Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by corry 2136 days ago
I've heard founders say this too. The mentality is "look, you'll end up giving away 20% of your company on the round anyways, so you might as well get more $$$ for that 20%". As if the % is fixed and immovable.

In my own experience, this minimum % ownership target is a very real issue and bar to jump over for most "proper" Series A VCs. At least the ones leading the round.

If I was in that position, and it was a great fund, it would be very hard to imagine saying "no, I'll value my company less, and take less $$$, for the same dilution." Human nature IMO basically favours taking more $$$ every time ONCE % is fixed.

However, Aaron might say that the best companies can easily push back on that fixed % approach, which is the true issue here. And that's a good counter point. But many of us, even as YC-backed companies, don't know how to effectively push back against that dynamic.

For me, out of the 5 Term Sheets I got for our Series A, I think all of the funds involved had a minimum % ownership target. Hard to negotiate around that. Normally if there is a term you don't like, and you have multiple sheets, you can just play them off each other. But it seemed pretty universal in my admittedly narrow experience.

3 comments

One additional point. If you have existing investors who have pro rata rights, the larger the check from the new round lead investor, the more existing investor money is also being put in. And since all VCs are basically in a "I want to put as much capital into winners as I can", the insiders are likely OK with larger rounds / valuations in general, since they get to place more $$$.
This is it. These people are money managers that market based on owning x amount of one of the top 50 companies each year in order to raise a new fund. If they take smaller % the model fails both executively and from a marketing perspective.
I was at 2 successful companies that went against the normal VC path.

Vitria was able to move the VC % lower because they were already profitable and demonstrated potential before approaching the VCs. They were only using the VCs for their contacts and not for cash.

VMware never got VC funding. I am not sure why - but they tried. They finally sold themselves to EMC and were later spun out.

According to Crunchbase VMmare raised almost $400M

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vmware/company_finan...

2/4 rounds (and the overwhelming majority of the $$$ raised) were years after the EMC acquisition, and immediately before the IPO. Not really what people think of when they talk about raising VC.

The 5 million and 20 million rounds in 2000 were strategic investments from partners who were going to resell ESX, and were done for reasons other than needing working capital. IBM and Dell were the 2 partner investors, IIRC.