Borja Moreno de los Rios

Check out my recent post on why President Trump is the forcing function for us to solve the “Missing Middle” and catch the industrial Tsunami of onshoring coming to the US!

84

9 Comments

𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲 (𝐒𝐀𝐅𝐄) The Simple Agreement for Future Equity, often referred to as SAFE, is a popular financial instrument used by early-stage startups to raise capital without determining an immediate valuation or issuing equity. Here are the key elements of the SAFE: 1. Future Equity Conversion: The primary purpose of a SAFE is to convert into equity at a future financing round, typically triggered by a qualified financing event such as a priced equity financing or a sale of the company. 2. Investment Amount: Specifies the amount of money the investor is putting into the company in exchange for the SAFE. 3. Discount Rate: Many SAFEs include a discount rate which allows investors to receive shares at a lower price per share than investors in the subsequent priced round. This rewards early investors for taking on more risk. 4. Valuation Cap: A valuation cap is a maximum valuation at which the investment in the SAFE will convert into equity. If the subsequent financing round values the company above the cap, the investor in the SAFE benefits by converting their investment at a lower valuation, effectively receiving more equity for their investment. 5. Conversion Event: Specifies the events or conditions under which the SAFE will convert into equity. 6. Dilution Protection: Some SAFEs may include anti-dilution provisions to protect investors in case the company issues equity at a lower valuation than the SAFE's conversion price in a subsequent financing round. 7. Maturity Date: Although less common, some SAFEs may have a maturity date, after which the investment converts into equity regardless of whether qualified financing has occurred. 8. Termination Events: Events that can terminate the SAFE, such as a change of control or dissolution of the company, may also be specified. 9. Rights and Obligations: Outlines any rights or obligations of the investor and the company, such as information rights or restrictions on the company's ability to incur debt. These elements vary depending on the terms negotiated between the investor and the startup. SAFEs are designed to be simple and streamlined compared to traditional equity financing, making them attractive for early-stage startups and investors seeking flexibility and simplicity in fundraising. Please click this link for a two-minute video on SAFE Basic Elements: https://lnkd.in/gdZCZ4Yk? Follow me on LinkedIn (https://lnkd.in/dUKQjs3u) or contact me at [email protected] to learn more about how we can assist you in your Startup journey. #innovation #technology #entrepreneur #venturecapital #startup #digitalmarketing #management #vc #venturecapital #startups #entrepreneurs #entrepreneurship #tech #deeptech #ai #artificialintelligence #future #money #business

2

"Simply put, there is too much capital seeking too few opportunities, particularly at the seed stage. Multi-stage firms have eliminated pricing discipline at seed stage and the proliferation of seed firms has made the task of investing at this stage as competitive as it’s ever been, leading me to believe that indexed seed investing in today’s environment will produce poor returns. What does this mean for today’s environment? It’s never been more important to break away from median performance. While there is risk in breaking away from the pack, the risk (at least performance wise) of staying part of the herd is simply far worse. Median returns for the recent vintages are simply terrible. One could argue that funds are still in their j-curve phases, but I suspect this doesn’t explain the divergence we’re seeing between GOOD performers and GREAT performers. More than ever before, it’s clear to me that playing the same game as everyone else will not work, so fund managers should question whether they are really capable of being in the top 5% of whatever strategy they are employing. From a LP perspective, allocators should likely ask the same of their managers and consider whether allocating to indexed mega funds or indexing across too broad of a portfolio of managers is tenable in achieving their return targets." https://lnkd.in/g8GqHY-P

5

VC world can be cruel and unforgiving. With LPs more and more pushing for distribution and liquidity, fund managers in the mid-tenure of their fund with zero DPI and TVPI around 1.0 would have much more difficulty to raise new fund. The ability to fundraise is one of the crucial indications and validation of the job for VCs. Key highlights from the article below: Thirteen percent of venture General Partners (GPs) no longer plan to raise another fund due to LP pullback. This rate has doubled since H1 2023 when only 6% of GPs had no plans for another fund. Nearly 44% of venture firms surveyed in mid-2023 had previously postponed their fundraising plans due to concerns about overexposure to the asset class. Many emerging managers entered venture capital in 2019 or 2020 when the LP market supported more funds. However, slow exits in the first half of 2024 have led to challenges in raising second funds without significant cash distributions to LPs. Some venture GPs are now actively participating in the secondaries market to demonstrate returns. Despite the challenges, GPs who secured fresh capital remain optimistic. They expect the 2023 and 2024 vintages to be the strongest return years since 2019. 🚀📈 #VC #VentureCapital #Fundraising #LPs #EmergingManagers #TechInvestment #MarketTrends #CountdownCapital #IndustryInsights #JetVentures #JetInvestment‍‍‍‍‍‍

23

The Trends I’m Seeing in VC and PE-Backed Companies as a Fractional Advisor. One big shift I’ve noticed is earlier involvement in mentoring pre-seed and scale-ups. Previously, I’d typically step in at Series A or later. But now, I’m being asked to guide companies at much earlier stages. The market is so competitive that founders want to lay solid foundations well before investment lands. It’s a smart move - preparing for growth and scaling in today’s challenging environment requires clear strategies and strong operational frameworks from the start. Catch the full episode: https://lnkd.in/e_JfxnzS #FractionalAdvisor #VC #PE #Startups #ScalingUp

6

How do investors price pre-seed rounds?  This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of fundraising.  Oftentimes, founders want some framework to better understand what market value is when raising capital into their business.  Public equities and later stage privates have a well defined matrix of revenue/margin profiles that dictate valuation, surely there must be some framework for arriving at a pre-seed valuation. So how do investors price startups that are pre-revenue, or have maybe one of two early customers? In reality, pricing is more a byproduct of a VC fund’s portfolio construction model than any metric of the underlying business.  VCs model out portfolios to include a certain number of companies with an ownership target in each startup.  There are variations to portfolio construction, and the chosen strategy will have a direct impact on the types of rounds a fund will participate in. For example, an early stage fund might raise a $60M fund to lead investments in 30 companies and target 12.5% ownership.   After management fees, there is ~$48M in investable capital.  Assuming a fund holds back ~30% for reserves(this number varies across funds) that leaves ~$30M to invest in initial checks.   In this case a fund must average $1M checks at $8M valuations to reach their intended ownership target of 12.5%.   When you are in diligence with a fund, they are first and foremost trying to get to a yes on the investment opportunity.  When arriving at a valuation though, the math outlined above is the determining factor, more so than any multiple of revenue on the business, or the stated desires of where a founder wants to raise capital.  At the end of the day, a VC is trying to arrive at a valuation that works within their portfolio strategy. This means they are very unlikely to price a deal at $15M cap given the aforementioned portfolio construction, as they would either not own enough($1M = 6.67% ownership) or have to cut too large a check( $1.875M = 12.5%). The thing that is most likely to move an investor off their target valuation is another investor in the picture that is driving the price higher, but even then there are upward bound limits of how high an investor is willing to price a deal. I always advise our port cos to ask an investor early in conversations what their ideal check size/valuation is to make sure there is alignment with the founder's objectives.    

56

4 Comments

🔥 🔥 🙌 🙌 🎆 🎆 I'm *fired up* to share this. #VentureIQ by the 9point8 Collective is officially live. We've heard from investors of every size and type that it takes too long and costs too much to evaluate deal flow; this limits the scale and speed at which these capital allocators can operate. To address this problem, we've created an innovative solution which delivers high fidelity diligence information near instantaneously. From a time and cost perspective, VentureIQ immediately creates leverage to look at more deals - and creates space to focus deeply on the most meaningful opportunities. To learn more, you can reach out to me directly or visit VentureIQ.ai. I'll close with some thoughts on my team, to whom I'm so grateful. Blair Merlino, Neal Ghosh and Evan Allen don't just talk about interesting concepts, point out problems or pontificate on what could be. Instead, they identify a problem, frame and validate the solution, and do the work to bring it to reality. VentureIQ is the best example I've seen of this, to date. #VentureCapital, #FamilyOffice, #PrivateEquity #CorporateDevelopment #Startups

9

2 Comments

Small VC funds vs. Large VC funds by the numbers:‍ By now, most people have definitely concluded that in VC, small funds outperform their larger fund counterparts. Our view, both heuristically and backed by our own data, is that small funds can materially outperform, but there is a clear added dimension of risk that shouldn't be ignored. First, what does our data say by fund size? Keep in mind that the data below is from 253 funds, with only pre-2019 vintage years being included (to eliminate the J-curve effect and our belief that 4-5 years need to pass before a directional stance can be taken on a fund). Also, the mean performance numbers may look inflated, but they include some large outliers and have mainly (by our measure) very high quality fund managers. Also, we expect final DPI will show a softening of perhaps 20-40% in these numbers over time as markdowns continue. TLDR: Small funds (0-100MM) definitely can outperform when successful, but come with a much higher level of volatility (and even this data set has survivorship bias). The challenge for risk mitigation for small funds is discovery, diligence, and building an appropriate level of diversification through picking multiple of these funds. This can be very time intensive and laborious for most investors (given nearly 70% of current VC managers raised funs that fall in this range) Large VC funds can be fundamentally different products when it comes to risk/return through the inherent characteristics they possess, including 1)More Series B and later exposure given the higher % of reserves these funds hold for follow-on relative to seed funds 2) more portfolio companies 3) typically larger teams and brands. Also, many larger brands staple offerings of early stage + growth, which by definition will provide lower volatility and should provide liquidity sooner (in theory). However, the tradeoff for less manager risk/lower vol is a tighter band of potential outcomes, with top-end DPI outliers being very rare given the basic math of venture (especially when premium carry is taken into account). At the end of the day, each investor needs to assess their own constraints of time, risk, and return expectations to develop a portfolio of VC funds that makes sense for them. Here is the data: Small Funds (0-100MM): Mean TVPI: 4.3 Standard Deviation: 2.4 Median Portfolio Companies: 26 Mid-Sized Funds (100-250MM): Mean TVPI: 3.6 Standard Deviation: 2.0 Median Portfolio Companies: 24 Mid-Large (250-500MM): MeanTVPI: 3.0 Standard Deviation: 1.2 Median Portfolio Companies: 35 Large (500MM+): Mean TVPI: 2.7 Standard Deviation: 0.9   Median Portfolio Companies: 43  #VentureCapital #InvestmentStrategy #PrivateMarkets #VCInsights #RiskManagement #PortfolioManagement #Allocate

320

30 Comments

I'm excited to announce that Canapi Ventures has led OpenYield's seed round. OpenYield is redefining how bonds are traded and who gets to trade them. Despite being one of the largest global asset classes, fixed income has long lagged behind equities in terms of innovation. Outdated systems, fragmented liquidity, and barriers to access have made bond trading inefficient, opaque, and inaccessible to many, particularly retail investors.   OpenYield is changing that. By delivering an equity-like trading experience for bonds, the platform transforms the fixed income market into a space defined by transparency, efficiency, and access. With real-time pricing, seamless execution, and intuitive workflows, OpenYield is making bond trading easier and more effective for institutional players, market makers, and retail investors alike. This progress wouldn’t be possible without the exceptional leadership of Jonathan Birnbaum and Hilton Lipschitz, whose decades of experience in capital markets and fintech have earned them the right to build a category leader in this market. Also hard to believe that meeting Jonathan over 20 years ago led to this partnership today!   For Canapi’s network of financial institution LPs, OpenYield represents an exciting opportunity to enhance wealth platforms, attract new client assets, and deepen advisor relationships. As the competition for wealth clients intensifies, access to efficient fixed income trading will be a critical differentiator, delivering real value for customers and strengthening client loyalty. Thrilled to be partnering with Ben Savage and Ned Daoro at Clocktower Ventures. Shoutout to Harrison Kioko. More thoughts on our investment thesis here:

169

6 Comments

I recently saw this metric from Carta’s 1Q24 VC Fund Report, which is very concerning. DPI... is nowhere to be found in earlier vintages that probably should start showing DPI. Funding early-stage projects is great, but ultimately, these venture dollars need to exit their investments and pay back their limited partners. That’s where the metric Distributed to Paid-In Capital (DPI) comes in. While managing a fund, we get interim measures during the life of the fund (e.g. IRR, MOIC), but ultimately, “you can’t eat IRR.” If you want to build a lasting venture capital organization, you need to start showing DPI for your fund. Keep in mind that this is traditional VC data from Carta, and is not strictly crypto venture. Crypto venture tends to get liquidity earlier (tokens) and things tend to go parabolic sooner (faster, more unicorns) - but I’d wager that the data here is somewhat similar for Crypto VCs… Not as much DPI as there should be from these earlier vintages. Read the full article, as well as a recap of all the crypto fundraising rounds for August, here: https://lnkd.in/g3eVJ-iF

25

2 Comments

Wing Venture Capital's Founder Docs project is a unique collection of startup wisdom, by founders, for founders. The authors of the docs are talented founders themselves, sharing their experience on the topics they are most passionate about. I'd like to highlight the contributions of Edo Liberty, founder / CEO of Pinecone. Edo writes about the special opportunities for the scientist / founder (and he is one of the best of this breed!), as well as some of the risks and challenges they face. I got a lot out of reading Edo's stuff and I suspect you will too! https://lnkd.in/g_wyRMiE

75

2 Comments

Excellent blog post on the realities of Climate & VC. While these are "tough times for the transition," there are also many opportunities. Significant capital will continue to flow, with Corporate VCs playing a larger role in financing this transition. Through this process, they will strengthen their LP positions in funds tackling climate challenges. I receive weekly calls from large Holding & Corporate VCs seeking introductions to Climate / Energy / Infra VC Funds. When I ask about their target sub-verticals within Climate / Energy, they often mention that they default to focusing on specific regions due to limited resources and coverage. In other words, rather than evaluating whether a DACH VC is better positioned for solar or grid-tech compared to a Nordic or US VC, they simply pursue whichever regions they can access—a haphazard approach at best. I always advise LPs to evaluate VCs within their operating market context. Since sourcing is crucial in venture capital, Holding Cos. and Family Offices should carefully assess a VC's location, regulatory context, and market environment before investing and building a portfolio of Funds. I've heard "I wish I had discovered this VC / region sooner" far too many times... * At ComposeVC's Built World Fund, we do not invest in Climatetech or Energytech directly, only as it relates to our Built World thesis.

9

💡 Imagine a VC fund that shares the detailed data on their investment fund 📈 When founders approach investors for their rounds, they end up on dozens on VC websites stating the obvious, leaving founders behind with many unanswered questions on the VC. "Venture capital is one of the most opaque industries, and while there are reasons for this, it often leads to some shady tactics that frustrate founders" .... Imagine that startups could found a full breakdown of the VC & their fund: their investments, their tickets, their domains, exits, mean valuation, ... ✔ Today there is a VC that has taken this route of total fund transparancy by launching their VC Dashboard instead of just another VC website "Founders’ time is scarce and so they are looking to access enough data to understand three things: - Are we “good” investors; - Are we the right investors for them, and; - What are the chances we'd invest in a company like theirs This will inform their decision of engaging with us or not." Bold and interesting move & breaking some rules by Unruly Capital Stefano Bernardi , we might need a new hashtag for this: #vcinpublic 😎 🔗🔗🔗 Link to their post and the VC Dashboard in the first comment (recommended) ps: I 💜 the "ADD COMPANY" button to submit a pitch, things can be simple 😎

5

4 Comments

Does the incoming administration adjust the landscape for VC in the South? Three trends for family offices and VC investors to consider: https://lnkd.in/dVhVvuND

6

🙌 Huge congrats to portfolio company Emidat for closing their $4M seed round, led by General Catalyst, with participation of BOOOM💥 , Auxxo Female Catalyst Fund, Übermorgen Ventures, and incredible angels. With NP-Hard Ventures we're proud to double down! 🌍 Construction and real estate amount for around 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Emidat has built a software platform for automating the generation of validated Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) certificates for this sector. Basically, they help the construction industry understand their environmental impact and support them in reducing it. 👩‍🚒 The speed of execution of this team is incredible. Lisa Oberaigner & Florian Fesch started Emidat a bit over a year ago, and already have 25 customers who have used or are using its platform for some 350 construction plans. Their database of materials contains information on over 150,000 construction products, spanning 13 product categories so far. But it’s just getting started. Thanks for having us on your journey! NP-Hard Ventures // Paul Veugen, Micha Hernandez van Leuffen // Melissa van den Brink - Romero More on TechCrunch: https://lnkd.in/ezctG2GU

122

7 Comments

Fundraising founders, don’t be too hard on yourself—it’s a tough fundraising environment, and that’s no secret. But remember to keep raising your standards because the bar for VC funding is getting higher, and you’ve got to meet it. As the venture capital landscape tightens, competition for dollars is fiercer than ever. At Startup Ignition Ventures, we’re seeing this shift firsthand, every day more and more apparent. In 2021 and 2022, many startups could secure VC checks despite being loosely thrown together and rough around the edges. Fast forward to 2024, and those same startups wouldn’t make the cut. That's not a knock on yesterday's startups as much as it is a contrast to today’s fundraising environment being completely different. Today, the founders getting funded are buttoned-up, detail-oriented, and operating at a much higher level. Everything has to be top-notch to catch a VC’s attention. Why the change? The number of active investors has dropped by 38% from 2022 to 2024 (PitchBook), meaning fewer deals are being made. VC funding is also down over 30% year-over-year (GlobalData). This means the standard has tightened, and startups must rise well above the average “2022 or 2023 fundability status” to secure 2024 investment. Startups now need to show exceptional business models, traction, products, and teams to stand out in a shrinking pool of opportunities. The landscape may be tough, but it’s also ripe for startups that prove they’re exceptional. Now is the time to build, to gear up, and then be ready for further opportunity as the market begins to turn. Which I personally think is around the corner in 2025.

140

13 Comments

Insightful breakdown from my great Partner Omri Amirav-Drory on the simple factors that really separate the top 1% of investors from the rest, and how more operators should become investors! https://lnkd.in/gEiZdT2h

16

3 Comments