Should your new VC fund use revenue-based investing?

You’re working on launching a new VC fund; congratulations! I’ve been a traditional equity VC for 8 years, and I’m now researching revenue-vased investing and other new approaches to VC. The question I’m asking myself: should a new VC fund use revenue-based investing, traditional equity VC, or possibly both (likely from two separate pools of capital)?

Revenue-based investing (“RBI”) is a new form of VC financing, distinct from the preferred equity structure most VCs use. RBI normally requires founders to pay back their investors with a fixed percentage of revenue until they have finished providing the investor with a fixed return on capital, which they agree upon in advance.

This guest post was written by David Teten, Venture Partner, HOF Capital. You can follow him at teten.com and @dteten. This is part of an ongoing series on Revenue-based investing VC that will hit on:

• Revenue-based investing: A new option for founders who care about control
• Who are the major revenue-based investing VCs?
• Should your new VC fund use revenue-based investing?
• Why are revenue-based VCs investing in so many women and underrepresented founders?
• Should you raise equity venture capital or revenue-based investing VC?

From the investors’ point of view, the advantages of the RBI models are manifold. In fact, the Kauffman Foundation has launched an initiative specifically to support VCs focused on this model. The major advantages to investors are:

• Shorter duration, i.e., faster time to liquidity. Typically RBI VCs get their capital back within 3 to 5 years.

  

Powered by WPeMatico