Filling Out A Round: When It Matters, and When It Doesn't

Almost every financing I’ve been involved with over the years (seed, VC, growth, raising a VC fund) goes mostly like this:

  • Struggle like hell to find a lead
  • Come to terms with the lead
  • Turn your attention to filling out the round
  • The deal gets oversubscribed as all the investors that could not summon up the courage or did not have the checkbook to lead the deal scramble to get into what is now a “hot deal”
  • You end up saying no to a lot of people you wish you could say yes to

So how do you decide who to let into the round and who to say no to?

Well the truth is that it sometimes matters a lot and sometimes doesn’t matter at all.

There are two primary factors that I like to focus on when choosing who to let in and who to say no to:

  • Do they have deep pockets and have they shown a history and a propensity to follow on in future rounds. Yes means try to let them in. No means prioritize others over them at the margin.
  • Can they add value and/or will they cause harm in any way. Adding value is a plus. Doing harm is a negative (obviously). Harm should be avoided at all costs. Adding value is a nice to have but not a must have. And investors always claim to be able to add value and very few actually do. If someone has already added value without even being in the deal, that’s a strong signal that carries a lot of weight with me.

There is one other factor that is worth considering. If someone is a friend, a former colleague, a person you know, trust, like and would like to have along for the ride, that is as good of a reason as any to let them in. But just remember that having friends in a deal that goes bad is a good way to lose friends. So make sure these are friends who have lost money, can take the hit, and aren’t going to hold it against you.

So here is when it matters and when it doesn’t.

  • Seed investors aren’t likely to follow round after round and while some can add value, many don’t. I would not sweat the allocations/syndication decisions that much in a seed deal other than avoid troublemakers at all costs. Otherwise, get the money and move on.
  • VC rounds (Srs A, Srs B, Srs C) are generally where the syndicates matter the most. Find a strong lead who will take a board seat, manage the syndicate, and help you. Then if there is money left over find VCs who have deep pockets, who have demonstrated a bias to follow on in round after round, and are willing to follow your lead.
  • Growth rounds are generally where everyone wants to pile in and there aren’t a lot of board seats or governance issues to deal with. You may find investors that can help in these rounds but they are mostly about getting the money at a good price and getting back to business.

I have seen entrepreneurs try to optimize these decisions and spend a lot of time on them. Investors scrambling to get into the deal will fill your head with all sorts of promises, arguments, and the like. Which makes it even more tempting to spend time on the decision and make the best one.

My advice is to make good decisions and not try to make the very best ones. Focus on deep pockets who are known to follow on and be supportive and avoid troublemakers. Everything else is a nice to have but not a need to have.

#entrepreneurship#Uncategorized#VC & Technology

Comments (Archived):

  1. Mario Cantin

    This posts adds clarity to something that’s regularly discussed in various blogs and podcasts. It’ll probably be commented on all over the web this week. Another classic IMO.

  2. Rick Bullotta

    I’d add that just as critical (and related) is when and if to include strategic investors in a financing round. While it might seem appealing at first glance, you’re giving a future potential acquirer “access to your medical records” perhaps too early.

    1. fredwilson

      yeah, i am not a fan of strategic investments. i like selling to strategics but not taking investment capital from them. that said, many USV portfolio companies, including some that i am on the board of, have done this

      1. PhilipSugar

        Yessssss…..strategic you sell for cash. Cash on the barrel head.

  3. karen_e

    Wow. How to “convert” this huge dose of wisdom into magic fairy dust applicable to one’s own circumstances? I guess you have to recognize your own deep experience and your own way of “shorting” complex situations “to the ground” (do I sound like an engineer yet?) …

    1. LE

      I wonder to what extent the lead investor has input and suggestions on who to let in.

  4. LE

    Would like to know the answer as well. I read that in part as “someone who spins the head of the entrepreneur in a way that the lead vc finds objectionable”. Note I said “in part” I recognize there are many ways to be objectionable.

    1. falicon

      There are so many flavors of “troublemaker” out there that I’m assuming he meant it in the general sense (i.e. whatever you want it to mean based on how you would like to best operate).Fighting over equity, control, decisions, team…second guessing and/or undermining the CEO, the strategy, partnerships…stalling negotiations, sales, production, mergers…these are all things that would seem insane actions of an “investor” and yet, for one reason or another, happen…and that’s not even mentioning the personal relationships and attitudes among the investors, the board, and the general staff (or the outside world and especially the press).

      1. LE

        Thanks makes sense.But yet it seems that these troublemaker investors don’t go away and find a market for what they are investing? If the consensus or even general opinion were that they were truly bad wouldn’t the market make them instinct? Similar to what would happen in a community such as realtors and/or jewelers? Not everybody’s goals are aligned and often that can lead to talk of someone who goes a different way of being a troublemaker and not going with the flow (Bernie is going through that right now..) Or people that aren’t convinced on climate change being berated by people who are.

        1. falicon

          Yes and no. Would you prefer no money or money from a potential “troublemaker”? Plus a lot of people trying to raise money do no actual research on their potential investors…they just chase the checks.Also – though I mentioned big troublemaker attributes, I think the real challenge in avoiding ‘troublemakers’ is more about personality fits than anything else…assuming you do basic due diligence, it’s the softer traits that are the hardest to figure out about potential investors.How well do they keep secrets (it’s really hard not to at least humblebrag about your investments, but sometimes the company isn’t ready for it)…how much attention/care are they really going to give you (as Fred mentioned most angel investors basically write a check and then mostly forget about you outside your ‘investor updates’ or latest press mention)…how much does their ego get involved (most investors are in that position because of some level of past success, and that almost always comes with some level of ego — is it the right amount for your company?)

          1. LE

            Agree with most of what you are saying [1]. That said yes laziness is a problem (research and due diligence which I always spend time on a great deal is always important) and perhaps more in this day and age than in the past. Both because of the speed at which people operate and also because they are exposed to the success (in fundraising) of others without seeing the ones who have failed (with equal light).most angel investors basically write a check and then mostly forget about you outside your ‘investor updates’I would think that some people getting money like that though. But the point is valid with respect to the fit and I think like everything else it’s a job in itself to cut through how people answer questions and what they actually do and even what people say they do. It’s a mess, just like dating.My quick way of cutting through answers vs. truth is not to ask questions but to tell stories. Then see how the stories are handled and viewed. Much harder to game that, assuming the story is told w/o bias. Maybe even game the telling of the story as well (sending hints in the wrong direction) takes a bit of practice.[1] “Most” is simply giving me wiggle room in case I missed something.

        2. creative group

          LE:It was at a short time ago a person that took control of a company that was either failing or not realizing the potential was viewed after taking it over as a raider or vulture. (Troublemaker)Now with the savvy PR teams those exact same people are called Activist Investors actually performing identical functions as when they were considered Raiders that fired and laid people off. (Unions had a lot to do with framing that picture after union job losses).What is your view?

          1. LE

            Well I don’t know enough to say for sure but it sounds like what you are saying makes sense to me and is true. One thing is clear though. The PR way of wrapping things neatly and making them sound good vs. bad has clearly advanced over same activity in the 80’s. So based on that alone I would say that even if there are differences there are probably more similarities.

  5. awaldstein

    Great stuff.The big #truth is involve people who can do the follow-on or bring in a network to do it.No one raises money without thinking of the next round.I’ve done this right and wrong and have scars to show.

  6. creative group

    FRED:Are you at liberty to define trouble maker? Is it a savvy investor who discovered structure presented or changed from what was presented, etc. New information, landscape or competition changed view. You mentioned trouble maker numerous times in article.This article actually promoted us to lay down our Sunday newspaper reading. (Gems & Jewels)

    1. fredwilson

      well this is the third time i’ve been asked to do that. i thought it was pretty simple. a trouble maker is someone who causes trouble

      1. creative group

        Fred:Simply well played. The question wasn’t as simple as the answer. But it is understood.

  7. creative group

    William Mougayar:Didn’t read your post but first thing that came to mind. Could be any number of situations, people, Institutional, etc.Would enjoy having it defined.

  8. JimHirshfield

    The thing with troublemakers is that the characteristics that make them troublemakers are the same as the ones that make them deceptively appear to not be troublemakers prenuptial.

    1. LE

      This goes for politics as well.

      1. Amar

        Especially for politics 🙂 The context in which a troublemaker is plugged into goes a long way in defining if he/she ends up being a “good” troublemaker or just a “trouble” troublemaker. Lots of places need a troublemaker (the good kind) A troublemaker has to know how long to hold on to the tension before deciding in favor of the greater good

  9. jason wright

    Sniffing out the leads…

  10. iggyfanlo

    Perhaps an aggressive VC trying to make a name for itself AND strongly committed to a deal that they REALLY want to get in on would offer a “equity line of credit”, i.e. a commitment for a future financing/equity round that would give a LOT of clarity and cushion against issues for the company and thereby highly differentiating itself from other VCs… “Money talks…

  11. pointsnfigures

    Define “doing harm”. It’s hard to find out who the schmucks are and who aren’t. No one chats for fear of their own reputation. I hear that a lot-and from an entrepreneur perspective it’s too vague. I have seen a lot of stupid investor shit in my time, so I agree. But, from someone like Fred it would be good to have him put a finer point on it without impinging anyone personally if he could do that.For seed investors, I think both entrepreneur and seed investor should set expectations. Very few seed investors will follow past an A round. In later rounds, VC’s often try to freeze out and liquidate the seed investors. Entrepreneurs should set expectations with seed investors as well. They can be on the board at seed, and maybe Series A. But after that unless they have incredible expertise or deep knowledge, they need to be self aware enough that they voluntarily leave the board. Let the big dogs eat since they have the lion’s share of capital in the deal.Personally, past a $50-$60M valuation, it’s pretty stupid for a seed investor to put money to work based on the math that confronts you at seed.

    1. fredwilson

      doing things that get in the way of the success of the company

    2. creative group

      pointsnfigures:Fred is on numerous boards and connected by investment to as many companies. It is apparent answers we are requesting will be generalized, short and non descriptive. The best contributors with a successful track record have asked the same question with the same results. This dog is dead. The conversation can only continue with contributors with any substance. It is understandable.Nothing new to report here.

  12. pointsnfigures

    Here is one that I would lay out there: You are a seed investor and were on the board at seed. You probably shouldn’t be on the board past Series A. If you decide to be a pain in the ass and make a big deal about it-you are being a troublemaker.

    1. PhilipSugar

      That is so true.

    2. creative group

      pointsnfigures:Would the seed investor not being on the board after Series A due to abilities, more qualified board that will develop, agreement, etc.?If so why even allow that person on the board anyway?

  13. William Mougayar

    At the end of the day, everything in a funding round rests on a promise. The entrepreneur must deliver on their promises, and the investors need to deliver on value or do no harm. At each subsequent round, regardless of contractual follow-on obligations, both entrepreneurs and investors get to reflect on and assess their past promises. Don’t take anything for granted. The dynamics of each deal will range across a wide spectrum.

    1. awaldstein

      Hold on.Being an investor is a formula. Not easy but on no level the same dynamics as an entrepreneur.Being an entrepreneur is by definition chaos and in 9.9 out of 10 cases the plan–the promise–doesn’t happen cause the market and life kick you in the ass and it changes.In 7-8 out of 10 times you loose and that is your only bet on the table.What is the entrepreneurial promise you are talking about?

      1. cavepainting

        There is an entrepreneurial promise – some of which may be explicit, but mostly implicit – that the team will make progress in some tangible form. It could be validation of market interest or even the lack thereof, product milestones, validation of product, or in later stages of the early stage spectrum, some proof of market adoption.To your point, yes, the signals will never be crystal clear; and of course, founders also combine data with their own gut instinct and spin. Which is why early stage investing is more art than science. And where the investors need to connect dots in their heads just as much as the founders.

        1. awaldstein

          This is the real world not B school.Investors invest in the possibilities of market creation and a team that can get there and a plan.The third one changes constantly.This idea that there is a handshake and a smile and a happy investor shaking hands with the entrepreneur reiterating their promise is a Hallmark view of the world.I’ve raised well north of a $B in the private and public markets and still doing it and never have these terms been used.

          1. cavepainting

            Arnold, in the real world, there are always expectations related to progress and more clarity about the market, the problem and the solution. At the start, we invest in a potentially large outcome with low probability. Every round the founder raises is hopefully one step closer towards increasing the probability. And there is no way to know that without more data. And investors expect to see the data as the company moves across time.Yes, it is chaotic for an early stage startup. Yes, the investor may lose money on 2 out of 3 companies. Yes, plans change completely. But that does not mean there are no expectations. When there are humans giving and taking money from each other, there is always an implicit value exchange, however nebulous it may be, and there is a constant effort to figure out if something is real or not.

          2. awaldstein

            Of course.If there is an argument here I’m neither participating nor understanding it.

          3. cavepainting

            I was just responding to your statement that the idea of a handshake or expectations does not reflect reality. What William said at the beginning of the thread: “At the end of the day, everything in a funding round rests on a promise” is true in my experience. Nothing is deterministic and things are fluid, but there is always an implicit promise – not of an outcome, but getting to more clarity with the money being taken. There are many small steps from a remote possibility of a new market or business to a successful outcome.

  14. fredwilson

    someone who causes trouble

    1. JamesHRH

      LOL!Someone who puts their interest ahead of the company’s or the investor group.Love the focus on good decisions. My lovely senior exec wife says, a lot: ‘Let’s not let Perfect get in the way of Good.’

      1. Ayush Neupane

        Looks like we need a list of how trouble can be caused? I created a Google Doc with a few points that I threw in based on the discussion in this thread. Perhaps the AVC community can help fill it up so that less experienced entrepreneurs can see them?

        1. pointsnfigures

          I can give you a couple of examples. I know investors that will promise on cash, then never deliver. Saw a guy bounce a massive check once. I know investors that will sue if they don’t get their way.

  15. sigmaalgebra

    Good. A keeper! Really good information for a path that I’d be just terrified to attempt. So, the information is “a keeper” just in case I’m badly wrong.The Money QuoteFor my startup, the money quote is:Doing harm is a negative (obviously). Harm should be avoided at all costs.Yup. For a BoD from a venture round, I see devastating “harm” like being tied to a railroad track with a freight train 50 yards away coming right at me at 80 MPH.This word “harm” is big concern of mine.Mother GooseToo much of this subject of entrepreneurs and venture funding goes back all the way to Mother Goose and, in particular, to the story of “The Little Red Hen.”Sure: The hen found a grain of wheat and grew it into a successful bakery. All along the way she asked for help and was turned down. When customers were lining up to buy fresh, hot fragrant loaves, then plenty of help was available.So, no one believed in the hen or her plans. Instead they believed in the customers eager to buy.Similar is a line from the Bogie movie The Maltese Falcon (1941) where the Bogie character, Sam Spade, private detective, says to the desperate, distraught, suspicious female client:We didn’t exactly believe your story. We believed your $200. Beyond fictional stories, IIRC, at the end of WWII, 49% of the returning GIs started businesses.Also relevant is the simple fact that all across the US, north to south, east to west, at crossroads to NYC, there are entrepreneurs running successful businesses. In the yacht clubs I’ve been in, I saw a lot of successful people, but nearly none of them ever got venture funding.So, it’s possible to do well in business without venture funding. Indeed, the venture funding route is a rare case; given the not so good venture capital batting average, a successful venture funded company is much more rare.Closer to home, about the most encouraging remark I ever got from a venture firm had the core statement: This is the type of business we’d like to evaluate after you have launched the service. The reason being that we can better gauge the interest level of consumers. Can we reconnect once you have the service up and running? To me, the “better gauge the interest level of consumers” means they want to see traction significant and growing rapidly. That is, they won’t look at my plans for the service or even the service itself in, say, beta test, but will look only at user reactions to the service.Well, what “interest level”, what traction, might they have in mind?Suppose they are talking an average 24 x 7 of one user a second. Suppose each user sees on average 8 Web pages, each Web page has on average 4 ads, and get paid $2 for each 1000 ads displayed. Then the monthly revenue would be2 * 4 * 8 * 3600 * 24 * 30 / 1000 = 165,888dollars.Let’s see: Each Web page sends for at most 400,000 bits and8 * 400,000 = 3,200,000for an average 24 x 7 of 3.2 million bits per second (Mbps) upload data rate or a peak of, say, twice that, 6.5 Mbps. So, I’d just have to upgrade to a static IP address, for maybe $50 more a month, and then would get 25 Mbps upload speed.With my software timings, the server I’d need costs less than $1000.Net: With monthly revenue of 165,888 dollars, or even 10% of that, and growing rapidly, the VC firm may be interested in me, but I will no longer be interested in them.I know; I know; I know; the VCs would give me lots of great advice from their “deep domain knowledge”, business acumen, experience in business development, and their history major at Williams College. All that and a dime might still cover a ten cent cup of coffee.Maybe there will be a fleeting moment when the two of us could reach across the table between (A) going live and (B) my no longer being willing to accept equity funding, but, still, basically, I don’t see a good deal to be made.The Little Red Hen AgainAs an entrepreneur, initially I have to invest my time, energy, etc. in just plans, but that VC insists on ignoring plans and wants to invest only in customers lining up ready to buy.So, where will that VC find projects where both sides of the table want the deal?Maybe the VC is looking for a project with traction but with five co-founders with all credit cards maxed out and each with a pregnant wife. That is, the VC is looking for a desperate CEO. Well, I’m a solo founder and have no wife.The Most Unkindest Cut of AllSuppose I did accept an equity investment from that VC and they are the “lead” investor and get a BoD seat. Then as founding CEO, I would be reporting to someone who has shown that they have locked in reinforced concrete determination to ignore all planning.But at an early Board meeting, I will present the project to do the special ad targeting I have in mind. There will be costs in the budget. So, that project will be like the one where the hen found the grain of wheat, and we already know that that VC will pay no attention at all to any such projects. So, the VC and BoD won’t approve the budget of the project for the ad targeting.Yup, Fred mentioned “harm”. Yup, harm — the BoD blocks the ad targeting work.More generally, the BoD pays attention only to the same results from an auditor that a commercial banker would. So, the company could execute but only on the production Web site in place. So, all the most important growth in the company would be blocked. Bummer. “Harm” — serious harm.An Even Worse CutShakespeare aside (good riddance), the real situation is worse:The ad targeting takes in data, especially from the users, manipulates it, and uses the results of the manipulations to say what ads to display to that user.Better results mean more ad revenue; better results are from better manipulations; and instead of just intuitive means, shooting in the dark, applying total fantasy intellectual sewage such as computer science artificial intelligence or machine learning, the best approach is some good, possibly original, applied math. Yup, got that!One of life’s worst little experiences is to listen to a math lecture of an hour where don’t understand even a single word that is spoken.Well, my presentation to the BoD on the ad targeting math would be like that, and too soon the BoD would yell, scream, soil the furnishings, and rush to the little boys room.The thing is, the Sand Hill Road people just are not up to being able to get any utility from such a presentation. Even if they are bright and determined, they didn’t take the right courses in grad school, and that is an insurmountable obstacle. They just will not, sitting there for a hour, reinvent 150 years of the best math from some of the brightest, hardest working people ever on the planet.So, for the role of original applied math in information technology, there is the good news and the bad news: The good news is that the math is astoundingly powerful and valuable. The bad news is that nearly no one on Sand Hill Road can understand such math. Really, the bad news is nearly necessary for the good news: If very many people on Sand Hill Road understood, then the value would not still be there.So, the more fundamental bad news is that the Sand Hill Road crowd doesn’t know how to work effectively with applied math ideas for information technology that are new, powerful, and solid. Major parts of the rest of our society do. The failing is Sand Hill Road.Bad CrowdSo, to me the VC doesn’t look like a perceptive investor. Basically he ignores everything important about a promising information technology business — its technology, technological advantage, barriers to entry, size of potential market, proprietary intellectual property, its business model, and its plans — and invests only in traction and only with desperate entrepreneurs.Well, that is not a good recipe for getting the financial returns venture firms need. And, of course, as in,…and…on average the returns are not good.So, basically my company would be thrown into a crowd of mostly bad companies.That is, my company would be pulling along a lot of mud because early on the VC was unable to separate gold from mud.”Harm”.Exceptional Returns from Ordinary MeansThe returns Sand Hill Road needs are exceptional, e.g., are from companies that so far in the relevant history happen only a few times each decade.Alas, for those exceptional returns, in information technology the Sand Hill Road gang is using just ordinary means.Getting the desired exceptional returns from the available ordinary means needs a large barrel of special sauce –Luck! Blind, stupid, simple, doo-dah, clueless luck!

  16. cavepainting

    I believe it is super-important to find people (investors) who are willing to optimize or solve for the entire company, not just for the return on the capital they have provided.But for the absolute best investments which result in increasing valuations over multiple rounds to a great liquidity event, most investments follow a zig zag path with many turns and twists.Down-rounds, founder in-fighting, litigations, PR nightmares, lack of traction, etc.When an investor digs in deep, without caring for the needs of the founders or other investors, it results in sub-optimal outcomes for everyone.Consider the following:-A Series A investor on the board, and with rights to block new capital, refuses a down-round to avoid looking bad in front of their LPs.-The largest investor vetoes an acquisition offer because it does not meet their return threshold, even though it increases the risk of forcing other outcomes where the founders and other early investors may get nothing.- The growth investor in an on-demand services firm encourages the management to spend gangbusters for realizing maximum growth without thinking through all the consequences. Fully knowing that they are well-protected in terms of liquidity preferences.Yes, every situation is complicated and there are multiple stories behind it. But, people who genuinely look out for all stakeholders will be more willing to find solutions that are fair, equitable and pragmatic.When the shit hits the fan, this empathy or the lack thereof is a very big deal. More than anything else.

    1. creative group

      cavepainting:we were confidant if we relied upon normal patience a contributor had the ability to answer the question of trouble maker in a manner that would appease the intellect. Post certified as Platinum.We thank you much.

  17. cavepainting

    In my view, a troublemaker is one who consistently puts his or her needs above everything else. From how they negotiate for terms, how they participate in board meetings or engage with the management team, how they force or encourage certain decisions more favorable to their investment, etc.If they are largely driven only by the needs of their firm, or even worse, their personal ego, and do not have sufficient empathy for the founders and other stakeholders, that is a big red flag.

  18. JamesHRH


  19. creative group

    Acknowledgement of Muhammad Ali’s death deafening! Crickets!RIP Muhammed Ali The Greatest of All Time!Nickname(s)The GreatestThe People’s ChampionThe Louisville LipRated atHeavyweightHeight6 ft 3 in (191 cm)[1]Reach78 in (198 cm)NationalityAmericanBornCassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.January 17, 1942Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.DiedJune 3, 2016 (aged 74)Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S.StanceOrthodoxBoxing recordTotal fights61Wins56Wins by KO37Losses5 https://uploads.disquscdn.c

    1. fredwilson

      i have always been a fan of Ali, but i don’t feel I have anything to add to what has already been said

      1. creative group

        FRED:Why your opinion and voice matters? Many view it like E.F. Hutton! New Yorkers remember this impressionable commercial.

  20. James Ferguson @kWIQly

    @fred hope not too far off topic.If a company goes it alone beyond bootstrapping , then takes regional trade investors and ands tart to find international traction…Do VC resist coming in alongside trade investorsOr is trade “endorsement” seen as a positive?

  21. jason wright

    troublemaker = contrarian?

  22. mattb2518

    Fred, you may or may not even remember our original B round that Flatiron co-led in 2000. We struggled with this tremendously and ended up going with you and DoubleClick as co-leads, DoubleClick as a strategic. We felt that was a good balance at the time and said no to Sutter Hill but kept close with Greg and brought him in as the lead on the next round. That would be my main piece of advice – keep the runners up super close for the future!

  23. lunarmobiscuit

    First time entrepreneurs get so frustrated at fundraising that they often don’t think about doing due diligence on the investors. There is nothing wrong with asking them where else they’ve invested and for VC’s to ask for introductions to CEOs of companies they’ve invested in as references. You want to hear first hand which investors are helpful and which are a pain in the ass to work with.Reading you may think all investors are like Fred. Unfortunately, few are.

  24. LE

    Explain that one. And what is “a simple seed or series a round”? What in business done right is simple? Devil is always in the details. Would love to know why you think that getting advice in itself is objectionable. [1][1] In all fairness yes I know lawyers fuck things up and I try to avoid involving lawyers at all costs. But just because I don’t particularly like or need to use them for buying toilet paper doesn’t mean that someone else has the same capacity.

  25. LE

    Context of my comments was troublemakers. Noting Fred talked about friends as well (who might perhaps be rookie investors).

  26. creative group

    Charlie Crystle:would enjoy reading a current (2016) term sheet for a seed. We have access to actual term sheets for Angels but wouldn’t mind viewing what the top VC’s are creating. Bridge NotesAmount of FinancingType of SecurityInvestor SharesRedemption at Option of InvestorVoting RightsBoard of DirectorsProtective ProvisionsInformation RightsRegistration RightsRight of First RefusalPOST CLOSING CAPITALIZATION

  27. William Mougayar

    Yup. Plenty of signals characterize them, so was looking for a list of things to watch for. Less experienced entrepreneurs won’t see them.

  28. creative group

    Charlie Crystle:There is a difference between missed expectations and over exuberance of almost guaranting results. Over promising and under delivering.What are your thoughts?

  29. creative group

    Charlie Crystle:Off topic: You should consider running again!