1/ A few key levers for deciding how much venture capital to raise:
- can your current valuation support the amount you're raising?
- what set of milestones can you hit, and will hitting them 3x+ your valuation?
- is the money you're raising sufficient to hit those milestones?
2/ These three levers have to work in unison. I.e. you need to raise enough to hit meaningful milestones, while not asking for so much capital relative to existing progress that investors will walk away.
Below are a few common issues founders encounter when picking a round size.
3/ Common issue #1: the amount you're asking for is divorced from what investors will give you based on progress so far. ("We incorporated this month, and we need about $10m to get started.")
4/ Common issue #2: your target milestones aren't meaningful.
<50% of companies reach the next funding round, so if hitting your targets will yield a 2x higher valuation then investors will just wait until the next round. But if you have a 50% chance to 3x+, that's appealing.
5/ Common issue #3: not raising enough to hit your milestones.
If you describe a plan that clearly needs 10-15 people working for a few years, but you're only raising $750k, then investors will be reluctant to move forward because your plans are unrealistic.
6/ Common issue #4: imprecise fundraising ask. If you have a concrete plan, don't say you're raising $2m-$4m. You either need $2m, or you need $4m. Having different plans for different round sizes is ok, but don't pitch a large $ range if you're committed to a single plan.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Founders who get multiple term sheets often struggle w/negotiation because they rarely come out and just say what they want. Here's a common scenario I see, and what I would do differently to get the best term sheet possible.
2/ Common scenario: you get a TS at, say, $15m post, and you have other interested VCs. You ping those VCs and say "I have a term sheet, please make an offer."
Now you get a few more offers, maybe at $13m or $15m or $17m. Most likely, your position doesn't impove by that much.
3/ Alternative: tell people what you want! It's good for you and it's good for them, and you can change the ask depending on how much you like the investor or how much value you think they will bring.
1/ Early stage founders regularly ask for advice on setting their own salaries. This is a somewhat touchy subject, but the main factors that I've seen people use to set their own salaries are: a) personal expenses, b) personal savings, c) how much cash the company has.
2/ The main tension for very young companies is that their cash runway is very limited, so the difference between two founders each taking $50k vs $150k per year is huge if the company only has $750k in the bank to start with.
3/ As a result, many founders tend to take a "minimum viable salary." The question you want to answer is: how much cash do you need to cover expenses and not stress out about bills every month?
2/ The argument is that wealth shouldn't have so much influence over innovation. But that's backwards. Most big innovations wouldn't exist w/o $ incentives -- which lead to wealth. What fraction of stuff we use was created by companies vs. govts, non-profits, etc? I'd wager 95+%.
3/ The market's incentives will lead to some accruing more relative wealth than others, but they also make everyone wealthier in an *absolute* sense. I'd rather be poorer in a world w/smartphones, refrigerated food, and cancer cures than wealthier in a world w/o those things.
0/ I've recently been chatting with people about what it would take to start a new city. It's such an interesting idea to think about! Just like with products, I feel like a startup/charter city should be 10x better for target inhabitants. A few ideas for such cities:
1/ A city for parents -- less nightlife and fewer activities for single people; more options for school, daycare, and enrichment activities; lots of nearby lodging for long in-law visits.
2/ A city for young people just out of school -- lots of fun activities; fewer services for people with families; small, affordable homes.
1/ After reflecting for a while on @AngelList's rolling funds, I believe they will be very disruptive.
Previously the best way to start a VC fund was to build an investing track record. That takes many years. Rolling funds allow people to turn reputations into investing capital.
2/ The interesting development is that these reputations don't have to be investing-related. If you have a great network and you're well-known as an amazing founder or PM or ML expert, you can probably roll* that into a rolling fund.
* Sorry about the pun. I am who I am.
3/ Also, if you're a principal at a larger venture fund that doesn't have near-term partner openings, and you have 10k+ Twitter followers, why wouldn't you spin out to do a rolling fund? You can advertise your fund publicly, leverage your audience, and accelerate your career.
Surprising pattern in seed stage VC funds: if a fund is reasonably diversified, it'll need at least one $1b+ exit for a great total fund return. Regardless of fund size.
Doesn't matter if it's a $150m fund buying 15% stakes or a $10m fund buying 1% stakes.
Smaller isn't easier.
Assumptions:
- 50% of fund is for initial checks, 50% for follow-on checks.
- 30 investments.
- 50% dilution over time.
- In 90% of good funds, the top company returns the entire fund by itself. See comment below from a highly regarded fund-of-funds:
So the top investment is initially 1/60 of your fund, and eventually 1x+ your fund AFTER 50% dilution. For that to happen, the company's valuation has to grow 120-fold. At today's $8m+ seed stage valuations, this kind of multiple means a fund's top investment has to be a unicorn.