Insights

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

Not quite. Ownership shows who holds what, but not necessary who gets what - at exit. 🧩 The Missing Piece: Waterfall Calculations Exit outcomes hinge on share class rights and preferences. Without modelling those, your cap table is just surface-level. 🔍 Why It Matters Waterfalls are the hidden engine behind: •⁠ ⁠Cap table modelling •⁠ ⁠Professional fair value assessments •⁠ ⁠Accurate Exit distributions 👉 Our carousel breaks it down: how the waterfall rather than just the c