

Ask HN: What do you think of these claims on VC deals? - robot

I read this on an anti-VC website and took it with a grain of salt. What do you think?<p>"Here's a bonus 11th reason why venture capital is bad. It is by far the most expensive money an entrepreneur can ever tap into. Let's do the math to see why this is. Suppose you and a venture capitalist agree to a "pre-money" valuation of $1 million for your start-up, and the venture capitalist then invests $1 million for 50% of the equity. After the investment, the company is said to have a "post-money" valuation of $2 million. Being 50/50 partners sounds acceptable, right?<p>Three years later the company is sold to a Fortune 500 corporation for $5 million. Do you and the venture capitalist each get $2.5 million from the proceeds? Not on your Nellie! The venture capitalist will have a so-called "liquidation preference" built into the original investment agreement which allows him to first take out 2 to 5 (or more) times his principal before anyone else sees a penny. So, let's say that in this example he takes out $3 million (i.e., a "3X liquidation preference"), plus any accrued dividends on his preferred stock. After exercising the liquidation preference and cashing in his dividends only $1 million is left. You, the founder, and your team, will then split this remaining money on a 50/50 basis with the venture capitalist.<p>This is a simplified example of what happens. In real life the founder and her team would probably receive far less than even the $500,000 due to all the fine print clauses."<p>Rest is here: http://www.antiventurecapital.com/venturecapital.html
======
pbreit
That example is significantly biased in the author's favor. In fact, VCs are
not getting nearly 50% of companies. More like 10-33%. And liquidation
preferences have drifted back towards 1x which is reasonable. Finally, no one
is raising $1m and selling out for $5. In this example, just add a zero and
the founders are now looking to split $5m vs $500k.

