The standard VC practice of distributing shares to LPs immediately after a lockup expires can be a multi-billion dollar error. The case of selling Reddit at a $9B valuation, only to see it rise much higher, highlights that VCs may need to evolve into holding public positions longer, challenging the traditional model.
Related Insights
Navan's post-IPO stock drop, despite strong revenue, is a troubling sign for the venture ecosystem. It highlights that even a multi-billion-dollar outcome can be considered a 'bummer' and may not generate sufficient returns for large, late-stage funds, resetting expectations for what constitutes a truly successful exit in the current market.
The traditional IPO exit is being replaced by a perpetual secondary market for elite private companies. This new paradigm provides liquidity for investors and employees without the high costs and regulatory burdens of going public. This shift fundamentally alters the venture capital lifecycle, enabling longer private holding periods.
The default VC practice of distributing shares after an IPO lockup can leave massive gains on the table. Missing a multi-billion dollar run-up suggests a more nuanced, case-by-case discussion with LPs is needed, as holding can be the difference between a 5x and a 15x fund.
The paper wealth generated on IPO day is a misleading metric due to lockup periods and market volatility. A more accurate mental model for an investor's actual return is the company's market capitalization 18 months after the public offering. This timeframe provides a truer 'locked in value' after initial hype and selling pressure subsides.
When a company like Synthesia gets a $3B offer, founder and VC incentives decouple. For a founder with 10% equity, the lifestyle difference between a $300M exit and a potential $1B future exit is minimal. For a VC, that same 3.3x growth can mean the difference between a decent and a great fund return, making them far more willing to gamble.
The rise of founder-optimized fundraising—raising smaller, more frequent rounds to minimize dilution—is systematically eroding traditional VC ownership models. What is a savvy capital strategy for a founder directly translates into a VC failing to meet their ownership targets, creating a fundamental conflict in the ecosystem.
Contrary to the popular VC idea that IPO pops are 'free money' left on the table, they actually serve as a crucial risk premium for public market investors. Down-rounds like Navan's prove that buyers need the upside from successful IPOs to compensate for the very real risk of losing money on others.
The venture capital paradigm has inverted. Historically, private companies traded at an "illiquidity discount" to their public counterparts. Now, for elite companies, there is an "access premium" where investors pay more for private shares due to scarcity and hype. This makes staying private longer more attractive.
Contrary to the traditional focus on institutional investors, allocating a significant portion of an IPO to retail investors creates a loyal shareholder base. This "retail following" can result in higher valuation multiples and sustained brand advocacy, turning customers into long-term owners and a strategic asset.
The trend of companies staying private longer and raising huge late-stage rounds isn't just about VC exuberance. It's a direct consequence of a series of regulations (like Sarbanes-Oxley) that made going public extremely costly and onerous. As a result, the private capital markets evolved to fill the gap, fundamentally changing venture capital.