Venture capital investments rarely follow a straight, predictable path. Instead, they move through distinct phases—moments where a company’s trajectory, risk profile, and market context shift in ways that require us to rethink fair value. Each stage demands a different lens, because what a market participant would pay (or expect) evolves as uncertainty unfolds. In this series, I’ll explore these valuation moments through the frameworks that guide our industry: IPEV , ASC 820

It’s one of the most common shortcuts in venture. And one of the most misleading. In this carousel, we break down why that logic doesn’t hold in VC-backed companies and how value actually emerges through share class structure, breakpoints, and optionality. If you work with cap tables, fair value, or venture economics, this is worth a closer look. 👉 Swipe through to explore the evolution: #VentureCapital #FairValue #IPEV #Valuation #ASC820 #VCInsights #VCAccountingBestPracti

1️⃣ There are three core methodologies venture valuations rely on Under IPEV and ASC 820, three frameworks dominate fair value analysis for VC-backed companies: PWERM, OPM, and CVM. Each approaches the valuation problem from a different angle and is suited to different circumstances. 2️⃣ PWERM models real exit scenarios The Probability-Weighted Expected Return Method (PWERM) values a company by modeling discrete outcomes, even incorporating future anticipated funding rounds,

(This post is longer than the previous ones, but because OPM plays such a central role in fair value methodologies, I’m going to be especially thorough here.) As we continue our look at fair value methodologies for VCtype investments under IPEVand ASC 820, one method consistently rises to the top in conversations with practitioners. After more than 50 discussions with VCs, CFOs, controllers, and valuation professionals, the most frequently mentioned — and most frequently misu