Fred Wilson wrote a useful post on valuation today. It reminded me of a document I had Dave Jilk write when he was doing some work for me. I decided to write this “bladon” (Blog Add-on) post – inspired by Fred. Please read Fred’s post first – it lays the groundwork for why VCs do things this way.

I’ve found that even sophisticated entrepreneurs didn’t necessary grasp how valuation math (or “deal algebra”) worked. VCs talk about pre-money, post-money, and share price as though these were universally defined terms that the average American voter would understand. To insure everyone is talking about the same thing, I started passing out this document. Recognize that this is about the math behind the calculations, not the philosophy of valuation (which Fred’s blog addresses).

In a venture capital investment, the terminology and mathematics can seem confusing at first, particularly given that the investors are able to calculate the relevant numbers in their heads. The concepts are actually not complicated, and with a few simple algebraic tips you will be able to do the math in your head as well, leading to more effective negotiation.

The essence of a venture capital transaction is that the investor puts cash in the company in return for newly-issued shares in the company. The state of affairs immediately prior to the transaction is referred to as “pre-money,” and immediately after the transaction “post-money.”

The value of the whole company before the transaction, called the “pre-money valuation” (and similar to a market capitalization) is just the share price times the number of shares outstanding before the transaction:

Pre-money Valuation = Share Price * Pre-money Shares

The total amount invested is just the share price times the number of shares purchased:

Investment = Share Price * Shares Issued

Unlike when you buy publicly traded shares, however, the shares purchased in a venture capital investment are new shares, leading to a change in the number of shares outstanding:

Post-money Shares = Pre-money Shares + Shares Issued

And because the only immediate effect of the transaction on the value of the company is to increase the amount of cash it has, the valuation after the transaction is just increased by the amount of that cash:

Post-money Valuation = Pre-money Valuation + Investment

The portion of the company owned by the investors after the deal will just be the number of shares they purchased divided by the total shares outstanding:

Fraction Owned = Shares Issued /Post-money Shares

Using some simple algebra (substitute from the earlier equations), we find out that there is another way to view this:

Fraction Owned = Investment / Post-money Valuation = Investment / (Pre-money Valuation + Investment)

So when an investor proposes an investment of $2 million at $3 million “pre” (short for premoney valuation), this means that the investors will own 40% of the company after the transaction:

$2m / ($3m + $2m) = 2/5 = 40%

And if you have 1.5 million shares outstanding prior to the investment, you can calculate the price per share:

Share Price = Pre-money Valuation / Pre-money Shares = $3m / 1.5m = $2.00

As well as the number of shares issued:

Shares Issued = Investment /Share Price = $2m / $2.00 = 1m

The key trick to remember is that share price is easier to calculate with pre-money numbers, and fraction of ownership is easier to calculate with post-money numbers; you switch back and forth by adding or subtracting the amount of the investment. It is also important to note that the share price is the same before and after the deal, which can also be shown with some simple algebraic manipulations.

A few other points to note:

Investors will almost always require that the company set aside additional shares for a stock option plan for employees. Investors will assume and require that these shares are set aside prior to the investment, thus diluting the founders.
If there are multiple investors, they must be treated as one in the calculations above.
To determine an individual ownership fraction, divide the individual investment by the post-money valuation for the entire deal.
For a subsequent financing, to keep the share price flat the pre-money valuation of the new investment must be the same as the post-money valuation of the prior investment.
For early-stage companies, venture investors are normally interested in owning a particular fraction of the company for an appropriate investment. The valuation is actually a derived number and does not really mean anything about what the business is “worth.”

July 7th, 2004 Categories: Venture Capital

http://http:/www.sifry.com/alerts/ David Sifry

Great post. One additional suggestion would be to discuss the differences between preferences and participation – a subtle point that had to be explained to me a few times until I really understood it – and why simple preferences are actually good for a deal, since they increase trust around the table…

Dave
http://http:/www.sifry.com/alerts/ David Sifry

Great post. One additional suggestion would be to discuss the differences between preferences and participation – a subtle point that had to be explained to me a few times until I really understood it – and why simple preferences are actually good for a deal, since they increase trust around the table…

Dave
http://sandbox.rulemaker.net/ngps Ng Pheng Siong

May I suggest that you next talk about investment rounds and discounting, please.

I've always supposed this valuation game goes somewhat like this:

1. Assume "final, desired" valuation V, at exit-time, Y years into the future.

2. Discount V (40-70%?) back to the present, giving V', the current valuation. Discount factor is subjective and depends on the perceived risk, of course.

How this ties into multiple rounds (with possibly different investors at each round) is what I'm unclear about, e.g., wrt number of shares to be issued at each round, etc.

Thanks.
http://sandbox.rulemaker.net/ngps Ng Pheng Siong

May I suggest that you next talk about investment rounds and discounting, please.

I've always supposed this valuation game goes somewhat like this:

1. Assume “final, desired” valuation V, at exit-time, Y years into the future.

2. Discount V (40-70%?) back to the present, giving V', the current valuation. Discount factor is subjective and depends on the perceived risk, of course.

How this ties into multiple rounds (with possibly different investors at each round) is what I'm unclear about, e.g., wrt number of shares to be issued at each round, etc.

Thanks.
http://www.dashes.com/links/archives/20040704.php#013481 anil dash's dai

Venture Capital Deal Algebra
http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/2004/07/venture….
http://www.dashes.com/links/archives/20040704.php#013481 anil dash's dai

Venture Capital Deal Algebra

http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/2004/07/venture…
Dave Jilk

I can comment on the two prior comments:

Regarding investment rounds and discounting, the author clearly is thinking in terms of traditional corporate finance where value is discounted from some expected future value based on risk/volatility. Nothing could be further from the reality of early stage venture capital valuations. A true mezzanine (immediately pre-IPO) round might have some discounted value features.

Instead, valuations in institutional venture capital are primarily driven by prevailing trends, typical stage-related capital needs, and cap table expectations of later stage investors. For example, most Series A investors will look to take 30%-45% of the company on a fully-diluted basis for a $2-4m investment. In 2001-2002, valuations were so low that it was hard to get Series A money, because investors could get the same pre-money for a Series B round in a company that had customers and revenue. There is much more to say here, but I'll end by noting that I have not mentioned expected future value or risk — early stage investors assume these to be roughly constants for a given stage of deal, if they like the market and the management team.

Note that one may run into VCs who try to do financial analysis of the kind mentioned, using an adjusted version of the company's financial model. These VCs do you a great service by demonstrating that they know next to nothing about early stage investing and therefore will be difficult to deal with in board meetings.

Regarding preferences and participation:

These are both potential features of preferred stock, the typical form in which a venture capital investor will have its holdings in the company. Most preferred stock is convertible into common stock, so in a liquidity event (when the company is sold or liquidated — IPOs usually require a conversion to common), the investor has the option to convert the preferred shares into common and receive its pro-rata share of the proceeds, or retain the preferred shares and receive a preferential share of the proceeds.

In the latter case, a "preference" simply describes how much the preferred shareholders receive before the remainder of the proceeds are divvied up among the common shareholders. A typical situation is that the investors get back their original investment, a 1-X preference. In some cases the investor is more aggressive and requires a multiple of the investment, e.g., a 2-X preference. In this case, if they invested $3m, they will receive $6m in proceeds before the common shareholders receive anything. Clearly one can calculate the liquidated value where conversion to common is better for the preferred shareholder.

The allocations of preferences among different series of preferred stock can get very complicated — sometimes it is pro-rata, sometimes it is tiered (Series C first, then B, etc.) However, the preferences can usually (not always) be summarized with a single number called "preference overhang," which is the amount of liquidation proceeds that go to the preferred shareholders before the common shareholders divide up what remains. This is the number that the founders and optionholders normally care about.

A "participate" is sometimes (by entrepreneurs) referred to as a "double-dip." What this means is that the preferred shareholders can retain their preferred stock in a liquidation event, receive their liquidation preference before the common shareholders receive anything, and then RECEIVE THEIR PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE REST. So for example, if the investors have a 1-X liquidation preference, invested $2m for 30% of the company, and it is sold for $5m, then they get a $2m liquidation preference and 30% of the remaining $3m, or $900K, for a total of $2.9m.

Thankfully, participates are usually capped at a multiple of the original investment, typically 2 to 5 times the investment.

Some venture firms avoid participates because it only encourages later stage investors to be aggressive in asking for them, and this causes the early stage investors to do worse in the long run. Entrepreneurs, especially less-seasoned ones, often see participates as somehow "unfair." It's not really unfair if you have no other financing options, but it does tell you something about how the VC will treat you going forward.

I'm surprised no one asked about antidilution …
Dave Jilk

I can comment on the two prior comments:

Regarding investment rounds and discounting, the author clearly is thinking in terms of traditional corporate finance where value is discounted from some expected future value based on risk/volatility. Nothing could be further from the reality of early stage venture capital valuations. A true mezzanine (immediately pre-IPO) round might have some discounted value features.

Instead, valuations in institutional venture capital are primarily driven by prevailing trends, typical stage-related capital needs, and cap table expectations of later stage investors. For example, most Series A investors will look to take 30%-45% of the company on a fully-diluted basis for a $2-4m investment. In 2001-2002, valuations were so low that it was hard to get Series A money, because investors could get the same pre-money for a Series B round in a company that had customers and revenue. There is much more to say here, but I'll end by noting that I have not mentioned expected future value or risk — early stage investors assume these to be roughly constants for a given stage of deal, if they like the market and the management team.

Note that one may run into VCs who try to do financial analysis of the kind mentioned, using an adjusted version of the company's financial model. These VCs do you a great service by demonstrating that they know next to nothing about early stage investing and therefore will be difficult to deal with in board meetings.

Regarding preferences and participation:

These are both potential features of preferred stock, the typical form in which a venture capital investor will have its holdings in the company. Most preferred stock is convertible into common stock, so in a liquidity event (when the company is sold or liquidated — IPOs usually require a conversion to common), the investor has the option to convert the preferred shares into common and receive its pro-rata share of the proceeds, or retain the preferred shares and receive a preferential share of the proceeds.

In the latter case, a “preference” simply describes how much the preferred shareholders receive before the remainder of the proceeds are divvied up among the common shareholders. A typical situation is that the investors get back their original investment, a 1-X preference. In some cases the investor is more aggressive and requires a multiple of the investment, e.g., a 2-X preference. In this case, if they invested $3m, they will receive $6m in proceeds before the common shareholders receive anything. Clearly one can calculate the liquidated value where conversion to common is better for the preferred shareholder.

The allocations of preferences among different series of preferred stock can get very complicated — sometimes it is pro-rata, sometimes it is tiered (Series C first, then B, etc.) However, the preferences can usually (not always) be summarized with a single number called “preference overhang,” which is the amount of liquidation proceeds that go to the preferred shareholders before the common shareholders divide up what remains. This is the number that the founders and optionholders normally care about.

A “participate” is sometimes (by entrepreneurs) referred to as a “double-dip.” What this means is that the preferred shareholders can retain their preferred stock in a liquidation event, receive their liquidation preference before the common shareholders receive anything, and then RECEIVE THEIR PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE REST. So for example, if the investors have a 1-X liquidation preference, invested $2m for 30% of the company, and it is sold for $5m, then they get a $2m liquidation preference and 30% of the remaining $3m, or $900K, for a total of $2.9m.

Thankfully, participates are usually capped at a multiple of the original investment, typically 2 to 5 times the investment.

Some venture firms avoid participates because it only encourages later stage investors to be aggressive in asking for them, and this causes the early stage investors to do worse in the long run. Entrepreneurs, especially less-seasoned ones, often see participates as somehow “unfair.” It's not really unfair if you have no other financing options, but it does tell you something about how the VC will treat you going forward.

I'm surprised no one asked about antidilution …
http://www.dashes.com/links/archives/20040704.php#013481 anil dash’s daily links

Venture Capital Deal Algebra

http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/2004/07/venture_capital.html…
http://www.jacobpang.com Jacob Pang

Well, what about antidilution? Nothing like reading it from seasoned pros
http://www.jacobpang.com Jacob Pang

Well, what about antidilution? Nothing like reading it from seasoned pros
http://sandbox.rulemaker.net/ngps Ng Pheng Siong

Heh heh. I've really seen/read presentations that use the corporate finance discounting method for VC valuations, by VCs or maybe people who coach other people on dealing with VCs.

Thanks for the clarification on both counts.
http://sandbox.rulemaker.net/ngps Ng Pheng Siong

Heh heh. I've really seen/read presentations that use the corporate finance discounting method for VC valuations, by VCs or maybe people who coach other people on dealing with VCs.

Thanks for the clarification on both counts.
http://www.jacobpang.com/index.php?p=35 Musings of an Entrep

Valuation

I have been reading up lately on Venture Capitalist as part of my research. Being always fascinated with the work they do, most of the research I do has been kind of entertaining since I like reading about startups.

From what I have read, although t…
http://www.jacobpang.com/index.php?p=35 Musings of an Entrepreneur

Valuation

I have been reading up lately on Venture Capitalist as part of my research. Being always fascinated with the work they do, most of the research I do has been kind of entertaining since I like reading about startups.

From what I have read, although t…
http://www.iskela.com/flowoftime/archives/000149.html Flow Of Time

Five year cash flow predictions

Predicting your business is always tricky. Especially in cases where you have not yet started. A young industry with less…
http://www.nadaimportante.org/archives/2004/12/30/298 Nada importante suce

Valuaci
http://www.nadaimportante.org/archives/2004/12/30/298 Nada importante suce

Valuaci
http://www.nadaimportante.org/archives/2004/12/30/298 Nada importante sucedi

Valuaci
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/fd0n demmler

Another way to look at this topic is "deals are negotiated on percents, but structured on shares." I walk through the implications of this and some examples at http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/fd0n/2%20Arithmeti… & http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/fd0n/3%20Arithmeti…
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/fd0n demmler

Another way to look at this topic is “deals are negotiated on percents, but structured on shares.” I walk through the implications of this and some examples at http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/fd0n/2%20Arithmeti… & http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/fd0n/3%20Arithmeti…
Alain Chetrit

How do VCs get compensated by their limited partners? What protective provisions and preferences do Limiteds have?
Raj

regarding carving a certain percentage option pool before round 1, how do round 1 VCs feel about maintaining that percentage post round 2 ?
anand

When a comapany has given that they hav raised series A,Series B and Second round of financing. i want a clarification that when u show their financings how do show them. means either show in a Series format or a Round format, if company is given both series and round how should i convert those rounds into Series.
http://www.feld.com Brad Feld

Anand – I’m not sure I understand your question. The terms “Series” and “Round” are often interchangable, although you might have multiple “rounds” that are the same “Series.” Series tends to link directly to the terms; Rounds are individual financing events. These are often – but not always – the same things.
http://www.rulesofthumbs.com RulesOfThumbs

This was a helpful post and some of the links were also valuable. As a referrence, there is a burgenoning site that has captured rules of thumb for the finance and venture capital industry. It is a wiki page so that users can easily add their own rules of thumb.

http://www.rulesofthumbs.com
http://www.indimoto.com Anil Tandon

Hi Everyone!,

I was wondering how to evaluate a dot com startup in the consumer internet space prior to approaching VC’s. Shall be just ask the VC’s on what they think is a fair valuation or go by industry experiences of investments made in similar space? Some suggestions will surely help.

Regards
Anil Tandon
Rajiv Seth

I am surprised by one comment in Dave Jilk’s post – that those who do financial analysis for an early stage company know nothing about investing. It is strange for me to hear that every early stage company has the same valuation, as is implied by a $2-4 m for a 35-40% stake. Would others agree to such a sweeping generalization?
Rajiv Seth

Found some downround math here: http://www.financeoutlook.com/index.php?itemid=25
Pingback: Venture Capital Deal Algebra « Himanshu Khurana
http://mls.fastrealestate.net Stellathomas

“Venture Capital Deal Algebra” discusses the basic concepts of "pre-money" and "post-money" valuation and how to calculate the shares to be issued. Among the information it shares are some very simple formulas that could be extremely helpful for deal novices.
—————-
Stellathomas

MLS
Curious

Might you be able to elaborate on the below? Thank you!

For early-stage companies, venture investors are normally interested in owning a particular fraction of the company for an appropriate investment. The valuation is actually a derived number and does not really mean anything about what the business is “worth.”
- http://intensedebate.com/people/bfeld bfeld
  
  This is a fancy way of saying “early stage valuations are arbitrary and negotiated, rather than based on a set of financial models.”
Pingback: Startup Fundraising 101 | TechDozer.Com
Pingback: Startup Fundraising 101 | UpOff.com
http://intensedebate.com/people/fiwedding fiwedding

It's a difficult thing to listen to feedback from your initial users, the first 25,000, and do the opposite of what they recommend. You alienate your "support base" etc etc. Tough situation.
Pingback: Things entrepreneurs should read #001: Venture Deals « First Light India Accelerator
Pingback: The Great Crowdfunding Train Wreck of 2013 – Antone Johnson – Mashtag Blog
Pingback: Finding Feld’s Finest Thoughts | Kevin Way
Pingback: xbox 360
Pingback: www.qualitywebhostings.com
Pingback: buy edu backlinks
Pingback: hostgator promo code
Pingback: led televisions
Pingback: does penis advantage work
Pingback: free xbox
Pingback: truth about six pack abs review
Pingback: truth about six pack abs
Pingback: penis advantage scam
Pingback: penis advantage reviews
Pingback: Adolfo Imamura
Pingback: buy edu links
Pingback: hostgator promo code
Pingback: best 32 led tv
Pingback: backlinks service
Pingback: xbox 360 giveaway
Pingback: the truth about six pack abs
Pingback: penis advantage
Pingback: Johnathan Bobson
Pingback: Jerrell Honokaupu
Pingback: Bernie Northington
Pingback: Cody Shappell
Pingback: Gillian Boehringer
Pingback: Alexander Braver
Pingback: Kraig Gearon
Pingback: Roy Hequembourg
Pingback: Randell Cudney
Pingback: Marcus Botdorf
Pingback: Hiroko Prestidge
Pingback: Willis Morre
Pingback: Barbie Duffer
Pingback: Granville Stclaire
Pingback: Melonie Gharing
Pingback: Marcus Botdorf
Pingback: tao of badass review
Pingback: Marion Farley
Pingback: Jonathon Volden
Pingback: Earnest Shock
Pingback: Jonathon Volden
Pingback: Candice Luedi
Pingback: Tatiana Glory
Pingback: Stanley Tumbleston
Pingback: Brendan Lamboy
Pingback: Corrine Hepperly
Pingback: Jay Abshier
Pingback: Ezra Wishum
Pingback: Melida Heritage
Pingback: Josefina Lampman
Pingback: Maryjo Tobon
Pingback: Louie Joerger
Pingback: Nick Dutel
Pingback: Florencio Battenfield
Pingback: Daniel Habbs
Pingback: Startup Fundraising 101 | VentureBeat
Pingback: Walker Seling
Pingback: Maya Roehrman
Pingback: Parker Shellenberger
Pingback: Raymond Shireman
Pingback: Felecia Kolkman
Pingback: Cole Kiehl
Pingback: Ailene Stuemke
Pingback: Leroy Cosio
Pingback: Brandon Dae
Pingback: Jann Perrins
Pingback: Darius Szal
Pingback: Glenn Gillooly
Pingback: Wilber Cutia
Pingback: Darius Badagliacca
Pingback: Hugh Knepshield
Pingback: Ashton Bartle
Pingback: Kelvin Tobiasson
Pingback: Taunya Sarantakis
Pingback: Lisette Arseneau
Pingback: Matilde Levers
Pingback: Rocky Balsiger
Pingback: Shandi Martinon
Pingback: Frieda Hele
Pingback: Chi Bloodsaw
Pingback: Cecil Shau
Pingback: Doretha Sopko
Pingback: Sacha Guynup
Pingback: Orlando Ellman
Pingback: Sheryl Weintz
Pingback: North Carolina
Pingback: Abel Sarrell
Pingback: Liana Loreto
Pingback: Eve Hawley
Pingback: Trang Ancar
Pingback: Irving Bubolz
Pingback: Gretchen Torello
Pingback: Rosendo Wideman
Pingback: Nohemi Than
Pingback: Hazel Marples
Pingback: Melania Peak
Pingback: Willetta Rorie
Pingback: Ollie Robak
Pingback: Liberty Gibler
Pingback: Jose Tickner
Pingback: Garry Castaner
Pingback: Janae Proco
Pingback: Evonne Staples
Pingback: Lean Kuba
Pingback: Rubie Blette
Pingback: Rosanne Hechinger
Pingback: Armando Gschwend
Pingback: Ola Chicca
Pingback: Moses Ehn
Pingback: Concetta Oniel
Pingback: Xavier Casparian
Pingback: Ian Verville
Pingback: Rashida Errico
Pingback: Willena Tebeau
Pingback: Matt Spannbauer
Pingback: Vance Chadburn
Pingback: Alvaro Fann
Pingback: Lisa Froncillo
Pingback: Eugenia Medel
Pingback: Marge Zajac
Pingback: Karla Turcott
Pingback: Lucien Saraiva
Pingback: Mabel Leyden
Pingback: http://hoiberghosting.macminicolo.net/groups/mediashout/wiki/c3ec8/Just_what_Every_one_Must_Find_out_about_the_Truth_about_Six_Pack_Abs.html
Pingback: Mittie Dunlop
Pingback: Dede Carlan
Pingback: Lacy Santaloci
Pingback: Frederic Tosches
Pingback: http://8.225.197.11/groups/mrsglowacki/wiki/9e65a/Exactly_what_One_and_all_Should_Find_out_about_the_Truth_about_Six_Pack_Abs.html
Pingback: Nichol Fusha
Pingback: Lucio Todora
Pingback: Gita Nowell
Pingback: Alanna Calamity
Pingback: Alease Glew
Pingback: Isaias Hubble
Pingback: Kandis Wamhoff
Pingback: Lenny Bernstein
Pingback: Christopher Naas
Pingback: Sanford Stayrook
Pingback: Yer Trisdale
Pingback: Emmanuel Norn
Pingback: Dane Wrightington
Pingback: Pablo Vicars
Pingback: Diana Creese
Pingback: Logan Tauteoli
Pingback: Jerome Perrot
Pingback: Brigette Berthelsen
Pingback: Dee Brackett
Pingback: Jacinto Epperly
Pingback: Devin Caudle
Pingback: Cythia Sivia
Pingback: Wesley Lamison
Pingback: Pam Dwelley
Pingback: Del Brandolino
Pingback: Cyril Rinderknecht
Pingback: Refugio Whorley
Pingback: Major Schmith
Pingback: Felipe Palmer
Pingback: America Dikeman
Pingback: Parker Isenberg
Pingback: Cruz Vonarx
Pingback: Marquis Benecke
Pingback: Vivian Georgia
Pingback: Bella Cuchiara
Pingback: Jeanetta Stoss
Pingback: Rich Innocent
Pingback: Ardella Kurt
Pingback: Krystin Whittie
Pingback: Kiera Nantanapibul
Pingback: Chong Geissler
Pingback: Jude Woudenberg
Pingback: Johnny Hussy
Pingback: Samual Guariglio
Pingback: Branden Gerling
Pingback: Edna Goehringer
Pingback: Jeraldine Serramo
Pingback: Camille Waldren
Pingback: Ashleigh Almada
Pingback: Russel Storks
Pingback: Todd Minneweather
Pingback: Arden Ramsdell
Pingback: Talitha Littlefield
Pingback: Ahmed Griebling
Pingback: Doyle Mavle
Pingback: Christopher Sutkus

Venture Capital Deal Algebra

Popular Tags

Categories