This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Unfortunately as we’ve learned from recent experience, using Return on Net Assets and IRR as proxies for efficiency and execution won’t save a company when their industry encounters creative disruption. For example they can reduce component cost, introduce a line extension or create new versions of the existing product.
One industry specific example is the strange fascination among some LPs and GPs around term IRR. Even though everyone knows that VC funds take 10+ years to come to fruition, one often can’t help but benchmark themselves based on IRR in the early days.
One industry specific example is the strange fascination among some LPs and GPs around term IRR. Even though everyone knows that VC funds take 10+ years to come to fruition, one often can’t help but benchmark themselves based on IRR in the early days.
One industry specific example is the strange fascination among some LPs and GPs around term IRR. Even though everyone knows that VC funds take 10+ years to come to fruition, one often can’t help but benchmark themselves based on IRR in the early days.
Flexible VC creates early liquidity which can be either reinvested or distributed to LPs. That said, nothing is cost-free. More complex cost of capital calculation. Inversely, if the company has slower than predicted growth, the effective cost of capital is automatically lowered. Transaction costs. Cost of capital.
If you look at the spreadsheet, you will see that the “Required Rate of Return” is expressed as an IRR. Internal Rates of Return naturally compound, so a 50% IRR is 7.59 (If you plug in an IRR of 58.5% Internal Rates of Return naturally compound, so a 50% IRR is 7.59 times at 5 years and 11.39
Mid-stage portfolios can be more acutely impacted if many companies have fat cost structures and were investing heavily in growth that is not materializing. This may not hurt the ultimate exit value of these companies, but the passage of time will hurt the fund’s ultimate IRR. Unevenly distributed, but broadly optimistic.
Distributions can actually be drawn out over an extended period of time, but for the purposes of this exercise, I just kept the fund to 11 years. Second, their dollars dollar cost average at cheaper entry prices. Here's another way to look at it--the cost of capital argument. It's what you'd expect. But what does the model say?
In Silicon Valley boardrooms, where “growth at all costs” had been the mantra for many years, people began to imagine a world where the cost of capital could rise dramatically, and profits could come back in vogue. Do you feel the need to raise more capital quickly before the prices erode further and bring down your IRR?
Leaders (company is leaving China, our IPO is next week, 1,800 new stores are being opened in 180 days, our new IRR is 8%). Hence, over time, though the costs were reasonable, I've become shy about these resources as a source of value/quality. Any big shifts in investment (marketing, customer experience, team sizes, tools).
No reason to sell winners prematurely just because of original fund length, especially given our LPs are largely cash-on-cash return focused more than IRR. Exceeding our limits on company concentration and recycling – we are aggressive in using early liquidity to get more turns on the dollars rather than distribute.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content