Capital has always liked a good story. The difference is that, today, a good story has become much more than attractive packaging on the shelf. For investors to pay attention, the investment thesis itself has become a central part of the product.
That is one of the most provocative ideas put forward by Jeremy Giffon, an investor focused on private markets and technology in the United States, in a long conversation with Patrick O’Shaughnessy, founder of Colossus, host of the Invest Like the Best podcast and founder and CEO of investment firm Positive Sum.
The episode, released on Wednesday, surpassed 1.2 million views on X in just over 24 hours – a sign that the discussion moved beyond the traditional venture capital niche and became part of the very dynamic Giffon is trying to explain: when well packaged, financial ideas now circulate as mass-market content.
Giffon’s argument is simple. In long-term funds, cash returns can take a decade to show up. Until then, the manager has to keep investors engaged, sustain attention and sell a convincing narrative about the future. In other words, the manager has to sell storytelling.
That applies to funds. It applies to startups. It applies to software companies trying to prove they are still relevant in the age of artificial intelligence. And it also applies to founders who need to convince the market they are at the beginning of a new curve – even when the company is already six or seven years old.
Giffon’s point is that the market does not look only at absolute numbers. It looks at the movie. An older company that has only recently started to accelerate may look like it is nearing the end of its cycle. The same company, repackaged as a fresh artificial intelligence story, may suddenly look like one of the market’s most compelling opportunities.
That asymmetry helps explain why so many private assets today are engaged in a battle to build a more convincing narrative. The investor is buying a story about the future – and, in some cases, a plot of land on the moon. In markets where liquidity is scarce and mark-to-market discipline is imperfect, the quality of that version of the future matters a great deal.
Giffon also points to a powerful trend: the social media timeline has become capital’s new global newspaper. X, formerly Twitter, podcasts, short videos, posts and bank-linked websites now function as an informal pricing network. Ideas that go viral can influence funding rounds, valuations, reputations and even public policy decisions.
There is an uncomfortable implication here for traditional investors. Markets are still looking for asymmetries, but some of them are no longer found only in spreadsheets, balance sheets or models. They are also found in the ability to understand which narrative will be adopted before others see it – and which one will be dismissed as old before it is even proven economically false.
That does not mean fundamentals have disappeared. It means the path to them is now more mediated by attention. A well-written thesis, at the right moment, can organize billions of dollars around it. What used to be an internal investment memo can now become a public manifesto. Capital, as Giffon puts it, follows the ball.
For startup founders, the consequence is direct: in a more volatile environment, raising too much capital can reduce freedom rather than increase it. When a company accepts expensive rounds, too many investors and hard contractual terms, it can become trapped by the promise of growth at any cost – even when the better path would be to change course, cut costs or operate profitably for a while. In a market dominated by stories, the worst position is to be stuck in a story that no longer works.
Is this reading exaggerated? Perhaps. But it helps explain the discomfort of an era in which a post, a podcast or a PDF can change the perception of value faster than a quarterly earnings report. The timeline has not replaced the market. But it has become one of its trading rooms.
For Brazil, the lesson is not as distant as it may seem. Listed companies, funds, banks, startups and business groups are also constantly competing for narrative. Fintechs as access platforms. Retail as omnichannel. Distressed companies as turnarounds.
The question, therefore, is no longer only which company grows faster or has better margins. It is also which company can fit into the story capital wants to hear at that moment. The difference between these categories can move capital. It can open or close funding windows. It can sustain valuations. It can accelerate a sale. It can also hide weaknesses for far too long.
Good market analysis needs to ask two questions at the same time. The first is the old one: do the numbers stand up? The second is increasingly urgent: what narrative is making those numbers look better or worse than they really are?
In the end, Giffon is not saying that narrative replaces returns. He is saying that, before returns show up, someone has to keep the story alive. And that story is now born less in closed investment rooms than on the social network everyone pretends not to take too seriously.
Capital still follows money. But before that, it follows whoever can capture other people’s attention – and their time.
Leave a Reply