Hacker News Reader

Comment by gjem97 | Hacker News Reader

Why do they "need" to liquidate in the next year or two?

From crunchbase (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/benchmark/investment...) it looks like Benchmark made three investments in Uber, the last of which was in 2013. The funds that VCs raise normally only operate for a specific term of eg 5 years, so now is the kind of time they will want to get out.

Incidentally from what I can make of their investments in Uber on crunchbase, they need Uber's market cap to be $31bn just to break even on their investment (13% of the business for $411m). That's probably what they're fighting for.

I think you dropped a 0.

0.13*31BN = ~$4BN, still a 10X return if they've invested $400M.

It's likely not distributed evenly between their three investments (and perhaps three separate funds), and with the late-stage checks typically being larger, it might impact the ROI of that late-stage fund more severely.

I don't really think the urgency is there, though, VCs have been dealing with illiquid companies for decades, if they need to wind down the fund, they will either distribute the shares directly to the LPs or create a placeholder SPV and distribute partnership interests.

Yes I did! Thanks.

Can't edit it now, unfortunately.

Prob because the lifetime of the fund that invested is coming to an end? It's usually 10 years

While most venture funds have a 10 year term, almost all are extended for at least an additional two years. The GP, together with the LP's, have lots of flexibility to extend beyond then if necessary, although there are typically negotiations around fee reductions and clarifying the path to liquidity. I have no insight into this particular fund, but it is very unlikely that it is purely fund term motivating Benchmark's desire to exit.

VC fund lifetimes put a hard time frame of <= 10 years on required liquidity, forcing founders (who have given up board seats to get those investments) to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. It's a pretty perverse incentive, and I see the attraction of not taking outside money.

It is perfectly reasonable to distribute illiquid shares of a private company at the end of the fund lifetime.

What is the lifetime of the fund? Just the amount of time that the VC firm has said they would have all the money (and more!) back to the limiteds? Clearly that's not a hard deadline, right?

It is a hard deadline because it is in the deal documents when the fund is formed. It is relevant because the fund management is guaranteed fees for that period. Extending it is usually straightforward, but the compensation of the fund management team during the extension is open for negotiation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com