Things We Make, Things We Grow

Leave a comment

A few months ago i was having breakfast with a mentor and investor of ours, who said something very interesting to me: “When I was young, I used to think there was a distinction between ‘things that are made’ and ‘things that are grown’. I no longer believe in that distinction, which is a profound change.”

As I thought about it, I realized I was the same way, but hadn’t realized it: on my old view, some things were made: paper, plastic, titanium, polyester, etc. And other things were grown: wine, meat, milk. But why? After all, wine is amino acids, ethanol, sulfur dioxide, yeast, and so forth. Similarly, meat is simply a cocktail of amino acids (these are important), carbohydrates, water, triglycerides and other lipids.

Where it gets interesting: to-date, most biotechnology innovation has been considered in the context of drug discovery for pharmaceuticals, and most life science innovation has been exactly what it sounds like: concerned with the design of living organisms: botany, zoology, and so forth. But an amino acid isn’t alive: it is a building block of life, an organic compound (carbon-based) but is not itself alive. What if, instead of growing meat through a womb or an egg, we just grew it in vitro, using organic chemistry? What if, instead of growing elderflower in the ground and grapes on vines, we simply put amino acids, ethanol, yeast, glucose, and other sugars into a series of chemical processes to make gin and wine?

Our initial investment in Hampton Creek over 3 years ago opened our eyes to the opportunity to use biochemistry to, at comparable and often lower cost, mimic naturally occurring processes in food. They ultimately launched a mayonnaise, cookies, safe cookie dough, and will be introducing a broad line of products which don’t contain processed eggs, but taste just as good because, in fact, the chemical processes have been recreated through pea proteins and other isolates. Since then, we have been fortunate to invest in Modern Meadow, Impossible Foods, and Ripple Foods, all of whom have created opportunities to transform the manufacturing, production, and creation process for products that would otherwise have been ‘grown’, into products that are made.

This really matters. The American obsession with cows is destroying our environment. The carbon emissions from red meat are greater than our total car usage on an annual basis. The sheer amount of land and water used for grazing fields for cows represents an incredibly inefficient use of our space and energy. And, on top of that, meat is really not that good for you.

It doesn’t stop here; in fact, the story starts here. Organic compounds and the living beings that result from them, will increasingly be made, not grown (or raised). This is an environmental win. In *many* cases, because of the sheer inefficiency of the natural processes we rely on to get the scale that consumer require, it is also *cheaper*, and every one of the companies mentioned above is less than a half decade old. It is early days for this space. The food will get ever more delicious, the leather ever more soft, the wines more complex, and our society better.

(There is a singularity, humanoid implication to this train of reasoning, but I’ll save that for next time.)

An Open Letter On Donald Trump’s Candidacy.

Leave a comment

Along with 150 of my peers in the technology industry, I signed an open letter organized by Alec Ross regarding the upcoming election. Reprinted in full below, shareable link here.

We are inventors, entrepreneurs, engineers, investors, researchers, and business leaders working in the technology sector. We are proud that American innovation is the envy of the world, a source of widely-shared prosperity, and a hallmark of our global leadership.

We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field. Donald Trump does not. He campaigns on anger, bigotry, fear of new ideas and new people, and a fundamental belief that America is weak and in decline. We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation. His vision stands against the open exchange of ideas, free movement of people, and productive engagement with the outside world that is critical to our economy—and that provide the foundation for innovation and growth.

Let’s start with the human talent that drives innovation forward. We believe that America’s diversity is our strength. Great ideas come from all parts of society, and we should champion that broad-based creative potential. We also believe that progressive immigration policies help us attract and retain some of the brightest minds on earth—scientists, entrepreneurs, and creators. In fact, 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Donald Trump, meanwhile, traffics in ethnic and racial stereotypes, repeatedly insults women, and is openly hostile to immigration. He has promised a wall, mass deportations, and profiling.

We also believe in the free and open exchange of ideas, including over the Internet, as a seed from which innovation springs. Donald Trump proposes “shutting down” parts of the Internet as a security strategy ― demonstrating both poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works. His penchant to censor extends to revoking press credentials and threatening to punish media platforms that criticize him.

Finally, we believe that government plays an important role in the technology economy by investing in infrastructure, education and scientific research. Donald Trump articulates few policies beyond erratic and contradictory pronouncements. His reckless disregard for our legal and political institutions threatens to upend what attracts companies to start and scale in America. He risks distorting markets, reducing exports, and slowing job creation.

We stand against Donald Trump’s divisive candidacy and want a candidate who embraces the ideals that built America’s technology industry: freedom of expression, openness to newcomers, equality of opportunity, public investments in research and infrastructure, and respect for the rule of law. We embrace an optimistic vision for a more inclusive country, where American innovation continues to fuel opportunity, prosperity and leadership.

On Failure

Leave a comment

Financial economist and famed venture capitalist Bill Janeway says, of the conditions for innovation: “economic growth has been driven by successive processes of trial and error and error and error.” Failure is core to the innovation economy. It is taken as an article of faith in Silicon Valley vocabulary to “fail fast, fail often”. 

A successful brainstorming exercise can be described as a process of throwing many ideas against the wall and seeing what sticks; inherent in that is an assumption that most ideas won’t stick. Venture capital funds invest in a large quantity of companies with the expectation that a substantive percentage of them will go bankrupt. To this point, there would be no Amazon, and perhaps no Google, without the dot-com bubble. Failure is a key ingredient of innovation. But something doesn’t add up.

I have failed numerous times in my career in technology. Dropping out of college was less of a triumphant moment, more of a shameful one. Shutting down a company was a statistic for the Kauffman Foundation, but resulted in broken friendships, lost jobs, and intimidating debts. Even the successes––raising millions of venture capital dollars, delighting tens of thousands of customers, growing our businesses––were chock full of insecurity, financial difficulty, and in some cases physical pain. What made it odd, most of all, was that it was very hard to admit to having failed. Everyone around me was “killing it’ and their businesses were “going viral” and their companies were “crushing it”. All the while, the panelists and speakers were talking about celebrating failure, and how important that is.

Failure is not uncommon, either: the statistics on mass incarceration, suicide rates at colleges, student debt default rates in the United States are ample evidence of this. Failure is necessary for innovation, but failure is not good. Celebrating failure, and claiming it as gospel, does a disservice to those who know it all too well; it leaves out those who are marginalized, underrepresented, and often expected to fail. We need a reframing of the conversation. We need to tell our students, our entrepreneurs, our future innovators: failure is not good. But failure is okay. And to that point, we need to make failure okay.

Silicon Valley doesn’t have a culture of failure, but of failure in the context of success. If you fail once, you haven’t failed forever. If you fail once, you can still succeed ultimately. This is an important nuance, and one that I know intimately. In the moments where I failed, my family, my peers, my investors, my bosses, and my employees, retained a conviction that things would work out eventually. In this way, the financial support, the emotional and psychological support, and the relentless optimism of Silicon Valley is the key ingredient to our innovative success. In that context, the “error, and error, and error” part of the “trial and error” is underwritten by the whole community. And those are the moments where we make things great.

Our Culture Is Evolving Us

Leave a comment

Woe be to this phrase: “We need to catch up soon!”

Found in a beautiful, if tragic, essay in the Atlantic from last fall. It talks about how adult friendships are hard!

It struck a personal note to me, on a few levels: the first, because my wife and I are entering that phase of life where we’re trying to decide if we’re going to end up in a suburb or in a city, or something else. As the debate goes, we both strongly agree we don’t need much space, but we want community, proximity to family, convenient amenities, and safe spaces for our future children. (And, crucially, racial and socioeconomic diversity.) Even now, comfortably ensconced in a Manhattan high-rise, we think about this question constantly. Homeownership is moving further and further away for those in our generation, and even if we are ever so lucky as to own, if that doesn’t change soon, in what kind of community will we raise our family?

Second, adulthood is lonely, man! I am fortunate to have very close friends from college, high school, even primary school, who I’ve kept in very close touch with over the years. We plan regular trips, communicate over the phone, plot ways to intertwine our lives. But it’s not like late-night hallways of the dormitory, or outside the dining hall before meals. Indeed, as this great Vox article posited, as I have heard in other forms before, that “The key ingredient for the formation of friendships is repeated spontaneous contact”

And then there is, of course, my digital community, which I have grown to love in its strange deformities and varying states of ‘pseudofamiliarity’. I can always trust *someone* to be viewing my snaps, favoriting tweets, or snarking in my comments section. (Never change, y’all.) I am rarely alone on the internet. And I suspect this simple fact drives more social media behavior than any other. Of course, this has dark downsides, and sometimes I feel like my digital friendships are a drug – at best, an elixir, at worst a narcotic – rather than a nutrient. Dulling the pain rather than feeding the soul. “Do it for the likes” is funny, but also kind of awful, right? My left thumb is deforming under the tyranny of the endless scroll.

So what to do?

For one, I want to see more people in person, more regularly. Pheromones and mutual laughs and shared meals are the stuff of life. When my wife and I do double dates, we have such a blast with them. On the rare occasions that we host, our home fills with warmth. Get-togethers that are transactional, ‘networky’ and professional are interesting, but not in this way. I want more real. One way I do strongly believe it can happen is through the change afoot in our physical footprints. AirBnB’s success has outpaced my very optimistic expectations, and I think that company is still *very early*. To think that we can stay in strangers’ homes all over the world at scale gives me hope that mobile technology, internet culture, and the information age can indeed revive our sense of community, can push trust back into our society. This does not come without its bumps, like any progress. But it feels like progress nonetheless. But can we bring back the dorm? Or, call me crazy, can we bring back the campfires of our ancestors? 

There are companies launching across the world experimenting with co-living: our recent investment in Roam Co-Living reflects a point of view about the future that we believe can resolve some of these issues, which I believe many of us commonly face. Roam is an international co-living subscription, where with one lease, you can live in cities all over the world. Today you can stay in Bali, Miami, and Madrid, with Buenos Aires and London soon to follow. We want community more than we think we do. The fact that new social networks relentlessly launch and find ever more creative ways to connect us is only evidence of this. And for the critical phase post-school and pre-children (and likely even for parents, though I can’t speak for them) without the church, union hall, and increasingly even water-cooler at work, we simply need people. When I reach retirement age and begin contemplating the last decades of my life, I believe these feelings will have changed in tone but not direction, which will likely be all the more intense, and with worse consequences

We are the first species which has used “culture” to affect our evolution. This has been the case for generations, and on the eve of artificial intelligence we may be reaching another inflection point. But it should serve as a reminder that our living patterns are fully of our own making; they are products of our development of agriculture, the dominance of city-states, and the persistent effects of racism. In the process, we have evolved into becoming more sedentary, socially isolated from each other, and tied to one physical location. Perhaps a series of new innovations in real estate (both how living quarters look and what they’re used for) can do something to undo the destructive aspects of this trend. Perhaps our culture can reformat our physical spaces once again, but this time for a world more reflective of our inherent ubuntu. 

On Demography and Economy

Leave a comment

Lately, the hottest topics in the technology community have been focused on municipal regulation of drones and cars, federal regulation of labor markets and health insurance, the IPO window, and the scary dominance of FANGAM. And always, it seems, there’s the topic of China and India, and their growing influence in the global technology market.

In a conversation with Morgan Housel week before last, however, we ended up taking a very different tack to our conversation. On his view, and I’m paraphrasing, if there’s any one fact that has had an outsized influence on the health of the American economy over the last quarter century, it is that the average consumer reaches their prime spending years at ~age 35, and leaves it at age ~55. The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures it as follows, below: 


It makes sense. At age 35 you are likely have 10 years of work experience, and so are a manager or director within your organization. You likely are starting a family, or may have one or two kids already, so planning on buying a home, if you haven’t already. By 55, your kids are likely no longer in the house, either in college or in many cases out of college, you are starting to shift into a lower gear, perhaps planning out retirement in the next 10-15 years, hopefully finishing your mortgage. Right.

Second piece of the puzzle: the size of this demographic – call them the ‘prime spenders’ – has not been fixed in time. As we all know, the post World War II era was a crackin’ time for babymaking in the United States. The Baby Boomers were the largest generation in the history of the country. The 1970s, not quite so much. The economy was slow, morale and confidence were low, population growth was sluggish. And then, of course, the 1980s! The LBO boom, the widespread tax cuts, economic reforms, end of the Cold War, and, well, the Baby Boomers became new parents 🙂 

There are no shortage of metrics we could use to track the ‘health’ of the American economy, but if you ran most of them against this chart (credit to Morgan Housel) I bet you’d see heavy correlation. It is, simply: how big was the prime spending population during that period? When it balloons, we do better. When it shrinks, we do worse. Simple as that.


If you layer on the waves of immigration lately, the Millennial demographic is ballooning even further. In her 2015 “State Of The Internet” report, Mary Meeker made reference to the Millennial Generation as being the cause of the rise of Uber, AirBnB, and the rest of the peer economy. We were fortunate to have caught some of this trend with our early investments in Lyft, Kickstarter, Skillshare, and others.

But we Millennials are growing up! We are thinking about families, deciding how we want to pay for our homes, making important decisions about our kids’ livelihoods, if we want to live in houses at all, which city we want to live in, and which consumer brands we’ll be putting our faith in. So what makes a Millennial different? How will we shop? Where will we want to live? Will we own our homes? Will we buy crossover SUV’s? For the next 20 years, the businesses that achieve massive scale will need to understand us very well, because these answers may determine the fate of the next decade of our economy more than who wins in November.

The big 20th century brands on which our parents grew up – Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Ritz Carlton, Chevrolet, et cetera don’t hold natural sway over us the way they did over our parents. We like intimate, authentic, local, organic, natural. We like stories that tug at our heartstrings, paint a picture of the kind of cool that internet natives recognize. We instinctively recognize that the planet is in peril at our hands, and want to put our money where our mouth is. Sustainable brands are aspirational brands. Strong social-mission resonates with consumers in this generation. We value meaning and purpose above all. 

At Collaborative Fund, when we say that we are looking for brands that are focused on values, a strong social mission, being aspirational about culture, pushing the world in a positive direction, we are speaking directly to the largest demographic in American history, who are about to become the largest prime spending group in American history. And call me crazy, but this sounds like good business, indeed.

Wait, what is “Technology”?

Leave a comment

Oxford English says: 

The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry

Merriam Webster:

The use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems

As I’ve been working on describing what it means to be a technology investor, this question has plagued me. I’ve been surprised by this, as a shallow consideration of that question lands me on “software and hardware companies”. But General Motors has 100 million lines of code in each of their cars. Is General Motors a technology company? Why is Groupon a tech company? Because the service is distributed through the internet? Warby Parker makes eyeglasses. Perhaps those were technology in the 1200′s, but surely not now, right? 

Maybe Casper is a tech company because it is venture backed. In that case, is Tuft & Needle not? What about GitHub before the Andreessen Horowitz financing? Or Basecamp/37Signals? I loved this tweet: 


My view on this has been evolving a bit, but today it stands as such: there are 20th century companies, and there are 21st century companies. A 21st Century company believes in digital distribution as a core competency. It realizes the power of a modern brand requires that it include transparency, intimacy, and a strong willingness to proactively cannibalize its business model.

As for technology, my working definition is: “a tool that radically solves problems.” After all, technology pre-dates scientific knowledge. Just like engineering is older than science and even mathematics, technology is far older, too. The printing press was once technology, as was writing — as was the wheel. If your technology is not *radically* solving a problem, perhaps it isn’t technology. Perhaps it is simply software, or simply a business on the internet. Food for thought.

Grow to Grow

Leave a comment

While in San Francisco last week, I heard a very interesting comment a few times from YCombinator founders: “our advisors set ridiculous – even unreasonable – growth targets for us, which forced us to think more creatively about how to acquire customers and solve problems.”

In each of those particular cases, the founders ended up not only finding, but dramatically exceeding those growth targets, and realizing something very new about the potential of their business in the process. Invariably, the CEO commented that they “think about their business differently now” and have a level of self-belief, and conviction, that stretches beyond simply growing well, or breaking even soon. Even asking the question: “What would it take to get 3x the number of customers next month that we have this month?” and treating it seriously could, it seemed, create conditions that accrued positively to the business.

It reminded me of an experiment a friend of mine ran with his startup – he was charging $49/mo for his digital subscription, finding that churn was reasonable and growth steady. He decided, however, to charge $1000 for it one month, to test whether his pricing was right. Incredibly, he found that he sold *more* and churned *fewer* customers. The higher price point associated the product with a premium experience to the consumer, exposed an entirely new demographic who might not have been interested otherwise, and grew his sales. It’s not a clean analogy to the growth cases, but it made me think that forcing yourself to *discover unknown unknowns* can catalyze your business in really great ways. What are the embedded assumptions you’re making about your customer and your product, and how can you create a process whereby you can uncover those quickly?

I sometimes find this hard to score with this equally interesting early stage advice: it’s best to be undercapitalized, highly focused on the experience of the very few, and disciplined around product quality. Of course, these points of view may not be mutually exclusive, and in fact leaving features *out* and extreme discipline may result in a cleaner, simpler, and thereby more appealing product experience and better growth. Moreover, an obsession with growth at all costs is not inherently good itself. After all, growth leads to bubbles, to unscrupulous behavior, and to a culture that can’t sustain itself.

But nonetheless there is, it seems, real power to thinking bigger.


Leave a comment

Venture capitalists look for momentum. It’s sometimes fickle, like an imperceptible breeze, or a fresh wind. And sometimes it’s bigger and feels more like a gust of inevitability. I would bet many investors in other asset classes look for momentum, but we particularly do. ‘Value investing’ doesn’t work in our asset class; as Om eloquently expressed, our winners are often winner take all. Our distributions follow a power law, so once a company breaks away, it’s *very* hard to stop them from becoming massive.

Every time Uber closes a marquee hire, or Lyft announces a big partnership, they are demonstrating momentum towards this end, which attracts investors, potential employees, and sometimes customers, too. A ‘startup is designed to grow fast’, and identifying the inflection points and tactics that will sustain or generate that growth is a critical component of investing.

At the earliest stages of a technology startup, when a founder is simply trying to survive, they need to make progress on engineering, product, recruiting, branding, and sometimes sales all in one. It’s hard to imagine doing these things without a million dollars and a huge team, so of course it’s daunting to figure out how to ‘start from scratch’ to get everything going.

Here’s one thing worth considering for those founders who are just starting out now, trying to figure out how to make a case to an investor about their opportunity: momentum takes many shapes. And if you rank *very* highly in any one category of momentum, this can often be more attractive to a potential investor than ranking well, but not that well, on a number of categories.

Put another way, consider focusing your energies on pulling together *the best* team of data scientists, or software engineers, or former coworkers. If you are convincing one after another ‘marquee hire’ to take a paycut (or go without pay) for the sake of your vision, you might not even have a product yet, but you are showing great momentum. If you are pushing new code every day, while you may not have found the time to hire, or may not have a brand yet, you are showing great momentum. If you’ve been able to close contracts just on a dream and a deck, demonstrating that you’l have revenue, and that there is demand for your product, you are showing momentum.

We made an investment in an e-commerce company a few years back before they had launched, in large part because the founder did something brilliant: she started running cheap (and sometimes free) ad campaigns and other tests on Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. to build an email list, and then started tracking open rates, click-through rates, and bounce rates. She compared those numbers against mature commerce brands and industry benchmarks, demonstrating that she had a strongly differentiated offering, and that she had created demand, even though she hadn’t written a line of code nor started selling anything yet.

So if you’re feeling ‘stuck’ in convincing an investor that your company warrants an investment, consider being more creative about building momentum.

Conviction In The Winter

Leave a comment

About 2 years ago I was asked by a founder during a pitch meeting, “how long do you think you’ll be in this job?”

It was the first (and only!) time I’d heard that question during a pitch and it caught me totally off guard. It was easy enough to answer (“as long as it’ll have me!”) but when I asked him why, and he nonchalantly replied: “you seem fairly young, so I just wanted to make sure you’d still be around for tough times down the line” I realized: at the point of the pitch, before the first commitment, the vast majority of founders I’ve dealt with (and when I have been fundraising myself) were laser-focused on “getting to yes”. Everything else was just details.

There are a long series of implications to a “yes” from one investor versus another. As a company goes through inevitable ups and downs, needs flat rounds, bridge rounds, inside rounds, and navigates pro rata, the conversation with the venture capitalist will continue, and “having conviction” will become all the more important. Given that we are entering the winter months (interpret however you please) I figured I would frame a few considerations to VC that I wish I had asked, or that a few of our portfolio companies have encountered, which may be worth digging into up front. Needless to say, like with any question, some VC’s may not answer all of these, but they have very serious implications on how a partner feels about the investment in your company.

What is your fund life? When did you close the fund you’ll be investing out of?
Imagine a fund has a 7-year life, and you are in year 3. This means that four years from now, that VC will be downright hankering for an outcome in that investment, even if it is just a 1x return, as they have a responsibility to return maximum possible capital to LPs within the time frame specified.

What is your “reserve” and “follow-on” policy? 
While it may feel incredibly nice to get an easy, price-insensitive convertible note today, if you don’t hit the milestones that warrant a new up-round in subsequent financings, your best bet at more capital will often be an investor already involved in your company. And there are plenty of institutional investors (at the seed and early stage) who don’t reserve, or who only follow-on in up-rounds.

How do you divide your portfolio?
With scout programs, mega-funds investing in seed, small funds doing SPV’s and overages, and the definitional bounds of the business constantly shifting, I have noticed that a number of funds internally think of some investments as “core” and others even as “alpha” and a handful as “research” or “exploratory”. These are all euphemisms in one way or another, and knowing where your investment falls within a fund’s internal calculus can make a difference in what to expect from your investors.

How big is your current fund?
We had a circumstance where a company was going through an exit, and they were realizing that a $250K investment from a $1B fund was *very* different from a $250K investment from a $100M fund or a $250K investment from a $10M fund– in terms of conviction required to get it done, enthusiasm for the company during the investment, and particularly in terms of caring how the preference stack lined up at liquidation. Their first time considering the last point came when they were negotiating the comp with the acquirer. They were shocked by how clearly those differences were playing out in each investor’s behavior.

Do you think venture outcomes are binary? Are they structured that way in your portfolio?
All venture capitalists intuitively believe in the power law and many have seen it play out (the first time it does is frankly astounding). But when push comes to shove, some investors care about ‘singles’ and ‘doubles’ in driving returns to their limited partners, and others don’t. Sometimes this has to do with fund size, as smaller outcomes can be meaningful for investors with small funds, or who have low cost basis of entry. Sometimes this has to do with fund life, as funds that need to squeeze every incremental drop they can at the end of a fund to reach their performance targets. But sometimes it is a matter of philosophy with the venture capitalist. I have seen three different venture capitalists decide to preemptively write-down, double-down, and passively wait out an investment in the same company, in the same round, on the basis of some of these differences.

Conviction from a venture capitalist doesn’t culminate at ‘yes’, it *starts* at yes. “Getting to yes” is just the beginning.

Authenticity in Business

Leave a comment

Twin brothers Sean and Kenneth Salas’ mother, an immigrant from Mexico, started a small Mexican restaurant, and over 25 years, grew it into a chain across Southern California. Over the course of this experience, she navigated the company cashflows, hiring and building a team, operational and logistics scale, and creating a brand. She ended up having to close her business and move back to Mexico, from where the brothers were accepted to University of Berkeley. They jumped into investment banking, big company CPG, and private equity in New York City. 

They are twins who learned by example, having grown up in a house with an entrepreneur and business owner as a mother. They grew up immersed in the fascinating corner of the small business universe that is Latino-owned businesses, and experienced first-hand the pain of being underbanked while trying to run a commercial operation.


When they started Camino Financial out of Harvard Business School, they knew that Latino-owned small business was among the fastest growing segments in the United States economy; they knew that persisting issues relating to immigration status disproportionately affected their community; they recognized a unique set of cultural attitudes around access to capital. They had seen the small business story play out, with a front row seat.

It’s rare to see such a large, urgent need that is so *underconsidered* as that of financing opportunity for Latinos. 68 million American adults are disconnected from the financial system in some way, and approximately HALF of all Latino and African American households are disconnected from the financial system, compared to one in five white households. And by extension, Latino-owned businesses strongly underindex in their ability to get financing, for cultural, political, and financial factors which all require a very deft touch. To that point…

I heard Sean and Kenny tell their story and describe this market, and before they had even started describing their alternative lending solution (very small loans targeted specifically at Latino-owned businesses) I was full of conviction about their future. They are telling a story from a perspective that can’t be faked. They are using instincts that can’t be taught, building brand that can’t be copied. 

When you have a recipe of true authenticity plus massive business opportunity, (not to mention a strong belief that this is an *important* piece of the new American story), you’ve gotta get involved. We are so excited to be supporting Camino Financial in their journey. Watch these boys roll!