We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Andera Partners structures its single fund to include early (20%), mid (50%), and late-stage (30%) companies. This mixed-stage approach allows them to generate earlier liquidity from mature assets to satisfy investors (LPs), which in turn enables them to take long-term bets on nascent biotechs without needing separate, stage-specific funds.
Foresight Capital's model of investing across early, middle, and late stages from one fund provides a unique advantage. Their understanding of late-stage market needs and challenges directly informs and improves their selection process for early-stage companies, creating a powerful feedback loop that specialized VCs lack.
Limited Partners should resist pressuring VCs for early exits to lock in DPI. The best companies compound value at incredible rates, making it optimal to hold winners. Instead, LPs should manage portfolio duration and liquidity by building a balanced portfolio of early-stage, growth, and secondary fund investments.
Venture capital is shifting from specialized stage-specific funds to "full stack" firms that offer dedicated seed, venture, and growth capital. This allows one firm to support a company throughout its entire private lifecycle, a structural response to longer private market timelines.
Kurma Partners' recent fundraise highlights a key challenge: while specialist and corporate investors eagerly back early-stage biotech, generalist institutional LPs are shifting away. These generalists now demand shorter hold times and favor funds investing in clinical-stage companies closer to an exit, creating a potential funding squeeze for preclinical innovation.
The fundamental risk profile shifts dramatically between venture stages. Early-stage investors bet against business failure, an idiosyncratic risk unique to each company. Late-stage investors are primarily betting on public market multiples and macro sentiment holding up—a systematic risk affecting all late-stage assets simultaneously.
Unlike seed-only funds, multi-stage investment firms have a structural advantage: they can rectify a mistaken pass on an early round by investing later. This provides a crucial second chance to partner with founders they initially misjudged, as Andreessen Horowitz did after passing on Solana's first round.
The old VC model of taking 30% in a Series A and accepting dilution is being replaced. Now, funds take what ownership the market allows early on and then 'ladder up' to their 20% target by participating in subsequent growth rounds, tenders, and even IPOs. This multi-stage approach is essential for competing in today's market.
A large, multi-stage VC firm's growth fund serves as a risk mitigation tool. The ability to concentrate capital into late-stage winners covers losses from a higher volume of early-stage mistakes, allowing the firm to be more "promiscuous" and take more shots at Series A.
The biotech venture model is built on syndication, not competition. As a drug progresses, capital requirements balloon to hundreds of millions for late-stage trials, far exceeding any single VC's capacity. This structural reality forces firms to co-invest and partner throughout a company's lifecycle.
Separating investment teams by stage (seed, growth, public) creates misaligned incentives and arbitrary knowledge silos. A unified, multi-stage team can focus only on the handful of companies that truly matter, follow them across their entire lifecycle, and "never miss" an opportunity, even if the entry point changes.