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
This essay is part of a series on alternative VC: I: Revenue-Based Investing: a new option for founders who care about control. II: Who are the major Revenue-Based Investing VCs? III: Why are Revenue-Based VCs investing in so many women and underrepresented founders? IV: Should your new VC fund use Revenue-Based Investing?
More and more startups are pursuing Revenue-Based VCs , but “RBI” doesn’t fit everyone. From RBI, Flexible VCs borrow the ability to reap meaningful returns without demanding founders build for an exit. Flexible VC 101: Equity Meets Revenue Share. Flexible VC: Revenue -based. Gross Revenues (generally 2-8%).
The low supply and high demand is driving up the valuations and deal sizes. Threshold for an IPO is higher Ten years ago, if you had $20M in revenue you were ready to go public. If you have <$100M in revenue, you’re probably going to stay private. Series C/D is the new Mezzanine.
In order for a company to attract a full Seed round ($2M – $3M), that company needs to show an almost completed product, an advanced prototype, or some kind of traction/demand metrics. Seed is the new Series A. (~$2M used get for building product, establishing product-market fit and early revenue). Series B is the new Series C.
By definition, second-stage ventures generally have 10 to 99 employees and/or $750,000 to $50 million in revenue, and see that as just the beginning. They need a large infusion from venture capitalists, private equity, bank loans, or mezzanine financing. Of course, not every entrepreneur wants to tackle this challenge.
By definition, second-stage ventures generally have 10 to 99 employees and/or $750,000 to $50 million in revenue, and see that as just the beginning. They need a large infusion from venture capitalists, private equity, bank loans, or mezzanine financing. Of course, not every entrepreneur wants to tackle this challenge.
By definition, second-stage ventures generally have 10 to 99 employees and/or $750,000 to $50 million in revenue, and see that as just the beginning. They need a large infusion from venture capitalists, private equity, bank loans, or mezzanine financing. Of course, not every entrepreneur wants to tackle this challenge.
By definition, second-stage ventures generally have 10 to 99 employees and/or $750,000 to $50 million in revenue, and see that as just the beginning. They need a large infusion from venture capitalists, private equity, bank loans, or mezzanine financing. Of course, not every entrepreneur wants to tackle this challenge.
By definition, second-stage ventures generally have 10 to 99 employees and/or $750,000 to $50 million in revenue, and see that as just the beginning. They need a large infusion from venture capitalists, private equity, bank loans, or mezzanine financing. Of course, not every entrepreneur wants to tackle this challenge.
Researchers polled experts in lending, mezzanine capital, private equity, venture capital and private businesses themselves. Respondents deemed between 12%-16% of companies generating revenues to be essentially “worthless” and deemed 20%-26% of their pre-revenue investments to be “worthless.” Add to this that 72.7% Translation?
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