we sit on the board, we’re also able to be involved in the executive-level hiring. I really focus on making sure that I bring the most unbiased perspective to the hiring process. There are so many inherent biases that you can get plagued with, and that’s how you evaluate somebody rather than really making the process equitable and really focusing on the parameters each person needs to meet to be successful in the role. And then I make sure I ask the same questions to each candidate and give that information to my CEO in a very systematic format. When you do it that way, there are always biases that you bring to the table, but you’re able to better justify your decisions. I do think that this process brings a level of objectivity that perhaps may not have been there if you decided to just get to know them informally. Getting to know candidates informally is historically how it’s been done, and it’s why we have perpetuated the type of hiring that leads to inequities
FW: How did you get into venture capital and how did build your network as an emerging fund manager?
TD: I started in a very traditional financial role. I was at Lehman Brothers, which I would call a very old-school investment bank. It was some of the best training by fire I have ever experienced in my life. From the minute I walked in the door, it was challenging and I had to push myself way out of my comfort zone.
I came to Lehman Brothers from Wellesley College, so a liberal arts background. At Wellesley, they really empower women and make sure that you know how to advocate for yourself. So of course when I got to the job, I thought ‘I’m very qualified for this position since I’m coming from this world-class institution,’ and yet, nothing prepares you for the real world just like the real world does. I had a pretty tough managing director all throughout my time at Lehman Brothers, and I thanked them for being tough because it helped me rise to the occasion. It helped me figure out ways to learn without having all the information, and it taught me to be gritty and scrappy. Those are all things that are really important to me today.
When you talk about building your network, it was taking a lot of meetings with a lot of people that may or may not have wanted to meet with me. And then I always asked the person at the end of the meeting who else they could introduce me to. So in some ways being shameless and being hungry and really being scrappy. In this respect, I was doing everything myself. I have more support now, but I’m more than a decade into my career, and when I started– every task was conventionally up to me to deliver upon in order to be successful.
I still remember one of the partners at Matrix Partners said something really important to me, which continues to be relevant. He said, ‘look, if you’re spending more than 40% of the time in your office behind your desk, you’re not doing your job.’ So that to me means that I have to be out there meeting companies, meeting technologists, meeting investors. And if I’m not, then I’m not doing my job. So that has really rung true to me from a networking perspective.
Obviously, I had a lot of mentorship from more seasoned entrepreneurs who decided to mentor me just by doing what they do. It was amazing to get a chance to learn how these mentors did things and then be able to incorporate that into my diligence process, my study as a board member, and apply that as a best practice of what defines a really good company.
There were a lot of investors who really didn’t have to take me under their wing, but they did, and we’re still close and friends today, and I’ll still ask them for advice today. I appreciate that, because it takes a village, and you can never think that you’re going to do it on your own. So I appreciate that they mentored me and helped me discover my own way of doing diligence, and a lot of it was influenced by the way they think. I still remember being an early board member, I would always be so prepared. I would always have read all the material and really thought about it and formulated my questions, and yet the board meetings were such a valuable experience because if you were lucky enough - which I was - to be surrounded by people who had been doing it for a really long time, the biggest thing that you learned was: what questions did they ask at the board meetings? What did they focus on? What did they want to learn more information about? How did they phrase the questions, to make sure you were still being supportive, but also being inquisitive and helpful? So a lot of learning by osmosis, which is again, all things that I learned at Lehman Brothers. I had to figure out first of all, what is worth learning and how do I do that learning. These were all things I had to navigate to be successful in venture. And, you know, it’s still early days. We have a really robust portfolio with very seasoned entrepreneurs. I feel fortunate to have such experienced CEOs represent Excelestar, but on the flip side, every company has challenges. Every seasoned entrepreneur has challenges and how we navigate those challenges together is really the hard stuff, but it’s also what makes venture so exciting.
If I think about the transition between venture and tech, I realized very early on that the idea of learning about so many disciplines and then being able to be part of the story of so many different companies, is what really excited me. For example, at Lehman Brothers when I was in equity sales, I really got a chance to touch so many different accounts. I was able to learn about so many different equity stories in terms of stocks. That exciting, vibrant, fast-paced involvement in so much diversity was really what excited me. You don’t really get that as much when you’re in one company, in one role. It’s very different from being in venture, where you’re really involved in so many different things. I’m involved in cardiology, oncology, data analytics, and semi conductors - there’s a huge spectrum of things that I get to learn about and companies I get to support.
For those who are deciding between being in a portfolio company versus being in a venture firm, the thing they need to think about is: do you want to play the role of a coach? Do you want to play a supportive role? Are you okay affecting change from the sidelines? Or do you need to be on the field, playing the game? Because if you need to be on the field playing the game, the mentor role is not for you. If you’re okay coaching from the sidelines and affecting change from the sidelines, then venture is for you. When people are deciding what’s for them, that’s the way I really look at it: what’s going to excite you, and where do you think you’re going to affect more change? There’s an art to giving advice without telling them what to do. You have to be willing to walk that line and if you’re not, then I’m not sure venture is for you.
Speaking of the coach role, how do you coach your portfolio companies amid the current economic environment, and obviously the huge technological disruptions?
First of all, I support my companies by being prepared. Part of that happens during the diligence process. The reason we take so much time to run diligence is so it really helps me understand what are the opportunities for the company, what are the likely challenges, and how are we going to mitigate those challenges. That’s also being prepared for board meetings, making sure I’m reading all the up-to-date research, and looking at trends.
The second thing is trust. In the end, you have to trust that your CEO and team are the experts. That’s why you’ve put your money behind them, and if you don’t trust them to be the experts who know best, then you have a much bigger problem at hand.
The third thing is listening. Before you decide to give advice or provide support, you need to listen to what the team is doing. So if you pair preparation, trust, and listening, you’re able to support them in a really effective way.
We attend all board meetings prepared and engaged, focused on asking questions that are helpful to everybody. We also have regular check-ins with our CEOs on a quarterly basis, which is sometimes just me asking ‘how are you doing?’ because this is the long haul for them. They are living and breathing this, and sometimes, they just need to know that you are there for them. So when things are tough, they know they can come to you and you’re going to be an ally. So during the SVB crisis, I was in constant conversation with my CEOs. They knew it didn’t matter where I was in the world, I was there for them. We wrote messages to Washington to make sure that everybody knew how important it was to support these companies during this difficult time, and of course, the outcome was very positive for all of our companies.
Just generally, for these specific macroeconomic times, it’s all about preparation. Making sure our companies are thinking about if they need money - are they getting that money and have they started to raise way in advance? Making sure they are well-funded, focusing less on valuation and more on dollars in the bank. Then also trying to really understand what they are funding to - is it the right milestone? Is that milestone going to allow them to get more funding when they reach it? Have they built enough buffer that they’re not going to run out of money or run out of time? Are they giving enough time for enrollment? What are they thinking about training? It’s all about long-term planning, which is the most critical way to prepare for companies to be successful during challenging macroeconomic times.
In terms of the (technological) disruption that’s happening, I would like to think a lot of our companies are actually on the cutting edge of the disruption, which is why we invested in them. Their visionary mindset around where they think the market is going to be in five, six, seven years from now, is what we’re looking for before we even invest in them. So I always think that they’re very well positioned. We really don’t just think about the market size, but also about the market timing. When they enter the market, what are the competitive dynamics going to look like in the market? What is the revenue model going to look like in the market? So we’re looking way, way far ahead and it comes down to preparation and planning.
FW: You mentioned that you’re passionate about women in venture and in tech. Obviously, you are up-to-date with the dismal percentage of funding that goes to female founders. What do you think are some of the essential steps toward closing the gender investment gap, especially in the tech industry?
First of all, I think that a lot of funds are saying that they’re hiring women. There’s a lot of data that says if you have a woman at the table then you’re more likely to invest in women. But I think we really need to ask is: are they putting women in decision-making positions in their funds? Just hiring women isn’t enough. You have to empower women and give them decision-making power, or frankly, give them money to invest. You’re either putting money aside to invest solely in women or underrepresented minorities, or you’re putting those people in the position to be making decisions rather than just hiring them into any junior role just to say you have them at the table. So that’s step one.
The other thing is, I encourage more women to try to be an entrepreneur. What I'm seeing is that a lot of female entrepreneurs - not all, but many - want to found companies that are relevant to the female experience. I would encourage them to be bigger and bolder. Why can’t women found companies - and we have some that are like this - that appeal to all audiences? Why pigeonhole ourselves into disruptions that are only relevant to improving the female conditions? The problem is that if your primary decision-makers are men and you are just focusing your opportunity on the female experience, you’re really creating a difficult situation to get funding.
I really encourage female entrepreneurs to think broadly and to be bold, and then to really seek out women investors who believe in the same things that they believe in. And again, back to the hiring. In some ways, having more women at these companies forces the hands of the venture firms to also have more women at the table.
It’s such a complicated model, but there are so many different things we can do to improve the statistics: having women decision-makers, opportunities that are not just relevant to females, females at the C-suite level in these startup companies, putting money actually aside to invest in minorities and women entrepreneurs. I also think we have to start reimagining the workplace. The workplace was devised and developed with the white male in mind. I think COVID has disrupted the workplace completely and it’s a great opportunity to reimagine the workplace, but we need to stop saying that women need to conform to the rules of the workplace as they are. Rather, we need to rewrite the rules of the workplace together, which allows women to also thrive. There are so many things we still need to do and I think we’re doing it, but we’re just not doing enough of any of it.
Between 2021 and 2022, the money going to female founders actually declined, which is insane. To me, that means we’re just not doing enough.
And the other thing is we also need to interrogate our networks because if a traditional fund just keeps investing in CEOs that they’ve invested in before, we’re not going to solve the problem because CEOs have traditionally been white males. So maybe they need to start putting dollars aside for first-time entrepreneurs. We have to put money where our mouth is. We have to stop talking about wanting to change and actually change. The only way you change is by directing your dollars in a different way.