1. A solid cap table strengthens every valuation approach 🔍 Whether using OPM, PWERM, or CVM, every method becomes more reliable when it’s built on accurate ownership data. 2. High‑quality inputs unlock high‑quality valuations 📊 Even the most advanced models are only as strong as the data behind them. Reliable valuations depend on clean, complete, and well‑structured information, starting with an accurate, up‑to‑date cap table. Without that, the integrity of the valuation f

As we continue our dive into fair value methodologies, what qualifies, what doesn’t, and how to make sense of it all, PWERM stands out as one of the most approachable tools for venture backed companies working under ASC 820 and IPEV. It’s surprisingly intuitive once you get past the jargon. At its core, PWERM isn’t just about running numbers; it’s about mapping the real paths a startup might take and understanding what each one means for shareholders and fair value. VCs alrea

In previous posts, I’ve focused on what not to use when valuing early‑stage, venture‑backed companies under IPEV and ASC 820. We’ve covered why l ast price per share , cost , and inappropriate use of waterfall allocations often fail to meet fair value requirements, especially when capital structures are complex or when market conditions and company performance have shifted since the last financing. Those approaches may feel intuitive, but they rarely reflect the economics

After digging into the most common valuation shortcuts in venture capital, a few clear truths emerge: 1️⃣ Cost is not fair value Cost is historical. Fair value is current. IPEV and ASC 820 are explicit: once new information exists, holding at cost stops being conservative and starts being misleading. 2️⃣ Last price per share ≠ portfolio truth LPPS reflects one deal, at one point in time. It ignores preferences, protections, optionality, and changes in performance or market

In Part 1 of our mini-series, we showed why cost ≠ fair value. Now let’s tackle another shortcut: using the last price per share (LPPS) from the most recent round as fair value. Why LPPS Misleads It’s just one round - not all the rounds. It ignores preferences and protections baked into that round and other rounds It treats all shares like common shares , which they’re not. It ignores upside potential across the cap table. At the end of the day, it’s simply the cost of the

This is the first post in our mini-series on valuation myths in venture capital . We’ll explore some of the most common shortcuts used in reporting and why they don’t align with global standards like the International Private Equity and Venture Capital Valuation (IPEV) Guidelines and ASC 820 (Fair Value Measurement under US GAAP). Let’s start with one of the most persistent misconceptions: using cost as a proxy for fair value. In venture capital, valuation is more than a tech

In venture capital, valuation isn’t just a math exercise—it’s a strategic lens into potential. While many still rely on cost, LPPS, and waterfall models, today’s reality demands more. Complex cap tables and early-stage uncertainty call for advanced methodologies like PWERM, OPM, CVM, hybrid models, and milestone-based calibration. We’ve put together a quick carousel to help demystify the shift from traditional to sophisticated valuation approaches—grounded in IPEV and ASC 820

In venture finance, clarity isn’t optional, it’s mission-critical Yet many teams misread their cap tables, mistaking ownership for outcome. The real story unfolds in the waterfall: the logic and math that determine who gets what at exit. 🔗 Why Ownership Isn’t Enough 🔗 The Formula That Drives Returns 🔗 What You Need for True Clarity 🔗 Common Pitfalls in Waterfall Modelling 🔗 How VCM Solves the Waterfall Puzzle Waterfall calculations aren’t just a technical layer, they’re