Anish Acharya reveals a core tenet of a16z's early-stage strategy: price is flexible, but ownership is not. For deals below a certain threshold (~$100M valuation), the exact price matters less than securing the ownership percentage required to deploy their extensive operational support model.

Related Insights

a16z's investment philosophy is to assess founders on how world-class they are at their core strengths. Horowitz warns it's a mistake to pass on a uniquely talented founder due to fixable weaknesses (e.g., no go-to-market plan) and an equal mistake to back a less talented founder just because they lack obvious flaws.

While first-time founders often optimize for the highest valuation, experienced entrepreneurs know this is a trap. They deliberately raise at a reasonable price, even if a higher one is available. This preserves strategic flexibility, makes future fundraising less perilous, and keeps options open—which is more valuable than a vanity valuation.

A simple heuristic for VC portfolio construction. For companies with exponential, undeniable traction (the 'absolute winners'), any ownership stake is acceptable to get in the deal. For pre-traction companies that only 'could work,' securing high ownership is critical to justify the risk.

A universal ownership target is flawed. The strategy should adapt to a company's traction. For rare, breakout companies with undeniable product-market fit ('absolutely working'), a VC should take any stake they can get. For promising but unproven ideas ('could work'), they must secure high ownership to compensate for the greater risk.

This provides a simple but powerful framework for venture investing. For companies in markets with demonstrably huge TAMs (e.g., AI coding), valuation is secondary to backing the winner. For markets with a more uncertain or constrained TAM (e.g., vertical SaaS), traditional valuation discipline and entry price matter significantly.

Ben Horowitz advised that pricing is the most critical decision for a company's valuation because it is the primary lever impacting both growth and margins. Founders often treat it glibly, but it deserves deep strategic thought as it underpins the entire business.

Granting a full co-founder 50% equity is a massive, often regrettable, early decision. A better model is to bring on a 'partner' with a smaller, vested equity stake (e.g., 10%). This provides accountability and complementary skills without sacrificing majority ownership and control.

The firm targets markets structured like the famous movie scene: first place wins big, second gets little, and third fails. They believe most tech markets, even B2B SaaS without network effects, concentrate value in the #1 player, making leadership essential for outsized returns.

Seed funds can win deals against multistage giants by highlighting the inherent conflict of interest. A seed-only investor is fully aligned with the founder to maximize the Series A valuation, whereas a multistage investor may want a lower price for their own follow-on investment.

Contrary to traditional wisdom, the most challenging part of the venture market is now the crowded and overpriced Series A/B. The speaker argues for a barbell strategy: either take massive ownership (15-20%) at pre-seed or invest in de-risked, late-stage winners, avoiding the squeezed returns of the middle stages.