Checked The Wrong Box On Form I-90: Fill & Download for Free

There is No “I” in Entrepreneur: Hiring in Today’s Startup WorldWorking at Goldman Sachs, building a startup, and investing in companies has taught us to follow a hiring process that works. Learn our shortcuts for finding a team that fits.You have a new idea. It’s in your head. It’s rotating around. You’re planning your next startup or ICO or the next big thing that you feel is going to revolutionize the world.Then you ask yourself, “Wait. I can’t do it all alone… or can I?”Let us help answer that question for you — the answer is a resounding, no. You can’t. You can’t do it alone.You need a team.But how do you find the right people for your team?Start with what you do best.There’s a huge difference between good, better, and best in every aspect of business, and being best in class gives you a significant competitive advantage. What are you the best at? What’s the one thing you could keep doing forever? The thing that makes everyone else say, “Wow, I can’t believe you’re so good at this!”Are you an inventor and creator of a brand-new product no one has ever thought about before?Are you the tech guy who can see where technology is headed and knows how to lead the effort?Are you a social media guru, drawing up a following that hangs on your every word?Are you a talented storyteller gifted with the ability to turn passions into buy-ins?Whatever it is, what you are best at is your key differentiator. Identify it, and it becomes your unfair advantage. For instance, if your strength as a scientist is discovering revolutionary product formulas, that’s your unfair advantage and the part of the business you should be focusing on.Form your team around what you do best.Once you reflect on what you are best at, think about the team you need to support all the other aspects of your business. What skills do your team members need to have? What previous experiences are likely to cultivate those skills? What are the strengths and unfair advantages that you need on your team?Here are nine ways that we shortcut the process to find and hire the right team.1. Hiring for the right mindsetHiring based on fit is incredibly important and often overlooked by founders. We like to think about this in terms of former basketball coach Phil Jackson’s “triangle offense.” Using that strategy, Jackson found that some of the best athletes were not necessarily the right players to fit into the system. It didn’t mean that they weren’t great players; they just weren’t right for the job. Think of your startup as a basketball team. What kind of offense do you want to run, and what kinds of players fit into the plan?2. Find people who want to co-elevateIn addition to hiring people who fit the company, it’s important to find great people. What do we mean by “great” people? One thing we like to avoid are employees who have an “employee” mindset, rather than an “ownership-building” mindset. They’re there to collect a paycheck, as opposed to being interested in building the organization with you.Today, leadership within companies is changing rapidly. The top-down management systems create gaps in motivation and inefficiencies. We feel Keith Ferrazzi sums it up best in his newest push for a cultural shift towards what he calls co-elevation. The concept is that true growth in employee training and morale happen in an environment when people co-elevate each other, by pushing each other higher so each can rise to become the very best.Mediocre employees won’t raise the bar of co-elevation in your organization. But great employees will help you to create a culture that will build a formula for success that drives positive change and growth. And that’s what you really want. The ability to have your team not only want to grow themselves, but want to help others on the team grow too.3. Okay is not good enoughMore than the cost of time and money involved in hiring the wrong person, the true cost to a startup comes from mediocre team members. If someone is really unsuccessful in their position, it’s easy to let him or her go. But if he or she is mediocre, founders tend to keep him or her around too long. But in a small startup, you simply can’t afford a 5-out-of-10 performer.Startups are what we call a “weak-link sport” — a game in which the progress of a team is limited by its weakest performer. Therefore, you must understand that weak performers will not only show you down, but will hold you back your team’s ability to win. If you notice that a new hire is not achieving the benchmarks you need them hit, you need to be a strong willed startup coach and get them off the team sooner than later.4. Build a flexible teamIn the early days of your business, there will be a lot of uncertainty. You have to identify which candidates have what we call a “high-ambiguity tolerance.” If the personalities around your table are all ones that need concrete answers in order to function properly, this will cause constraints on your ability to operate as a leader. Seek to have a balanced team in terms of tolerance for confusion, so you don’t have to worry about additional headaches that will distract you from building your business.5. Ask talented people for referralsTo find great people, ask the most talented people you know for referrals. As your company grows, build a referral culture by rewarding those who refer a successful candidate. A rule of thumb we’ve used is $2,000 to $5,000 after the new employee has remained with the company for 90 days.6. Use hiring platformsIf your referral pool is small, take a look at ZipRecruiter, AngelList, LinkedIn, GitHub, and other platforms to access a massive pool of talented people. We like GitHub because you can see not only people’s profiles, but also projects they’ve worked on.7. Check references and dig deepMost people use references as a “check the box” activity at the end of the process. That’s not our approach. Dad taught us to use references as guides and informants during our hiring process. There’s no tool more powerful in evaluating candidates than the reference check. It begins when you ask the candidate for references. How many do they provide, and how readily? Are they peers, superiors, or personal references?When you speak with the reference, seek to understand how successful the person was in the context the reference knows about. Ask the following questions:How would you describe this person in two words?What caused him or her to be successful?What behaviors, habits, or tendencies limited his or her success?What would you surround this person with to help make him or her successful?Pay close attention to the answers. Tone, hesitations, pauses, and enthusiasm are as important as content. For managerial hires, we recommend doing reference checks in person, so as not to miss any indicators. By digging deep with people who have worked with, for, above, and around a candidate, we get a clearer picture of a person. This is key to our hiring process.8. Utilize personality assessment tools and softwareAt M13, we ask every serious candidate to participate in a Predictive Index (PI) test. The PI is one of many personality tests that can help you understand what drives a candidate and how he or she will work with others.We believe that PIs are important and useful because they can help evaluate how individuals will function in your work environment and fit into your system. This is particularly useful for small companies that don’t have an HR team and cannot afford to hire the wrong person. Mistakes are expensive — according to Geoff Smart, a co-author of Who: The A Method for Hiring, a single hiring mistake costs 15 times base salary in hard costs and productivity loss.Different states have laws regarding what kind of testing you can use as a hiring tool. Typically, hiring tests need to be validated, so make sure you understand the applicable laws in your state.9. Use a try-before-you-buy periodIn addition to the formal interview process, we believe in out-of-the-office “interview” activities. This helps us observe how a candidate interacts in a variety of social settings. Sometimes we take a possible hire out to a crowded restaurant to see how he or she behaves.Once a candidate is hired, 90 days is typically enough time to see if he or she is a good fit for your team and company. In many roles, it takes time to acclimate, but if people have not proven themselves highly valuable to you within the first 90 days, it’s worth seriously questioning if they’re right for the role.To set the person up for success, make sure you provide clear expectations and make agreements around those expectations. Additionally, set up 30, 60, and 90-day goals with frequent check-ins.Many entrepreneurs struggle with the question “Do I need this role in my company?” We find that the best way to test this is with a contractor. After 30, 60, or 90 days, you will likely know the answer to your question and can take action from there.In building your startup team, there are many things to consider. We have learned that it is well worth the time up front to make sure you have the right team. The right idea with the wrong team has a low chance of success. Leverage our experience when it comes time to hire your startup team. Focus on what you do best and build the right team around to you to the rest.Do you have any shortcuts to your hiring process? We would love to hear as comments.

Short version: We turn over every stone, and keep turning before, during, and after an investment is made.Long version: I perform hedge fund due-diligence (DD) for family office and institutional investors so this topic is quite near and dear to me. I’m proud to have steered our clients away from several funds that turned out to either be fraudulent or blew up for operational reasons. We’re dealing with allocation sizes in the tens of millions so the stakes are obviously very high. I’ll try to be as detailed as possible but this will really only scratch the surface at best.There are several objectives to hedge fund DD (and it’s not all about making sure the manager isn't a Madoff.) It helps to recognize from the outset that each hedge fund is first and foremost a business, and for businesses to be successful they need to have a differentiated product, a repeatable process for creating that product, and as a potential client you need to evaluate your own need for the product. In other words, what is the manager's differentiating 'edge' (see Nate Anderson's answer to As a fund manager, what’s the best response to, "What is your edge?" when asked by a potential investor? I talk about the differentiated strategy approach and team experience. I’m not sure there’s a genuine structural edge in the investment business.), what is the process for exploiting that edge, and how does it fit into your portfolio?To answer these questions investors must gain a deeper understanding of all of the following: (a) the strategy, (b) the investment process, (c) the people involved in the fund, (d) the ‘business’ operations of the fund, and (e) the performance track-record.Initial ReviewTypically, the DD process starts with an initial document review to glean the basics and see if its worth taking the meeting. I generally start with the tearsheet, presentation, and recent investor letters. Every investor has their own limiting criteria, but depending on the investor some will pass right away due to factors such as:Size of the fund. Some investors want the sense of ‘safety’ from a large fund, while others prefer smaller funds due to their higher return potential. (My diligence is generally focused on smaller funds, which may have higher operational risk, so the research burden tends to be higher.)Undifferentiated strategy or an unfavorable strategy for the market environment.Lack of a track record. Many institutions and investors require 3 years of track-record or a ‘portable’ track record from a manager's previous firm in order to get comfortable with their historical ability to perform. Again, I have some investors who are comfortable being 'day-1' money which raises the due-diligence threshold.Poor relative or absolute historical performance.High volatility or large drawdowns.Poor quality of investor communication. The only thing that differentiates a 'black-box' from a transparent fund is communication. If the communication from managers is sparse or uninformative it is tough to get comfortable with a strategy. We generally like to see monthly performance updates with quarterly commentary. Anything more frequent may mean the manager is spending too much time writing, and anything less means we are in the dark for too long.Lack of credible third-party service providers (auditor, independent fund administrator, prime broker, legal counsel.) Third-party service providers are the checks and balances on a manager's operations. Investors do not get compensated for taking on unnecessary operational risks, so if we don't see auditors, administrators, and prime brokers in place we will pass immediately.MeetingIf the manager passes our initial document review we'll take a meeting. The first meeting(s) are usually the standard pitch, a walk-through of the presentation, and a high-level Q&A. Though we'll have an idea going in on what we want answered and what we'd like to discuss, we let the manager start with their pitch and always end up free-forming after a while. The idea is to get a sense of the manager, personality, and to probe on different areas of interest or concern and get a sense of whether it holds up.If the strategy, performance, fund structure, and people all pass the initial smell test and merit further interest, due-diligence begins in earnest. An initial document list is requested which generally includes:Marketing materials:Investor letters since inception. These give us a sense of the quality of communication, investment ideas, research, and insight into the manager’s personality and approach.Relevant PR such as interviews, press releases, and published articles.Due-diligence questionnaire aka the ‘DDQ’. This is a key document that asks 100+ detailed questions about the fund. The AIMA (Alternative Investment Management Association) version is the most common DDQ. We review the DDQ provided by the manager and compare it with the AIMA DDQ to see if the manager deleted any questions from the list. Usually, when a question is missing from a DDQ it's because it was irrelevant to the strategy, but sometimes a deleted question can be HIGHLY relevant and show what questions the manager doesn’t want to answer. (Here's a random completed DDQ off Google in case you’d like to get a sense of what that document looks like: Page on opcvm360.com)Research samples. Again these give us a sense of the depth and focus of the investment process.Legal:Private Placement Memorandum. This is the legal doc outlining key terms of the fund. This is generally where all the nuances on fees and fund structure are found. See How do you describe, calculate, and interpret management and incentive fees and net-of-fees returns to hedge funds? for more detail on nonsense to be aware of surrounding hedge fund fees.Subscription documents. We review to make sure everything is consistent with the PPM.Partnership agreements. These detail terms of the business structure and can also detail nuances of the fund structure.State certificate of organization/LP certificate/state registration doc, IRS W-9 tax ID form. These are mostly just confirmatory documents.Other:Audits since inception. The independent auditor’s report is of critical importance, as it will reconcile assets, portfolio balances, performance, and often provide insights on portfolio construction, liquidity of underlying assets, and back-office protocols.Independent prime brokerage report as of last completed audit. This allows us to see even more detail on the portfolio from the time of last audit and allows us to reconcile the audit with the actual portfolio. If anything doesn’t line up with the audit it means either we or the auditor are missing something.Reference list. They will all obviously be glowing references, but the choice of references can be very important. Who they leave out of the reference list is often more instructive than who is included. That being said, sometimes good information can be found through the references.Service provider contact information. We verify the relationship with each service provider, and perform due-diligence on the service providers to get an understanding of the terms and length of the relationship with the fund.Any external or internal risk reports. These give us a sense of how they measure risk, what risks they control for, and how they fall within those parameters.Regulatory registration documents such as form ADV for advisers. This is more confirmatory information but can also show critical pieces of information such as assets under management as of a particular date, key principals, number and type of clients, and compliance with the law.Once the document review is completed, you’ll likely have a better understanding (and many new questions) about key issues surrounding the 3 P’s: people, process & performance. The next step is to dig on areas of interest or concern to learn more on each of these three areas.PeopleOne of my favorite stories on manager due-diligence came from a well-known investor who passed on a hedge fund because of a raincoat:The investor wanted to get to know the manager better, so they agreed to go on a hike. Halfway up the mountain it began to downpour. Unfortunately, the manager hadn’t checked the forecast and spent the latter part of the hike completely drenched. The (dry) investor realized at that point that the manager was a little too focused on the adventure ahead of him and not at all focused on managing the predictable risks along the way. The investor passed due to concerns over risk management.We haven’t passed on any managers over rain gear, but I think the point is relevant. In poker, you must observe everything about a player; betting patterns, style of play, tolerance for risk, and personality. You piece together an understanding of the person from the data in order to get a sense of their tendencies. The same applies to due-diligence on people. Fortunately we have a lot more data to work with than at a poker table:Background checks. We use a service that looks for criminal, regulatory, and civil infractions, including Anti-Money-Laundering checks on all principals and key employees of a prospective firm.Regulatory checks. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has a very comprehensive database of brokers and investment adviser firms that shows whether individuals or firms have had any regulatory infractions, their registration status, whether they’ve had any arbitration awards issued against them, and the full employment record of registered individuals (among other things). It also ties into the SEC database which is often relevant for larger firms. All of this is obviously extremely valuable background information. One little trick we use is to match up the employment record of the principal with the bio in their marketing materials. Often they will leave firms out of their bio if they had a bad experience there, though they'll include it on their regulatory filings. It may bring up points that require further digging: BrokerCheck: Research Brokers & Investment AdvisersBack-channel reference checks. This is probably one of the hardest things to do effectively, particularly for industry outsiders, but this can be a source of absolutely critical information. This is the scuttlebutt; the “I’ll talk to my guy who worked in this manager’s Deutsche Bank division when he was a portfolio manager...” This approach is often how you get the ‘real’ story behind a manager.Regular ol’ reference checks. You have to cut through the glowing praise and ask the right questions to really get a sense of the truth, but these can be helpful.Direct interviews with the manager. This doesn’t have to be a cross examination but during the meetings there should be a component of confirmatory questions along with getting a sense of the manager’s personality, background, and approach.Google. (Never underestimate!) I was asked by a family office to diligence a manager and I googled the manager before anything. Past investors had posted on a forum that the manager lost 90%+ of their money by making risky bets then doubling down when the original bets didn’t work out.Skin in the GameAlso worth noting is that it's incredibly important to know that the manager has invested in their own fund, and that they are risking their assets alongside yours. Most investors want to know what percentage of the manager's liquid net worth is in the fund, and will often request documents to prove it.Operational and Investment ProcessNow that you understand more about the people you’re working with, you want to understand the structure and processes that constrain them.A hedge fund, like any other business, creates a product (a portfolio). In order to generate consistent portfolio performance you need to understand the sausage factory, including both the investment process AND the operational processes in place.I know what you’re thinking—operations are boring. The sexy stuff is how people come up with their brilliant investment ideas. Unfortunately, the operations and business side of the fund are not trivial matters; research has shown that over half of all hedge fund blow-ups occur due to operational issues that have nothing to do with the investment process. As unappealing as it is to try to figure out the nuances of how Net Asset Value is calculated and reconciled with the fund administrator, it’s even less appealing to lose a billion dollars because you didn’t take the time. (Yes, turning over every stone means turning over the ugly ones too.)I’ve seen institutional investors pass on funds for reasons which may not be immediately obvious problems to a new hedge fund investor. Below are some examples. If you can think through the issues or potential issues with each real-life scenario below then you are off to a good start:A small fund required a single signatory on cash transfers.A fund had legal entities for their marketing, deal sourcing, and investment divisions of the firm.A large, well-known fund has used a big-4 firm as their auditor since inception, and worked with several offices of the firm over the course of their relationship.The same fund in #3 managed their fund administration internally.A fund was down 3% one month.A fund had rehypothecation agreements in place with their Prime Broker, a major, well-respected Wall St. bank.I imagine some of the above might not even sound like English. So what does it mean and why were these all problems for the prospective investors?Single signatory. Like any other business, embezzlement can be a problem for hedge funds. Requiring a single signatory to move cash, particularly for a small fund, means that a founder/key employee can potentially loot the place without limits. It’s not unheard of for a business owner to get served divorce papers then decide it's time for an early retirement in a tropical, non-extradition friendly country. On a less major scale, an employee may embezzle smaller amounts systematically over time. Hedge funds generally have much higher asset liquidity than traditional businesses, and therefore cash stewardship is of utmost importance. For these reasons, institutions usually require double signatories on cash transfers, often with one signatory being a credible, independent fund administrator.Multiple legal entities. Separate legal entities are put in place to limit liability (and potentially transparency) between entities. Whenever a manager puts legal shields in place between different operational aspects of a fund the investor should have a very clear understanding of why that is the case. In this case the reasons didn’t pass the smell test, and were likely in place to obscure important information for investors.Using several offices of the same accountant. Accountants understand the concept of multiple legal entities all too well. For example, each office of PWC may have its own separate legal entity which protects the greater organization and other offices from shared liability. In other words, working with 3 different offices of the same firm can be like working with 3 completely different firms. Another fact about accountants: If they find a problem with a fund (or a company) they will often resign rather than report their suspicions. In this particular example, 3 offices of the same accounting firm resigned over the course of the life of the fund. Unfortunately, most investors just thought: "Well, the manager has used a credible firm since inception, therefore it’s all kosher." Wrong.In-sourced administration. Approximately 90% of all hedge fund frauds would be eliminated through use of a credible outside fund administrator to manage valuation, NAV reporting, subscriptions/redemptions, and the back-office functions of a hedge fund. Madoff (again) in-sourced his administration. He couldn’t have reasonably pulled off his fraud had he used a credible outside administrator.Fund down 3% in a month. This by itself isn’t a problem. Some funds have high volatility and +/- 5% or more in a month isn’t unusual. The problem was that this particular fund’s investment strategy was expected to generate a slow, consistent half percent a month. A drawdown in one month of 3% in the context of that strategy was a red flag. The next month the fund was down 9% and subsequently lost another 20% before shutting down.Rehypothe-what?? Rehypothecation is when the fund lends their securities to their prime broker. The broker can then use the securities as collateral to lend against, and will generally pay the fund a small fee in return, which helps lower the fund’s brokerage expenses. Here’s bottom line: When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, this small distinction determined who 'owned' the assets. It was the difference between blow-up or solvency for many funds. (Literally billions were lost or saved over this nuanced operational detail.)In addition to operational processes, the investor must understand the investment processes in order to get a sense of how the fund’s portfolio is constructed. How does the manager source ideas, and what does their own research consist of? What kind of risks does the fund take? Risks such as currency, security, sector, market, interest rate, volatility, and countless other risks can be a part of the portfolio construction process. How does the manager make sure they are adequately compensated for those risks? How do these risks fit into the investor’s broader portfolio? Professional portfolio managers must account for all of these factors with the funds they invest.Performance.On every disclaimer on every document you will read from a hedge fund it will say: "Past performance is not indicative of future results." I'm generally not a fan of legalese but this bit should be taken as gospel. Historical returns are in the past, and without understanding them in the context of the strategy, the risks taken, and the changing nature of the strategy in the market then those returns are meaningless. Statistics lie. At the very least they can mislead: Did you know that the Vatican City has 5.9 Popes per square mile? True fact.Lets go through another quick example. If a manager tells you “we returned 100% last year.” Are you:(a) Excited(b) Interested(c) Skeptical/unsure(d) Overwhelmed by feelings of inferiority over your own lousy returnsIf the answer is anything other than lots of ‘c’ with a little bit of ‘b’ then you need to learn more about what performance means. (If your answer is ‘d’ I suggest yoga.)Performance needs to be understood in context. What risks did you take to make 100%? What is the volatility an investor can expect on those kinds of returns? (No matter how great your returns are, you only need to lose 100% once to wipe it all out.) Statistics like Sharpe ratios, maximum drawdown, correlation, and volatility can only really be helpful in the context of the market and the strategy that contributed to that performance.I once met with a manager who returned 142% in 2009 and 55% in 2010. Those were eye-popping returns, and they had all the right service providers and statistical ratios to ‘prove’ how credible and great they were.The manager told me that their whole strategy was to analyze momentum price signals, because “when you focus on one thing all day you get pretty good at it.” They were a complete black box as far as their model and their investment process, but the manager shared one aspect of the model: “When the market goes up we are able to capture those returns, but as soon as the market starts to drop, the model shuts down in order to mitigate any losses.” Classic baloney. (Explanation: Unless you know whether the market will continue to go down or up you can't determine when to turn the model on or off. He was basically implying that they could perfectly predict the direction of future price action in the market.)I passed on the fund, and it literally blew up the next month. (To be fair, I didn’t realize it would blow up so soon, though I did know that it would inevitably blow up with those returns coupled with no credible explanation of how they produced them or why they would persist.) The moral is that it's hard to find an edge and generate consistent returns, and historical performance (whether good or bad) has to be understood in full context.OverallThis overview really just scratches the surface but hopefully the framework and actionable tips are helpful. Many institutions view their due-diligence process as proprietary, but personally I’d rather see all investors have a deeper understanding of the process. It’s bad for the industry when charlatans run around with impunity, and quality diligence helps lift the entire profession. Most hedge fund managers are good people (honestly), but even among good people there can be a lot of average performers and undifferentiated strategies. A good due-diligence process can be both informative and collaborative-- in addition to learning about the managers our DD process often leads to operational improvements among funds we work with.Take your time, and don’t be afraid to ask even seemingly stupid or awkward questions. The best questions are often a little bit awkward. Always keep in mind that the next stone you turn over could be the difference between gaining or losing everything. If a manager seems reticent to provide information or answer your questions its generally a sign of what the relationship will look like going forward. Investments in hedge funds are ultimately partnerships and the good managers will understand and appreciate your need to learn before investing. Good luck!

Question: Why do long-time kickboxers still tend to be sloppier kickers than ITF Taekwondo black belts?I could take a stab at this. I got to red belt in Tae Kwon Do in the late 80’s. I kicked boxed in the late 80’s to mid 90’s recreationally. Boxing gloves and foot mitts. Recreation means I did not participated in sanction bouts..just show up to the gym and work out and/ or sparred.I don’t think I was personally long time (about 5 years for each) but I certainly worked out a lot when I was a youngster with both TDK and kick boxers. My kicks, on a personal level were sloppier when I kicked boxed as opposed to when I Tae Kwon Do sparred and as the person asking the question pointed out in general TKD kicks are prettier than kickboxing kicks. Here are some of the reasons why:Tae Kwon Do puts a lot of emphasis on forms. Kickboxing none. Kickboxing has probably changed a bit since I did but for the most part kickboxers work out more like a boxer but with kicks.A lot of kickboxers are people who are like the young like I was. They got something less-than black belt in TKD (like me), Karate or other belt system with patterns but loved sparring enough to go from TKD sparring to boxing gloves and kick box sparring. The sparring is different and changes kicking strategy (to in your word choice sloppy)Punching skills change the way you kick. To the TKD (or Karate) people reading this who have never sparred with face punch —you have never been in the pocket with a head hunter until you have a least a few full contract sparring sessions under your belt where you can punch each other in the face. People with good hands move at incredible speeds and you have to change your kicking strategy to accommodate for that difference.KIckboxing uses boxing footwork as opposed to TKD stances. As you TKD black belts know your stance is your kicks secret sauce. By contrast in kickboxing you can’t be locked in a stance while in the pocket with a head hunter. Boxing footwork in that world makes more sense than TKD stances.Combos change too. Where in traditional TKD you are blocking with arms and hands and your hands tend to alternate for the most part. In kickboxing you shield / cover with your hands (as opposed to block) and you alternate much less. In addition the punches are shorter in duration and motion. If you are going to string a kick into the combo you have to make the kick shorter to make it fit smoothly into the combination.In kickboxing it is normal to zig zag as one back peddles, lateral or circle while unloading but in TKD it is more linear. Throwing a kick off of a pivot as opposed to off a stance makes it look, to use your word choice, sloppier.Pain is a big motivator. You get rocked in kickboxing in a way most TKD people would not understand. You will take really hard kicks in TKD sparring, I certainly did, but it is different to eat a kick plus a hand combo or just the hand combo. It is also much more frequent than getting caught with a spinning hook in TKD Taking the time to get your form and kicks pretty in an exchange in kickboxing a lot of times equates to eating more leather. For most people self included if the choice is have pretty kicks and stances or get hit less during an exchange but have sloppier kicks-I and most people take the get his less option.People don’t check your form in kickboxing. In TKD somebody is going to say “put foot here”, “turn hips this way” in kickboxing it more laxed. It isn’t the black and white “wrong way” or “correct way” but more try to figure out how to fit various combos in while not getting hit. In my TKD days I had every technique I ever did corrected by an instructor but it in kickboxing it was more “just make it work”.As a footnote I have not done TKD or kickboxing in over almost 30 years at this point. I still work a heavy bag today like a kickboxer as opposed to a TKD guy. I think both have probably changed some for various reason. TKD is more children and / or Olympic focused then when I did it and I kickboxed before MMA was big. I don’t know how either historical change has impacted my observations but it probably has at least a little bit and I am ignorant of those changes on both.