One question that I’m often asked is, “How should I think about the composition of my seed round?” In other words, how many investors and what type (angels, seed funds, larger funds, etc.) make an ideal seed fundraise?

For context, of our 37 investments at NextView, ~20% were with angels only, ~40% were with seed funds and angels, and ~40% were with some combination of larger VCs, angels, and seed funds.

It seems like a high-class problem for an entrepreneur to be able to influence round composition, and it is. But I find that once a company has investor interest, many other folks tend to want to pile on. How should an entrepreneur think about the different types of investors affecting their seed and Series A rounds? Here are a few of the typical configurations and the pros and cons of each.

types-of-startup-investors

The One-VC-Led Seed

Definition:

This is the case when a large VC (i.e. greater than $200M fund size) takes a significant portion of a seed round and maybe leaves 50% or less of the round available for angels or seed funds. In this case, the VC will typically take a board seat and be very active in the company, and the entrepreneur has basically gone through the standard investment process of the firm.

Pros:

  • High degree of VC commitment.
  • Easier to attract good value-added folks to fill out the round.
  • More dry powder in case there is a need for an extension
  • The VC feels supportive of the company.

Cons:

  • You’re locked into the incentives of the VC around outcome size (a.k.a. how large an exit they prefer to see), portfolio strategy, etc.

Series A Dynamics:

This is a middle-of-the-road outcome in terms of optimizing your next round of financing. If the company is doing really well, the VC will have an incentive to try to do more of the next round at perhaps not the highest possible valuation. Their aggressiveness sends a signal to the market. But it’s very typical for a VC to say, “We are committed to half the Series A — go find an outside lead,” and be helpful in making that happen.

That’s probably what would happen if the company is doing well and is a fine outcome IMHO. This is what happened awhile back with Gemvara here in Boston. We saw the Series A at my prior firm, and Highland Capital was committed for half the Series A, which we took as a positive signal of support. But if that VC is not participating in the follow-on round for any reason, you’ll be in a pretty difficult spot.

The Two-VC-Led Seed

Definition:

This is a case where two large VCs partner to take a significant portion of the round together, often leaving only a small piece for value added angels or seed investors.

In this case, the VCs really consider this a true investment of both time and reputation. This tends to be more common on the East Coast where there is more of a history of firms buddying up with the intention of doing the next couple rounds of financing together. Often, the VC partners have worked together before and both have deep domain experience that is very relevant to the company. (This is different than a round with multiple VCs that are not leading.)

Pros:

  • Lots of help from the VCs.
  • Potential for very quick and easy Series A and even Series B if things go well.
  • Lots of credibility, even at a very early stage.

Cons:

  • Not much space for new investors in future rounds.
  • You’re locked into the incentives of the VCs.
  • Limited options for Series A.

Series A Dynamics:

When a seed round like this happens, you are banking on the VCs to lead your Series A round together too. It’s harder to go outside and create competition for the round unless you are absolutely knocking the cover off the ball.

That said, if you were able to get the right investors to participate together in the seed, it can work out well. We did this quite a bit at Spark with Tumblr (Spark and USV) and Admeld (Spark and Foundry).

Angel Round Led by a Micro VC or Seed Fund

Definition:

This is a case where there are no large VCs investing in a round but instead a dedicated seed fund or “micro VC” acts as the lead.

Often, a member of the seed fund’s team will take a board seat and be actively involved. Sometimes, there will be multiple seed funds participating, or there will just be one plus a number of angels.

Pros:

  • Good incentive alignment among the stakeholders.
  • The round can come together quickly.
  • Lots of optionality and less signaling in future rounds.
  • Strong credibility in the market if the round is led by a respected seed fund.

Cons:

  • Will need to attract outside capital for subsequent rounds.
  • Varying degrees of willingness to do an inside round or bridge.

Series A Dynamics:

Your seed investors are well aligned to help you raise your Series A from the best parter at the highest price that makes sense for the company. Additionally, the potential for competition is high. But the downside is that some funds are very reluctant to do inside rounds or extensions, so it is up to the entrepreneur to gain external validation from the market.

Individual Angels Only

Definition:

This is a round comprised only of individual angels. In the best case, a very sophisticated angel acts as the lead for the round in which others can participate. In the worst case, there is no angel that emerges as a true lead.

Pros:

  • Good incentive alignment.
  • Can get some support/help from multiple angels.

Cons:

  • If there is no lead, it’s much harder to actually pull the round together.
  • There may be a lack of credibility from the perspective of partners, customers, or potential Series A investors unless the angels are very well known and respected.
  • It’s also hard to raise a larger amount of capital (say >$750K) since most angels are writing modest checks. It should be noted however that some angels belong to syndicates that allow them to speak for larger amounts of capital.

Series A Dynamics:

This really depends on who the angels are. In theory, most angels should be well aligned to help you raise your Series A. If you have well known angels, they can be a strong asset. The downside is that angels usually have limited capacity and interest in following on.

The Large VC Chip-In

Definition:

This is more likely an angel round of many different potential compositions, but it then includes at least one large VC chipping in a small percentage of the round.

Pros:

  • Good to get another very smart person around the table who can help the company.

Cons:

  • Usually won’t get that VC’s full time or attention, as the investment is explicitly an option to keep tabs on the company and only potentially participate in the Series A if things are looking good.

Series A Dynamics:

Others have talked quite a bit about this. I’ve heard the argument that investor signaling is reduced if there are more VCs in the round, but I’m not sure if that is necessarily true. I do think that entrepreneurs have become savvier at navigating these situations and maximizing their outcomes if things are going well (such as one of our early investments in RentJuice — acquired by Zillow — that had Highland as a small investor prior them leading their first true VC round).

Of all the scenarios, this is the trickiest and most idiosyncratic. It’s possible that the large VC’s participation can exert a lot of negative influence in the future round, and it’s also possible that the VC gets very aggressive and catalyzes a preemptive Series A.

As with any round, the composition and even definition of a seed round is forever in flux (though arguably this is more apparent in seed today).

Thus, it’s important for entrepreneurs to have their eyes wide open if they enter into a fundraise and have the great luxury of influencing their round’s composition.

This is an updated version of a post written on Rob’s blog, RobGo.org.