14. Choosing the Right Investors¶

14.1 Executive Summary¶

• Investors are partners for 7-10 years making investor selection as important as fundraising terms
• Three investor archetypes: Operator-investors (hands-on, domain expertise), Financial-investors (capital allocation focus), Platform-investors (value-add services, portfolio support)
• Reference checks are mandatory: Contact 3-5 portfolio company founders to understand investor behavior in difficult situations
• Red flags include: Reputation for founder removal, conflicts of interest, slow decision-making, aggressive term sheet patterns
• Value-add assessment: Evaluate investor contributions beyond capital (recruiting, customer intros, strategic advice, follow-on capital)
• Case studies: Sequoia/Peak XV's founder-supportive approach vs predatory investors who exploit down rounds

Choosing investors is fundamentally a marriage decision—you're selecting long-term partners who will shape your company's trajectory for the next 7-10 years. A great investor accelerates your success through strategic guidance, network access, and patient capital. A poor investor creates friction, imposes short-term pressure, or exploits information asymmetry in difficult times. This chapter provides frameworks for evaluating investors, conducting thorough diligence, identifying red flags, and making selection decisions that optimize for long-term value creation.

14.2 The Investor Selection Framework¶

Beyond the Highest Valuation¶

Founders often default to choosing the investor offering the highest valuation. This is a mistake.

Why Highest Valuation Can Backfire:

1. Down Round Setup: Inflated Series A creates difficulty raising Series B at higher valuation
2. Misaligned Expectations: High valuation investor expects corresponding high growth; pressure to overspend
3. Signal of Desperation: Investor offering 2x market valuation may be desperate to deploy capital (red flag about fund dynamics)
4. Term Sheet Trade-Offs: Highest valuation often comes with aggressive terms (participating preferred, board control, full ratchet)

Better Framework: Comprehensive Evaluation

Evaluate investors across 5 dimensions:

1. Terms: Valuation, liquidation preference, anti-dilution, board composition, protective provisions
2. Value-Add: Domain expertise, customer/talent intros, strategic guidance
3. Reputation: Portfolio company references, pattern of behavior in difficult situations
4. Alignment: Stage focus, sector focus, geographic focus, fund dynamics
5. Chemistry: Personal rapport, communication style, trust

Weighted Scoring Example:

Decision: Choose Investor A despite Investor B's better chemistry and terms—value-add and reputation outweigh.

14.3 Investor Archetypes: Understanding What You're Getting¶

Operator-Investors: Domain Expertise and Hands-On Support¶

Profile:

• Former founders or operators turned investors
• Deep domain expertise in specific sector (SaaS, fintech, consumer)
• Actively involved with portfolio companies (board meetings, strategic calls, hands-on problem-solving)
• Smaller funds ($50M-$200M) allowing focus on fewer companies

Strengths:
✅ Deep understanding of founder challenges (been there)
✅ Tactical advice on product, hiring, sales, fundraising
✅ Credibility with customers and talent (operator background)
✅ Patient capital (understand startups take time)

Weaknesses:
❌ May over-index on their own experience ("This is how we did it at my company")
❌ Capacity constraints (can only support limited portfolio actively)
❌ Smaller funds may lack follow-on capital capacity

Example: Indian Operator-Investors

• Kunal Shah (CRED Founder): Angel investments in Unacademy, Groww, Razorpay—provides product and founder mentorship
• Binny Bansal (Flipkart Co-founder): Active investor in PhonePe, Acko, Curefit—brings e-commerce and scaling expertise
• Rajan Anandan (ex-Google India MD): Managing Director at Peak XV's Surge accelerator—deep tech ecosystem knowledge

When to Choose Operator-Investors:

• Early stage (seed to Series A) where tactical execution matters
• Sector where domain expertise critical (fintech regulations, enterprise sales motions)
• When network access to specific customer segments or talent pools valuable

Financial-Investors: Capital Allocation and Portfolio Strategy¶

Profile:

• Professional investors from finance backgrounds (investment banking, private equity, consulting)
• Focus on financial modeling, portfolio construction, return optimization
• Less operationally involved, more board-level governance
• Large funds ($500M+) managing diversified portfolios

Strengths:
✅ Disciplined financial analysis and strategic frameworks
✅ Strong follow-on capital capacity
✅ Corporate finance expertise (M&A, IPO, debt financing)
✅ Portfolio services teams (recruiting, PR, legal)

Weaknesses:
❌ Less tactical operational support (haven't built companies themselves)
❌ May emphasize financial metrics over product/market intuition
❌ Shorter-term pressure (fund timelines, LP expectations)

Example: Indian Financial-Investors

• Steadview Capital: Growth equity investor with portfolio strategy focus; invested in Flipkart, Swiggy, Lenskart
• Tiger Global: Late-stage growth investor emphasizing rapid scaling; invested in Flipkart, Ola
• Fundamentum (Nandan Nilekani/Sanjeev Aggarwal): Growth-stage fund with strategic focus; invested in Pharmeasy, Spinny

When to Choose Financial-Investors:

• Growth stage (Series B+) where scaling and capital allocation are primary
• When preparing for M&A or IPO (need corporate finance sophistication)
• If company has strong operational team and needs capital more than hands-on guidance

Platform-Investors: Ecosystem Value-Add¶

Profile:

• Large institutional firms with platform services (recruiting, marketing, legal, technical)
• Dedicated teams supporting portfolio companies beyond capital
• Brand value and ecosystem credibility
• Multi-stage capability (seed through growth)

Strengths:
✅ Recruiting support (portfolio talent network, dedicated recruiters)
✅ Growth marketing and brand development services
✅ Technical resources (cloud credits, architecture reviews)
✅ Follow-on funding capacity across stages

Weaknesses:
❌ Platform services may be generic (not customized to specific needs)
❌ Large portfolios mean limited individual attention (spreading resources thin)
❌ May emphasize platform metrics over company-specific needs

Example: Indian Platform-Investors

• Peak XV Partners (formerly Sequoia India): Comprehensive platform with Surge (accelerator), Spark (fellowship), Pathfinder (talent platform)
• Accel India: Platform services including Fuel (talent), Atlas (technology), and strong SaaS expertise
• Lightspeed India: Platform resources focused on early-stage support, product advisory

When to Choose Platform-Investors:

• When building foundational capabilities (hiring first 50 employees, establishing brand)
• If company needs multiple value-add services (recruiting + marketing + technical)
• When brand association provides customer/talent credibility

Hybrid Investors: Best of Multiple Archetypes¶

Some top-tier investors combine multiple archetypes:

Peak XV Partners:

• Operator DNA: Partners have operating experience (Shailendra Singh, Mohit Bhatnagar)
• Financial Sophistication: Institutional fund with disciplined portfolio management
• Platform Resources: Surge accelerator, talent platform, extensive portfolio support

Accel India:

• Sector Expertise: Deep SaaS and fintech knowledge from prior investments
• Platform Services: Fuel (talent), Atlas (technology), advisory resources
• Follow-On Capacity: $650M Fund VIII provides multi-stage support

When evaluating hybrids, prioritize which dimension matters most for your stage and needs.

14.4 Conducting Investor Due Diligence: The Reference Check Process¶

Why Reference Checks Are Mandatory¶

Just as investors due diligence your company, you must due diligence your investors. Investors control board seats, protective provisions, and future fundraising decisions—their behavior matters.

What References Reveal:

• How investor behaves when company underperforms
• Whether investor supports founders in difficult decisions (down rounds, pivots, executive changes)
• Quality and frequency of investor engagement
• Whether investor delivers on promised value-add (intros, advice, recruiting)

Reference Check Sources:

Tier 1 (Most Valuable): Portfolio companies that faced difficulties

• Ask investor: "Which of your portfolio companies had challenging periods? Can I speak with those founders?"
• Search Crunchbase/Tracxn for down rounds, pivots, or founder departures in investor's portfolio

Tier 2 (Standard): Successful portfolio companies

• Investor will proactively offer these references (carefully curated)
• Still valuable but skewed toward positive

Tier 3 (Critical): Exited founders

• Founders who are no longer with portfolio companies provide unfiltered feedback
• Ask: "Did anyone leave their company while investor was on board? Can I speak with them?"

The Reference Check Script¶

Sample Questions:

Opening: "Hi [Founder Name], I'm [Your Name] raising [Series X] and [Investor Name] has given me a term sheet. They mentioned you're in their portfolio. Do you have 15 minutes to share your experience working with them?"

Core Questions:

1. Engagement: "How frequently do you interact with [Investor]? Board meetings only, or more regular touchpoints?"

2. Value-Add: "What specific ways has [Investor] added value beyond capital? Introductions, strategic advice, recruiting help?"

3. Decision-Making: "How does [Investor] handle disagreements? Can you share an example where you and investor disagreed?"

4. Difficult Situations: "Did you face any challenging periods (missed milestones, competitive threats, down round)? How did [Investor] respond?"

5. Fundraising Support: "When you raised follow-on rounds, did [Investor] participate? Did they help with intros to next-round investors?"

6. Board Dynamics: "How does [Investor] interact with other board members? Collaborative or dominant?"

7. Red Flag Question: "Is there anything I should know about working with [Investor] that they wouldn't tell me themselves?"

8. Final Recommendation: "Knowing what you know now, would you take their investment again? Why or why not?"

Red Flags in Responses:
🔴 "They were very hands-off" (when you expected value-add)
🔴 "They pushed hard for [founder removal/down round/fire sale]" (aggressive behavior)
🔴 "They didn't participate in our next round" (lack of follow-on support)
🔴 "Communication became sparse after first 6 months" (disengagement)
🔴 "They had conflicts of interest with another portfolio company" (competitive overlap)

Green Flags in Responses:
🟢 "They introduced us to 3 customers who became major accounts" (concrete value-add)
🟢 "When we missed Q2 targets, they helped us restructure without panicking" (supportive in crisis)
🟢 "They pro-actively increased their investment in our Series B" (follow-on commitment)
🟢 "They challenged us constructively but respected our final decision" (balanced governance)
🟢 "They helped us recruit our VP Sales from their network" (recruiting value)

Conducting Public Research: Beyond References¶

Online Research Sources:

1. Crunchbase / Tracxn: Map investor's full portfolio

• Look for patterns: Do companies frequently have down rounds?
• Track founder departures: How many founders left companies while investor on board?
• Identify exits: What's the success rate? (IPOs, acquisitions vs shutdowns)

2. LinkedIn Sleuthing:

• Connect with founders in investor's portfolio (even without intro)
• Message: "Hi [Name], I see [Investor] is one of your investors. I'm considering their term sheet. Would you be open to a quick reference call?"

3. Press and Media:

• Google: "[Investor Name] + controversy" or "+ lawsuit" or "+ down round"
• Economic Times, TechCrunch, Inc42 coverage of investor behavior

4. Community Networks:

• Ask in founder communities (On Deck, YC network, ProductHunt groups)
• Question: "Has anyone worked with [Investor Name]? Looking for reference checks."

5. Lawyer/Advisor Network:

• Ask your startup lawyer: "Have you worked with [Investor] before? What's their reputation?"
• Corporate lawyers see patterns across deals and can provide valuable intelligence

Example: Uncovering Red Flags

Scenario: Founder researching "Alpha Ventures" (fictional name)

Crunchbase Search:

• 15 portfolio companies
• 3 recent down rounds (2023-2024)
• 5 founder departures (including 2 CEO removals)

LinkedIn Sleuthing:

• Connect with departed founder
• Reference call reveals: Alpha Ventures removed 2 founders who missed targets
• Pattern: Aggressive investor who doesn't support through difficulties

Decision: Reject Alpha Ventures despite higher valuation. Track record shows founder-unfriendly behavior.

14.5 Red Flags: Investors to Avoid¶

Pattern-Based Red Flags¶

1. Serial Founder Removals

Red Flag: Investor has pattern of removing founders across multiple portfolio companies

Example:

• Check Crunchbase: 5 of 12 portfolio companies experienced founder-CEO replacement
• Higher than market baseline (10-20% founder CEO replacement is normal at scale)
• 40%+ replacement rate indicates investor doesn't support founders through challenges

Founder Response: Ask directly: "I see several of your portfolio companies had founder CEO transitions. Can you walk me through those situations?"

2. Conflicts of Interest

Red Flag: Investor holds investments in direct competitors

Example:

• Investor has stakes in Company A (your competitor) and offers term sheet to you
• Creates information asymmetry and potential for strategic steering

Founder Response:

• Request Chinese wall commitments in writing
• Demand investor recusal from competitive discussions at both boards
• Better: Choose investor without conflict

3. Short Fund Runway

Red Flag: Investor's fund is nearing end of investment period (typically 3-5 years) with limited follow-on capital capacity

Why It Matters:

• Investor may pressure for quick exit to return capital to LPs
• Limited ability to support follow-on rounds
• May sell in secondary markets, bringing in unknown shareholders

How to Check:

• Ask: "What vintage is your fund? How much dry powder remains?"
• Crunchbase: Check recent investment dates (if slowing, fund may be winding down)

Acceptable Answer: "We're investing from our [2023] fund with [X years] left in investment period, and we reserve [50%] for follow-ons."

4. Valuation Outlier (Too High)

Red Flag: Investor offers 50-100% higher valuation than other term sheets without explanation

Why It Matters:

• Inflated valuation creates down round risk
• May signal investor desperation to deploy capital
• Often correlates with aggressive terms hidden in fine print

Founder Response:

• Ask: "Your valuation is significantly higher than other offers. What drives your conviction?"
• Scrutinize term sheet for hidden aggressive terms (participating preferred, full ratchet, high multiple liquidation preference)

5. Slow Decision-Making

Red Flag: Investor takes 60+ days for term sheet after initial meeting, requires 10+ meetings, or constantly delays decisions

Why It Matters:

• Indicates poor internal processes or lack of partner alignment
• May reflect investor indecision or lack of conviction
• Burns founder time and delays other fundraising conversations

Acceptable Timeline:

• First meeting → term sheet: 4-6 weeks
• Due diligence → close: 4-6 weeks
• Total: 8-12 weeks for standard round

6. Aggressive Term Patterns

Red Flag: Term sheet includes multiple predatory terms (covered in Chapter 11)

Specific Red Flags:

• Full ratchet anti-dilution
• Participating preferred (uncapped)
• Multiple liquidation preferences (2x, 3x)
• Board control from day one
• Personal guarantees

Founder Response: Walk away immediately. These terms signal predatory investor.

Case Study: Sequoia India / Peak XV's Founder-Supportive Approach¶

Background:

Sequoia India (now Peak XV Partners after 2024 restructuring) has reputation as founder-friendly investor despite being large institutional fund.

Founder-Supportive Patterns:

1. Long-Term Patient Capital:

• Backed Zomato from 2013 through 2021 IPO (8-year journey)
• Supported Freshworks from Series A (2012) through 2021 IPO (9 years)
• Didn't pressure for premature exits despite multiple acquisition offers

2. Support Through Difficulties:

• Byju's: Maintained investment despite 86% valuation decline and governance issues (though eventually pushed for CEO accountability)
• Ola: Supported through multiple competitive battles with Uber, regulatory challenges

3. Value-Add Platform:

• Surge Accelerator: Provides 4-month program for early-stage startups with $1-2M investment
• Pathfinder Talent Platform: Recruiting support for portfolio companies
• Spark Fellowship: Connects university students with startups

4. Transparent Communication:

• Partners known for direct, honest feedback
• Document "Writing For Startups" openly shared business principles

5. Follow-On Discipline:

• Participates in follow-on rounds when companies executing well
• Doesn't automatically deploy follow-on (sends quality signal when they do)

Counterpoint: Not Perfect

Peak XV faced criticism for:

• BharatPe: Involved in board battle removing founder Ashneer Grover (governance issues justified removal per many observers)
• Fee Reduction: 2024 reduced fees from 2.5%/30% to 2%/20%—positive for LPs but reflected competitive pressure

Net Assessment: Peak XV exemplifies institutional investor with founder-supportive culture while maintaining governance standards.

Predatory Investor Case Study: Theranos and Sunny Balwani¶

Background:

Theranos raised $700M+ from investors including Rupert Murdoch, Walgreens, Betsy DeVos. While most investors were passive, Sunny Balwani (COO, also Elizabeth Holmes's boyfriend) wielded operational control.

Predatory Patterns:

1. Operational Control Without Board Oversight:

• Balwani ran operations without board accountability
• Intimidated employees, created toxic culture
• Retaliated against whistleblowers

2. Information Control:

• Board kept in dark about technology failures
• Theranos board had zero venture investors with biotech expertise (Kissinger, Mattis, Shultz—political figures without domain knowledge)
• No independent technical diligence

3. Self-Dealing:

• Balwani's compensation and authority lacked arm's-length negotiation
• Personal relationship with CEO created conflict of interest

Outcome:

• Company collapsed in 2016 after WSJ investigation exposed fraud
• Criminal convictions for Holmes and Balwani
• Investors lost $700M+

Lesson: Board composition matters. Celebrity board without domain expertise enabled fraud.

14.6 Value-Add Assessment: Beyond Capital¶

Quantifying Investor Contribution¶

Framework: Expected Value from Investor Contributions

Score each dimension 0-10, weight by importance to your company:

Customer Intro Value Example:

Investor offers to introduce you to 5 potential enterprise customers:

• Typical enterprise sales close rate: 20%
• Expected customers acquired: 5 × 20% = 1
• Average customer LTV: $500K
• Expected value from customer intros: $500K

If investor owns 20% post-investment, value created = $500K / 0.20 = $2.5M in company value creation—justifies accepting $2.5M lower valuation from this investor vs one without customer access.

The Pre-Investment Value Test¶

Strategy: Ask investors to prove value-add before signing term sheet.

Pre-Investment Requests:

1. Customer Intros: "Can you introduce me to [3] potential customers before we close? I'd like to validate the value of your network."

2. Candidate Intros: "We're hiring a VP Sales. Can you share 2-3 candidates from your network?"

3. Strategic Advice: "Can we schedule a working session on [specific challenge: pricing strategy, product roadmap, go-to-market]?"

4. Investor Intros: "Can you intro me to [2-3] potential Series B investors you respect?"

Why This Works:

• Validates investor claims about value-add
• Demonstrates investor commitment before legal commitment
• Creates pre-close relationship and working dynamic
• Reveals investor responsiveness and quality of network

What to Watch:
✅ Investor delivers quickly (within 2 weeks) with high-quality intros
⚠️ Investor delivers slowly or with low-quality intros (says something about future engagement)
🔴 Investor pushes back or doesn't deliver (red flag—question their value-add)

Value-Add Clauses in Term Sheets¶

Emerging Practice: Some founders negotiate explicit value-add commitments into side letters or shareholders' agreements.

Example Provisions:

Customer Intro Commitment: "Investor shall introduce Company to at least [5] potential customers from Investor's network within [6] months of closing, with follow-up introductions to be made on Company's request."

Recruiting Support: "Investor shall make available recruiting resources, including portfolio talent network and recruiter introductions, to support Company's hiring of [VP Sales and VP Engineering] roles."

Strategic Advisory: "Investor partner shall be available for [monthly] strategic advisory calls with Founder, in addition to quarterly board meetings."

Why This Is Rare:

• Investors resist contractual value-add obligations (prefer goodwill basis)
• Difficult to enforce (what remedy if investor doesn't deliver?)
• Creates adversarial dynamic if leveraged

When to Request: Only if investor makes exceptional value-add claims that are central to your decision.

14.7 Timing Your Decision: The Fundraising Selection Process¶

Parallel Processing: Running Multiple Conversations¶

Optimal Fundraising Process:

Weeks 1-3: Initial Meetings (10-15 investors)

• Cast wide net with diverse investors
• Schedule 60-minute intro meetings
• Share pitch deck and high-level terms you're seeking

Weeks 4-6: Deep Dives (5-7 investors)

• Narrow to investors showing strong interest
• Conduct 2-3 hour deep dive sessions (product demo, customer calls, financial deep dive)
• Share data room and answer detailed questions

Weeks 7-8: Term Sheet Collection (3-5 investors)

• Request term sheets from interested investors
• Negotiate key terms in parallel
• Conduct reference checks

Weeks 9-10: Final Selection and Close

• Choose lead investor (possibly co-leads)
• Negotiate definitive documents (SHA, articles)
• Close round

Total Timeline: 10-12 weeks

The Exploding Offer Problem¶

Situation: Investor issues term sheet with 7-day expiration ("exploding offer") pressuring you to decide before collecting other term sheets.

Why Investors Do This:

• Prevent price discovery (you can't shop their offer)
• Signal urgency and decisiveness
• Capture deal before competitor investors

How to Respond:

Option 1: Pushback (Assertive) "We appreciate the offer, but 7 days isn't sufficient for us to complete our diligence on you as a partner for the next 7-10 years. We need [2-3 weeks] to complete reference checks and evaluate other offers. Can you extend the deadline?"

Option 2: Parallel Acceleration (Tactical) Immediately reach out to other investors: "We have a term sheet with [X day] deadline. Are you interested in submitting a term sheet by [date]?"

This accelerates other investors' timelines.

Option 3: Accept (If Strong Conviction) If investor is clearly your top choice and terms are excellent, accept. Don't over-optimize.

Red Flag: Investor unwilling to extend beyond 7 days is showing inflexibility that may extend to board relationship. Consider this data point.

14.8 Action Items¶

1. Create investor evaluation scorecard: Build scoring framework with weighted dimensions (terms, value-add, reputation, alignment, chemistry).

2. Research target investors: Identify 10-15 investors appropriate for your stage, sector, and geography. Research their portfolios, thesis, and recent investments.

3. Map investor portfolios: Use Crunchbase/Tracxn to list all companies in target investors' portfolios. Identify potential reference checks.

4. Conduct 5 reference calls: For any investor offering term sheet, speak with at least 3 successful portfolio companies and 2 that faced challenges.

5. Ask the "difficult period" question: In every reference call, ask: "Did you face challenges (missed targets, down round, competitive threat)? How did investor respond?"

6. Request pre-investment value-add: Ask investor to introduce you to 2-3 customers, candidates, or strategic advisors before closing.

7. Google investor reputation: Search "[Investor Name] + controversy," "+ lawsuit," "+ founder removal" to uncover red flags.

8. Map investor fund stage: Confirm investor fund vintage, investment period remaining, and follow-on capital capacity.

9. Run parallel fundraising process: Engage 10-15 investors simultaneously to collect 3-5 term sheets for comparison.

10. Document investor commitments: If investor makes specific value-add promises (customer intros, recruiting support), document in writing (email or side letter).

14.9 Key Takeaways¶

• Investor selection is long-term partnership decision (7-10 year relationship) making investor quality as important as fundraising terms or valuation
• Three investor archetypes—operator-investors (hands-on domain expertise), financial-investors (capital allocation focus), platform-investors (ecosystem value-add services)—suit different company stages and needs
• Reference checks are mandatory: Contact 3-5 portfolio founders including companies that faced difficulties to understand investor behavior in crisis
• Red flags include serial founder removals (40%+ CEO replacement rate), conflicts of interest with portfolio competitors, short fund runway, aggressive term patterns (full ratchet, participating preferred)
• Sequoia/Peak XV exemplifies founder-supportive institutional investor through patient capital (8-9 year holding periods), value-add platforms (Surge accelerator), and transparency
• Value-add beyond capital (customer intros, recruiting support, strategic advice) can be quantified and should be validated through pre-investment requests
• Parallel fundraising process (10-12 weeks engaging 10-15 investors to collect 3-5 term sheets) enables optimal investor selection
• Exploding term sheet offers (7-day deadlines) should be pushed back to allow proper diligence or used to accelerate parallel conversations

14.10 When to Call a Lawyer¶

Situations REQUIRING Legal Counsel¶

1. Term sheet evaluation: Before accepting any term sheet, have startup lawyer review all provisions for red flags
2. Reference check legal issues: If reference checks reveal concerning behavior (fraud allegations, lawsuits), legal counsel should assess risks
3. Negotiating investor side letters: Any special agreements with investors (value-add commitments, conflict of interest provisions) require legal documentation
4. Multiple term sheets: Lawyer can help negotiate across multiple offers and identify best combined terms
5. Investor conflicts of interest: If investor holds competing portfolio companies, legal structure of information firewalls and recusal provisions essential

Legal Costs (India)¶

• Term sheet review and investor evaluation: ₹100,000-₹250,000
• Negotiation support across multiple term sheets: ₹200,000-₹500,000
• Side letter or special agreements: ₹150,000-₹300,000

14.11 References¶

1. Feld, Brad, and Jason Mendelson. Venture Deals: Be Smarter Than Your Lawyer and Venture Capitalist. 4^th ed., Wiley, 2019.

2. Horowitz, Ben. The Hard Thing About Hard Things. HarperBusiness, 2014.

3. Peak XV Partners. Writing For Startups. https://www.peakxv.com/

4. Accel India. Building Enduring Companies. https://www.accel.com/

5. TechCrunch. "How to Choose the Right VC." Multiple articles 2015-2024.

6. Forbes India. "The Art of Choosing the Right Investor." March 2024.

7. Inc42. "Reference Checks: The Most Important Due Diligence Founders Skip." 2023.

8. Bain & Company and IVCA. India Venture Capital Report 2024. https://www.bain.com/insights/india-venture-capital-report-2024/

9. Harvard Business Review. "What Great Investors Bring to the Table." November 2019.

10. Crunchbase. Investor Portfolio Research Tools. https://www.crunchbase.com/

Navigation¶

Previous: Chapter 13: Down Rounds and Difficult Situations
Next: Chapter 15: ESOP Strategy and Employee Equity
Back to: Table of Contents

Related Chapters:

• Chapter 1: Understanding the Indian Startup Ecosystem
• Chapter 9: Negotiating Your Best Deal
• Appendix E: Startup Resources Directory

Disclaimer¶

This chapter provides educational information about startup funding and is not legal, financial, or investment advice. Every startup situation is unique. Consult qualified professionals (lawyers, accountants, financial advisors) before making any funding decisions.

Last Updated: November 2025