Welcome to the 12th post from Texts with Founders — tested tactics for early-stage startups.
I’ve worked with thousands of other founders over the years. This weekly newsletter is designed to share some of what I help them with.
Founders often fall into a common catch-22 related to getting early commits for their fundraise:
The founder is waiting to determine round terms with a lead investor.
Angel investors they meet cannot commit without knowing the terms of the round.
Not having angel investors committing means founders miss out on many potential introductions to funds that could lead their round.
To avoid this issue, use a tranche strategy:
The primary purpose of using tranches is to get early support and introductions while building momentum.
Angel investors can help you meet your lead investor
Allow those angels to commit at the start of your fundraise when their introductions could be the most helpful
Reward their early commitment with favorable terms
A tranche involves offering a "buy it now" valuation that is "fair" for you and the angel investor. This is typically done on a SAFE with a post-money valuation cap slightly lower than the valuation you might expect from a lead investor. This makes angels feel like they are being rewarded for making a decision before you've already locked in a lead.
The first tranche should be a small part of your total fundraise goal; if you aim for a full raise of $1 million, set aside around $150k-$200k as an initial target amount at this lower valuation.
While the goal is to have a slightly higher valuation cap for the remainder of your raise, it's useful to be comfortable with dilution resulting from raising all funds at the tranche's valuation in a worst-case scenario.
Here's an example of a tranche raise vs. the valuation staying constant:
$1M total raise with a tranche
Tranche: $200k on $5M post
Rest of round: $800k on $8M post
Total dilution with tranche = 14%
If you were raise the entire $1M on $8M post you’d save 1.5% in dilution but it’s worth considering the tranche as a way to build momentum for the full raise.
How to communicate a tranche to angel investors
Framing is essential when presenting the option to invest to angels. Don't refer to it as a “buy it now” price—I only do that in this post to make the concept easy to understand. Instead, saying something like this can help an angel understand your process:
We're raising between $1M and $1.2M and plan to do that for between 15 and 20% dilution.
We are talking with leads now.
In parallel, we're bringing on some great angels who want to support our mission.
We're doing a small first angel tranche (about $200k) of this round at $5M post — it's a lower valuation than what I expect the rest of the round to be. Let me know if that's interesting or if you have any questions.
They might not be interested—many won’t be—but at least now they have actual terms to consider.
Where tranche strategy can go wrong
Sometimes, founders try to play games. Usually, this goes badly. Some might try to play up scarcity ("We'll fill this tranche in the next 24 hours") in a way that is both off-putting and often untrue (usually, the founders who bluster like this are the least likely to fill their tranche in 24 hours). Remember that the tranche strategy isn't focused on creating artificial scarcity but on giving angels something they can say "yes" to if they're interested.
Another way things can go poorly is if a founder sets a valuation cap that is too high for the market but convinces a couple of price-insensitive angels to commit. Sometimes, founders do this to try to create a valuation precedent, and other times, it's by accident and they didn't realize it was too high. In either case, it results in funds thinking that they will not be able to align you on a valuation they feel is fair for your stage. To avoid this, make sure to get a sense of what’s “normal” valuation-wise for your stage.
There’s more than one way to a successful raise
Over the years I’ve seen founders take numerous approaches to fundraising. While there are many who’ve successfully rallied angels there are just as many who focused on talking to leads first and then rounding out their raise with smaller checks only after they signed a term sheet.
The tranche strategy seems especially relevant today at a time when lead investors are often looking for greater signs of momentum before committing. You can build momentum by bringing on angels first.
Good luck, and let me know how it goes.
Texts with Founders is entirely free.
If you find it useful please share the resource with founder friends: textswithfounders.com
Want to get in touch? Reply to this email.
- Julian
Recent Posts:
MFNs - Are they a lousy deal or free money?
Weekly Investor Updates - Keep investors close and yourself on track
Check Size Doesn’t Matter - Forget minimum amounts and optimize for quality people
Raise the round behind you - Avoid a drawn-out process and optimize for the best investors.
Conditional Commitments - Why they aren't commitments and what to do about them.
Handling Inbound From Investors - Avoid distractions and keep potential investors warm.
How “Good Guy” Phrases Torpedo a Pitch - And how to win over customers and investors
Avoid Hiring Too Early - Navigate external pressure focused on vanity metrics
Customers understand before investors do - And some investors will never understand
The Benefits and Downsides of Responsiveness - Where it can help and where it can backfire.
Avoiding Gossip - Nimbly navigate an awkward scenario.
No identifying information is shared in texts.
I do really like the example you gave for how you can frame it but I’m not too sure how I feel about tranche funding overall. From VC sentiment I’ve heard in the past, my understanding is that tranching was very popular back in the day, but isn’t so common anymore and can be seen as a red flag.
I think it makes sense as to why it can be too risky — aside from the messy cap tables it can sometimes create (especially when founders raise a buncha SAFEs at a buncha different vals). To me, it kinda goes against what a good investor should be doing; which is having conviction on the founders/team. I think it just builds a rocky foundation for a founder/investor relationship right from the get-go with too many variables up in the air that might still make things go awry. And it may just be an easy way to force yourself into thinking about short term milestones and have to still do more work overall.
But idk, how you framed it is still resonating in some ways. I think in my head it can only make sense if it’s for bringing on a pre-seed angel and you already have >90% likelihood leads committing in the near term. The benefit would be to limit dilution and the time spent in the next round talking to that angel discussing terms and getting them to wire.