Todd and Rahul's Angel Fund Pitch Deck: Slide-by-Slide

The GP Brand as a Fundraising Asset

Todd and Rahul's Angel Fund II deck is an example of how 'Solo Capitalists' or small GP teams can raise significant capital by productizing their personal reputations. The deck does not lead with a market opportunity or a macroeconomic thesis; it leads with the people. Todd Goldberg and Rahul Vohra are the product. By the second slide, they have established deep credibility through their exits (Eventjoy to Ticketmaster, Rapportive to LinkedIn) and their current high-growth roles (Superhuman).

Slides 1-2: Identity and Track Record

The deck opens with a minimalist title slide followed immediately by the 'Founders Investing in Other Founders' slide. This is the core value proposition. Slide 2 lists their prior angel investments, which include heavy hitters like Mercury, Pitch, Clearbit, and Coda. This establishes that they already have access to the 'alpha' deals in the ecosystem before they even ask for Fund II capital.

Slide 3-4: Fund I Performance Metrics

Slide 3 provides the hard data for Fund I. It was a $7.3M fund with 42 investments. The most important metric here is the '9 markups' and the list of LPs. By listing LPs like Balaji Srinivasan and the founders of Loom and Intercom, they are signaling to potential Fund II investors that the smartest people in tech have already vetted them. Slide 4 is a placeholder for a table of markups, showing the name, markup multiple, and the follow-on lead investor. This is a standard but essential slide for any Fund II raise, proving that their 'judgment' leads to institutional follow-on capital.

Slide 5-6: The Unfair Advantage and Social Proof

Slide 5, 'Why We See and Win the Best Deals,' is perhaps the most important slide for an LP. It explains their 'distribution engine.' They cite Rahul’s podcast appearances (Invest Like the Best, Acquired) as a top-of-funnel for deal flow. They also mention 'Founder Goodwill,' specifically helping with 'waitlist management'—a nod to the famous Superhuman launch strategy. Slide 6 reinforces this with testimonials. Unlike many decks that use generic quotes, these quotes from CEOs of companies like Supabase and Levels specifically mention how the GPs helped with fundraising and product strategy.

Slides 7-8: The Strategy Shift

Slide 7 compares Fund I to Fund II. Fund I was about 'proving access and judgement.' Fund II is about 'doubling down' with larger checks. Slide 8 breaks down the capital allocation: 60% Core, 25% Opportunistic, and 15% Exploratory. This level of transparency is helpful for LPs to understand the risk profile. They are targeting 30-40 core companies with $200k-$300k checks, aiming for a 100x multiple. The 'Exploratory' bucket (15%) allows them to maintain a presence in very early or hyper-competitive rounds with smaller $50k-$100k checks.

Slide 9-10: Operations and Call to Action

Slide 9 details the fund structure. Notably, they use AngelList for their back office. This tells LPs that the GPs are focused on investing, not administration. It also lists what LPs should expect: 1-2 updates per quarter and early access to 'hot products.' Slide 10 is a simple 'Join us' with contact information.

Slides 11-16: The Appendix and Case Studies

The deck includes a robust appendix. Slides 11 and 12 are snapshots of the Fund I portfolio (redacted in some versions but intended to show the breadth of their reach). Slides 13 through 16 are 'Spotlight' slides for Daily, Clubhouse, NexHealth, and Levels. Each spotlight includes the investment stage, the markup (e.g., 9x for Clubhouse, 4.29x for Daily), and a list of co-investors like a16z and Tiger Global. These slides serve as the 'proof of work,' showing that they don't just pick winners, they pick them early—often at the pre-seed or seed+ stage.

What Works in This Deck

Specific Value Add: Most VCs claim to be 'founder friendly.' This deck specifies how . By mentioning 'waitlist management' and 'onboarding virality,' they appeal to a specific type of high-growth software founder. This specificity makes their brand defensible.

LP Pedigree: The list of LPs in Fund I is a massive signal. If the founders of the most successful startups of the last decade are giving Todd and Rahul money to manage, it creates a 'fear of missing out' (FOMO) for institutional LPs.

Clarity of Allocation: The 60/25/15 split in Slide 8 is very clear. It shows they have a disciplined approach to portfolio construction and aren't just 'spraying and praying.'

What is Missing

Exit Data: While the deck is heavy on markups (unrealized gains), there is no mention of realized exits or DPI (Distributed to Paid-In Capital) for Fund I. Given the fund's age in 2020, this is expected, but it is a risk factor for LPs.

Market Thesis: The deck assumes that 'investing in good founders' is enough. There is no discussion of specific sectors they are bullish on (e.g., AI, Fintech, SaaS), other than the tags associated with their prior wins. They are betting entirely on their ability to spot talent regardless of the sector.

Team Depth: The fund is entirely dependent on Todd and Rahul. There is no mention of associates, analysts, or a succession plan. If either GP steps away, the 'distribution engine' described on Slide 5 breaks.

What Other Founders Should Copy

The 'Spotlight' Format: Slides 13-16 are excellent. Instead of just a logo wall, they explain the 'why' and the 'result' for each key investment. Founders raising for startups can use this same format for 'Customer Case Studies.'

The 'Why We Win' Slide: Every founder should have a version of Slide 5. It shouldn't just be 'we have a good product.' It should be 'here is the specific, repeatable engine that gives us an advantage over incumbents.'

Minimalist Design: The deck uses a clean, high-contrast design that stays out of the way of the data. It feels professional and modern, mirroring the 'Superhuman' aesthetic that Rahul Vohra is known for.