Rob Lacher on Building a Venture Firm and Europe’s Entrepreneur Networks

Rob Lacher, founder of Visionaries Club, tells Harry Stebbings that Europe’s family businesses collectively offer domain knowledge, capital and supply-chain access that could support a distinctive technology ecosystem. He calls that network ‘our Google’—an analogy and investment thesis, not a claim that it is one company.

Lacher began in consulting, founded a mobile business later sold to Zalando and became an angel investor. With friends, he started La Famiglia as a roughly $40 million seed fund investing in B2B companies. His interest was connecting digital founders with established family entrepreneurs.

He first encountered venture capital at university and thought it would be a wonderful job much later in life. Angel investing led him into it in his twenties. He says he still manages La Famiglia’s first fund, which had not yet returned ten times its invested capital at the time of the discussion, though he says it was performing well.

Lacher says leaving to found Visionaries was difficult after investing so much in La Famiglia. He wanted to build a venture firm for decades and believed the partnership needed a sustainable working fit. His new partner Sebastian had been a friend, collaborator and investor in the earlier fund.

Complementary partners can improve a firm, Lacher says, but they also need alignment on purpose and how they work. He advises prospective partners to discuss their motivations, strengths and weaknesses honestly before committing to a long-term relationship.

He considers himself both an entrepreneur and an investor. Building the firm means creating a team, strategy and operations from scratch while finding and supporting companies. That combination, he says, is why he prefers building his own firm to joining another as a partner.

Lacher identifies hiring as particularly difficult: venture investors need intelligence, humility and vision, as well as non-linear thinking. Visionaries prefers young, hungry people without established venture habits, in his account, rather than simply reproducing the practices of other funds.

Founders initially do every job themselves, but eventually must delegate as the portfolio grows. Lacher says Visionaries gives hires a defined job for about half their time and freedom to develop their strengths and improve the firm with the remainder.

He cites Lisa, who joined as an intern intending to work on investments. After seeing her connect with founders and the investor network, the firm asked her to experiment with building its platform. Lacher credits her with developing events and relationships across the network.

Stebbings asks about candidates seeking high salaries and bonuses. Lacher says Visionaries pays less than some large funds but shares carried interest and offers faster progression to people willing to build with it. He presents this as his firm’s preference; future carry is contingent on fund outcomes, not guaranteed compensation.

For new managers, Lacher says a clear reason for the market to need the fund matters. He cautions against filling a portfolio with fashionable deals simply because other investors have validated them. Stebbings notes that access to popular rounds can help demonstrate access to limited partners; Lacher suggests a blend.

The two compare broad seed portfolios with concentrated ones. A broad strategy can increase the chance of holding an outlier but a small initial ownership stake may limit the contribution to a large fund. Concentration increases the cost of mistakes, while a few large outcomes at meaningful ownership can drive returns; the examples are hypothetical fund math.

Lacher says Visionaries aims for 10% to 15% ownership in 80% of its seed portfolio and leaves 20% for exceptional situations with different structures or smaller positions. He prefers five to ten investments a year and more time with founders over a very large portfolio. Ownership targets do not establish eventual returns.

Visionaries has entrepreneur investors on both sides of its network: digital founders and owners of established family businesses. Lacher says roughly 60% to 70% of sourced deals come through those networks, which also supply expertise when evaluating companies. This is his estimate of his own firm’s sourcing.

The firm focuses on pre-seed and seed, then early growth around Series B and C, while largely leaving Series A to other investors. Lacher calls Series A crowded and says family-business contacts can be especially useful once B2B companies are expanding their customer base. Visionaries seeks to complement lead investors with $5 million to $10 million growth checks.

Lacher says the current seed fund reserves 60% of capital for follow-ons and allocates 40% initially; the latest fund was $150 million. The firm had not changed its existing reserve policy, though he says initial checks had grown and the new fund was larger. Follow-on amounts depend on valuations, round sizes and opportunities.

He says the firm tries to avoid momentum-driven financing, prefers not to prolong a failed model merely by raising more money, and may use an opportunity or growth fund if too many investments deserve additional capital. These are management principles, not evidence that all portfolio decisions succeeded.

Stebbings asks whether a growth fund can concentrate more capital in breakout companies. Lacher says seed funds can typically participate through Series B, after which the larger fund may invest $5 million to $10 million. He describes an average early-growth entry around a $100 million valuation, with variation and no $400 million or $500 million rounds in the prior two years.

Lacher admits the firm may have passed up follow-on investments in outliers because their prices looked expensive. He names Personio, Deel and Pigment as examples of companies that had performed strongly, and argues that internal knowledge and trust in founders can justify a high price. His hindsight does not guarantee future investment returns.

Stebbings questions whether Europe has enough strong Series A investors. Lacher sees a more competitive market after additional US firms entered Europe, which he believes gives founders more choice and forces existing investors to improve. His firm largely skips that stage and has a commercial interest in how founders choose their seed partners.

Lacher advises founders to reference potential investors carefully rather than choose on brand alone. He says some founders prefer a smaller European seed fund with a meaningful check and later freedom to select a Series A lead; he estimates two-thirds of founders with such term sheets choose that setup in the situations he sees, not across the entire market.

A small check from a multistage fund can provide expertise and access, but Lacher asks founders to determine whether a partner will personally engage and sit on the board. He also sees signaling risk if that investor does not lead the next round, especially for a company performing well but not exceptionally. Stebbings reports that another investor disagreed with the importance of that risk.

The hosts also discuss possible price misalignment: an existing investor seeking to lead the next round may prefer a lower valuation, while founders may want a higher one. Lacher says independent seed financing can give founders a wider choice, while acknowledging that experienced multistage funds and committed partners can offer substantial benefits.

Asked to name a useful European board member, Lacher praises Johan Butting for hands-on commercial and go-to-market work with a portfolio company. He values specific operating experience and time spent with founders over generic high-level advice.

He argues that a small board can make each member’s contribution visible. A good investor should help expand the founder’s options and bring in experienced people to challenge assumptions, rather than assume the investor has better answers. A large board with many high-level opinions may instead confuse the founder.

Lacher sees misalignment when investors can focus on their strongest portfolio companies while founders have one company and need support during difficult periods. Stebbings raises a different concern: investors seeking distributions may favor a secondary sale or exit at a time that is not optimal for the founder.

Lacher supports some founder secondary sales because a modest amount of liquidity can reduce personal financial pressure and allow founders to take risks. He distinguishes that from taking a very large fortune off the table. Stebbings notes that investors sometimes actively solicit large sales, a nuance Lacher accepts.

Lacher says his motivation is doing work he loves with founders over a long period, with financial flexibility as a possible consequence of successful investing. He says Visionaries had made few portfolio secondary sales because it believed in the companies’ future; this describes his position, not realized outcomes.

Asked about mistakes in 2020–22, Lacher points to perhaps not backing some winners more aggressively in later rounds and to hiring a strong team too late. Stebbings says he regrets not selling some secondaries. Both are retrospective judgments rather than evidence that another decision would necessarily have worked better.

At seed, Lacher says his pricing discussions focus on whether investors and founders agree on the next milestones and a healthy financing path, rather than negotiating solely for another percentage point of ownership. A high initial valuation can reduce flexibility if a company needs longer to reach the next round.

Stebbings frames each financing as an experiment: what hypothesis must be demonstrated to earn the next round? Lacher agrees that a modest round can leave room to grow into a valuation if progress is slower than planned. A much larger round at an aggressive price can lead to a difficult down round or postponed reckoning.

Stebbings pushes back that Europe historically underfunded some companies, depriving them of runway for second or third product iterations. Lacher agrees there is no single correct amount: founders should decide what they need, build a healthy long-term plan and avoid raising solely because a hot market makes it possible.

Lacher’s thesis is that Europe’s industrial and family-owned companies can be a source of expertise, customers and capital for B2B startups. He cites companies such as Celonis and UiPath as examples of European category leaders, and argues that Europe should build on its own strengths rather than copy Silicon Valley.

He says some longstanding family firms must rediscover their appetite for risk. Connecting their expertise and capital with startups is central to Visionaries’ business model, so his advocacy is also tied to his firm’s commercial interests.

Stebbings challenges whether European family offices move slowly and require extensive education. Lacher acknowledges the difficulty but points to examples of entrepreneurs who invest with domain knowledge. He cites BioNTech’s early backing by the Strüngmann brothers as an illustration of concentrated risk-taking in a familiar industry, alongside other investments that did not work.

Lacher also points to a new generation of family entrepreneurs who can modernize established businesses and make long-term decisions. He hopes to bring their knowledge into the B2B ecosystem, where he believes it can offer something different from a conventional multistage venture fund.

In his vision for 2028, venture capital itself would change: successful B2B founders and family entrepreneurs would reinvest capital and expertise in the next generation. He asks whether a model built around that network could be smarter than traditional funds. This is an aspiration and prediction, not an established outcome.

Stebbings describes his own ambition to build a venture firm at the intersection of media and investing, using knowledge from thousands of interviews. Lacher says Visionaries is organized like a fund but backed by entrepreneurs, with the goal of bringing their domain knowledge and capital into venture.

In a quick-fire discussion, Lacher names emerging seed managers Beyond Capital and Cocoa, Felix Capital at Series A, and 83North in growth as firms he admires. These are personal selections rather than a comprehensive ranking or performance comparison.

Lacher says he has reconsidered whether economic growth should be the sole guiding goal for developed Western economies. Though venture investing relies on growth, he argues that climate, energy and social pressures call for a broader value system. This is his normative view, not an economic forecast.

He chooses a family-related sentiment for his epitaph, saying family matters most despite his passion for venture and tennis. Stebbings chooses persistence, acknowledging that it can help his work while also harming his personal life.

Stebbings says different life stages allow different priorities: he currently loves working weekends, while hoping for financial security and more time for children later. Lacher agrees loving the work can blur the boundary between work and life, but Stebbings warns that being intellectually stimulated only by work can become dangerous.

Lacher admires Doug Leone’s continued hunger and his ability to build a firm while investing. Stebbings credits mentor Mark Evans with helping him find structure in difficult decisions and reminding him to do what is right.

Looking ahead, Lacher wants Visionaries to endure for 30 or 40 years, built around its network of entrepreneurs. He leaves open whether its future includes other fund strategies, saying the team will shape them. The interview ends with both hosts expressing appreciation for their friendship and conversation.