recently rated:

Rated by 41

2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.4

2.6

General Catalyst

 

$$$$$ Cambridge, US East

top rated funds:

Rated by 39

3.5 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.2

2.7

Benchmark Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 35

3.1 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.7

2.7

Highland Capital Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Lexington, US East

Rated by 17

3.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.5

2.7

Advanced Technology Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Waltham, US East

Rated by 11

2.6 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.0

2.6

Oak Investment Partners

 

$$$$$ Westport, US East

Rated by 20

2.4 2.2 3.9 2.0 2.5

2.6

Seraph Group

 

$$$$$ US East

Rated by 11

2.9 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.6

2.6

Sequoia Capital India

 

$$$$$ Bangalore, Asia / Pacific

Rated by 12

2.4 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.8

2.6

El Dorado Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 11

2.6 2.8 3.2 2.5 2.2

2.6

Boulder Ventures

 

$$$$$ Boulder, US Central

Rated by 37

2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5

2.6

US Venture Partners (USVP)

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 26

2.7 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.4

2.6

Atlas Venture

Certified

$$$$$ Londond, Asia / Pacific

Rated by 21

2.6 2.3 2.9 2.8 2.2

2.6

Crosslink Capital

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 25

2.9 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.4

2.6

Edison Venture Fund

Certified

$$$$$ Lawrenceville, US East

Rated by 41

2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.4

2.6

General Catalyst

 

$$$$$ Cambridge, US East

Rated by 10

3.0 2.3 2.1 1.8 3.2

2.5

Tallwood Venture Capital

 

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 11

2.8 2.4 3.2 1.8 2.4

2.5

Arboretum Ventures

 

$$$$$ Ann Arbor, US Central

Rated by 19

3.2 2.3 2.6 1.9 2.6

2.5

Austin Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Austin, US Central

Rated by 12

2.8 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.5

2.5

Carmel Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ Herzliya, ME / Africa

Rated by 37

2.5 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.6

2.5

Lightspeed Venture Partners

Certified

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 13

2.5 2.4 2.0 2.7 2.4

2.4

The Angels Forum

 

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 30

2.0 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.2

2.4

Ignition Partners

 

$$$$$ Bellevue, US West

Rated by 22

2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.5

2.4

Giza Venture Capital

 

$$$$$ Tel Aviv, ME / Africa

Rated by 15

2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.3

2.4

Maveron

Certified

$$$$$ Seattle, US West

Rated by 23

2.6 2.2 2.7 2.2 2.5

2.4

Alloy Ventures, Inc.

Certified

$$$$$ Palo Alto, US West

Rated by 14

2.7 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.0

2.3

Greycroft

 

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 16

2.3 2.0 2.6 2.4 1.9

2.2

Granite Ventures

Certified

$$$$$ San Francisco, US West

Rated by 19

2.7 2.2 1.7 2.0 1.9

2.1

North Bridge Venture Partners

 

$$$$$ Waltham, US East

Rated by 29

2.4 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.1

2.1

DCM-Doll Capital Management

 

$$$$$ Menlo Park, US West

Rated by 19

2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.2

2.1

Greenhill SAVP

Certified

$$$$$ New York, US East

Rated by 18

2.1 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.5

2.1

GrandBanks Capital

Certified

$$$$$ Newton Center, Canada

Rated by 15

2.5 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.0

2.1

Summit Partners

 

$$$$$ Boston, US East

HomeShowcaseTermsAdviceOpenDiscussCoFound

Sign-upHelpFor VCsFor MediaAdvertiseTop VCsBanned VCs

You probably heard of this concept - founders of VC funded startups contribute some of their stock to a 'fund' and thereby share the risk/reward. This kinda works like an insurance in case your startup goes to the dead pool.

The question is, as a startup entrepreneur, would you be in favor of such a proposal"

You have a piece of paper or a spreadsheet that shows how much you own of your company, normally called a capitalization table. You may have common stock. You may have options. When you take a venture round, the capitalization table neither represents your ownership nor the allocation of shareholder value. Most of the terms that create the Preferred Stock for venture capitalists chip away at the value of common stock and options, so much so that, after a few rounds of investments, the value of common and options are largely worthless. Let's take a look at why and what can be done.

There are the obvious "big" preferred terms that eat away at shareholder value in most liquidity events, such as promising to re-pay the investment first through a "liquidation preference" and then allowing the venture investors to "participate" in the remaining value allocation. Another classic term is to place founder equity in escrow and force the founder to earn it back over years. Then, there are the slew of other terms that reallocate smaller chunks of value, such as cumulative dividends, redemption rights, ratchets, right of first refusals, and expense reimbursements. Finally, there are the many uncertain outcomes, such as allocating escrow to a preference waterfall, that force last minute negotiations where the preferred shareholders have control in many liquidity situations.

Here are some tips for a management team to retain value AND ownership through the process:

(1) Encourage competitive bidding among interested investors

(2) Raise more money than you need and limit the number of investment rounds to two

(3) Eliminate all secondary terms from term sheets and investment agreements

(4) Control a majority of the board under all circumstances

(5) Insist on executed employment contracts with equity and cash guarantees on liquidity

(6) Add mandatory preferred approval of liquidity offers at pre-defined prices

If other people have tips. add them below. It is about time that the capitlization table represents reality!