Vishal Verma is the second-generation steward of Edgewood Ventures, a private investment firm based in Los Altos, CA, founded by his late father, Devendra Verma. Under the Edgewood banner, the family office has backed some of the most successful venture capital firms in the United States.
He is also a General Partner at Redwood Collective, a fund of funds that invests in top-tier, late-stage venture capital firms across sectors such as technology, information technology, and healthcare.
With both Edgewood and Redwood Collective, Verma has cultivated a disciplined investment strategy grounded in long-term relationships, proprietary deal flow, and a strong appetite for calculated risk.
This is the first installment of a wide-ranging interview, in which Verma discusses the evolution of Edgewood, the thesis behind Redwood Collective, key lessons from decades in the innovation economy, and why he believes India’s transformation into a global tech powerhouse is still in its early innings.
Verma holds a BBA in Finance and Marketing from Santa Clara University and an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He also serves as an advisor to several companies, including OptHealth and the Chertoff Group. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with Edgewood, which was started by your late father, Devendra Verma. He was a prominent figure in the U.S.-India corridor. Tell us how Edgewood began and how it has evolved.
Edgewood is a family office started by my father in the late 1990s. At the time, when there was excess capital, one option was, you could go the traditional route: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. But they’re selling their products, their highest commission stuff. That’s their business, and that’s fine.
But we wanted to take more risk, and that’s where the returns were. We knew the deal: high risk, high reward, or zero. And we were okay with that. We also wanted to stay on the cutting edge. We may not be in the front row like the entrepreneurs, but we’re in the second row with the VCs. We back them.
From a strategy perspective, about 70% of our assets are in public markets. The other 30% to 40% are in private markets. That includes 17 venture funds and 28 direct investments and private, illiquid assets. Some are still waiting for exits. The gestational period can be long.
We’re leaning more toward later-stage funds and companies. The exits are clearer: 2x to 5x. I’m not looking for a 50x return. If you’re an avid investor, you’ll know: a 50x usually takes forever. And that’s assuming the company even survives.
Even in a down round…
Exactly. And in a down round, you have to ask yourself: is it worth it? Sure, you get more shares, but it’s a down round. And nine out of ten down rounds don’t work out.
So, Edgewood is a family office, with no outside LPs. Tell us about Redwood Collective.
Redwood Collective was the first time we raised outside money. That was in 2022. Edgewood has been around since the late 1990s — it’s our family office. Redwood applies the same strategy, but in the private market, and with external capital.
It’s a small fund — we don’t disclose the size — but we’ve invested in six venture funds, including Kleiner, Lightspeed, 8VC, General Catalyst, and a few others.
It’s early, so performance is still TBD. But we’ve had some early returns: Wiz, Moveworks, Rubrik. Time will tell. It’s a fund of funds: We raise money externally and invest into other venture funds. Same strategy: we get exposure to their core investments.
How many HNIs does Redwood have?
I think we have 14 high-net-worth individuals in Redwood.
What funds or sectors are you focused on at the moment?
I’m sector-agnostic. I invest in the best managers. I’ve invested in 17 different venture funds in the United States, and I look for managers who are both sector-agnostic and flexible when it comes to geography. They need to be able to adapt and go deep into verticals.
You said you are sector agnostic? How do you look at companies?
We look at two things: Number one is that I have to have an amazing relationship with the fund manager. Number two, which is even more important, is that they need to have access.
Access to proprietary deal flow?
Exactly. That’s the reason I’m willing to give away my 2 and 20. For instance, I’m in Joe Lonsdale’s 8VC. He’s part of the Palantir. Palantir spawned Oculus, Anduril… Sequoia—self-explanatory. Kleiner — self-explanatory. Lightspeed had Nutanix, and from that came Rubrik, ThoughtSpot, and others. They get proprietary deal flow that I simply don’t have. That’s why I invest in their funds. And by doing that, I also get access to some of their so-called winners through direct investment opportunities.
What’s your screening process like? How do you decide to invest in a company?
Great question. Look, the way the market works — because of the excess supply of capital — if Sequoia or Lightspeed says, “Hey, I’ve got allocation for you,” you don’t ask, “What’s your last 10-year performance?” I do two things. I call myself the CBO, Chief Begging Officer. I beg to get in. “Please let me in, please let me in.” I’m not writing a $100 million check. Nowhere close. Take a couple of zeros off. I write smaller checks. One guy told me, “Vishal, you’re a filler.”
They are saying, “Okay, we’re admitting you to the club!”
Yes, we’re letting you in. So, as the CBO, I beg to get in, and I beg to lower the minimums. But seriously, we’re not just in one fund. When I say 17 funds, I mean 17 actual funds over the last 30 years, maybe 50 or 60 vintages. With Sequoia, Kleiner, Lightspeed, 8VC, General Catalyst, we are in multiple vintages. So now it’s easier for us to write checks.
READ: Tapping into India’s growth engine, Monsoon Pabrai launches NSE investment vehicle (June 13, 2025)
But when I look at new managers, I focus on one very simple thing: proprietary deal flow: Access that I don’t have. And that’s what earns you a seat at the table.
One of the advantages you had was that you had a mentor very early on, your father…
Yes, but since it’s a family office, I was mentored not only by my father, but also by his friends, partners from Kleiner, Sequoia. They were my early mentors. So, I really saw the innovation economy up close, what was being built and what’s still being built.
Something I’m always curious about when I’m talking to investors is, has there ever been a moment where a startup or company you invested in surprised you, either in a good or bad way?
I think what I’ve learned over the last 30 years is that when you invest in a startup, expectations should be at ground level. No assumptions. Just because you hit it big with one company doesn’t mean you’re entitled to hit it again. So my expectation is always: we’re not going to see the money. That way, you’re not disappointed. The funds I’m most excited about are the ones returning capital. I’m not looking for a 50x return. I’m looking for something that gives me a good chance to play the game again.
If I use a baseball analogy, I’m not swinging for the fences. If I get a home run, great. But I’m happy with a triple, a double, or even a single. As long as you return my capital, I’m good. Just let me come back and play the game again.
Also, quick thought: family offices sound sexy, but they’re not necessarily sexy. We don’t keep much capital in cash. It’s always deployed. If I show you my wallet right now, I probably have $10 in it; that’s the most liquidity I have today.
Most of our capital is deployed. Once returns start coming in — and I’m not talking public markets, which are liquid — but in private markets, we can’t reinvest until there’s liquidity. We commit capital assuming we’ll have enough to meet capital calls.
You lived in India for a while. How was your experience there?
We’ve invested in a bunch of companies in India, and we’re still investing. Actually, we’ve stopped direct investing in India for now. There was a bit of a mindset difference. I think we were just a little too early.
Exits are starting to happen in the country today, but back when we were active, the ecosystem wasn’t quite there. So instead of putting money directly into Indian startups, we’re now investing through venture funds — funds that may not be India-focused per se, but are looking at India as a potential marketplace.
That said, India remains a great development center. The brainpower is unquestionably there.
You’ve observed the Indian and Silicon Valley tech ecosystems closely over the past few decades. How would you compare their evolution, and what do you think India still needs to do to become a true global innovation hub?
So I really saw up close what’s been happening in the technology and innovation ecosystem over the last 30 to almost 40 years. The Indians who came over during that wave really laid the foundation for what you see today, not just in the Silicon Valley ecosystem, but also in what’s happening in India and beyond. If you look at it, even India is, in many ways, being driven by what’s happening in Silicon Valley.
When I used to live in India, everyone would say, “Bangalore is the Silicon Valley of India.” I kind of debated that. To me, it’s not the Silicon Valley of India; it’s the services capital of India. And that’s fine. They happen to be providing services in the form of technology services.
India will become the Silicon Valley when we no longer have to say things like, “Flipkart is the Amazon of India” or “Zomato is the whatever of India.” India is currently undergoing a transformation, from a services economy to a product- and innovation-driven online economy.
READ: The angel investor who built a gaming unicorn says the AI hype will make many people lose money (June 17, 2025)
But until we stop referring to India as the “X of Silicon Valley” or the “Y of Silicon Valley,” we won’t truly have arrived. The day we stop doing that, that’s when India will be seen as a powerhouse in its own right. And I see that happening in the next 10 years, given the tremendous capacity that’s building in the country.
I also always say — back when I used to live in India, and even now as I watch it transform into an amazing economy — that India needs to follow the Israel model of innovation. What I mean is, India has an incredible skill base, tremendous brainpower. And what is Silicon Valley, really? It’s brainpower that drives the global economy, at least in tech. Israel is very similar; it has great universities and an amazing brainpower. The only difference is that Israel has only 8 million people or so.
The key insight from Israel is that the market has to be overseas. The companies there generate dollar-denominated revenue, which is critical. That’s number one. Number two is clarity on the revenue stream — something that’s often lacking in India.
As many of you know, in India, “Net 30” payment terms don’t always mean net 30. It could be net 60, net 90, or even net never.
So, the way we see it, India should be the back-end engine, doing the development work for U.S. or global markets. That creates a much more sustainable model. Then, eventually, you can bring it back to India from that perspective.
So now you’re investing in India through funds?
Yes, today, I’m investing in India through funds, through funds like 8VC. There are a few other venture funds I’m looking at to put money into India.
Initially, you invested directly…
Initially, yes. Our model changed quite drastically. We were actually operators sitting in India. That’s why I moved to Bangalore, because you have to be on the ground. No matter what country you’re in or what investment you’re making, you need that ground reality. That was the rationale behind moving to India.