Issue #3 - Venture Studio Investment Structures - Part 2
Venture Studio Investment Structures: Traditional and Dual Entity Models
As venture studios mature and carve out their place in the startup ecosystem, they face a critical juncture in their evolution: how to structure their operations and investments in a way that balances their unique operational needs with the expectations of sophisticated investors. This transition often leads studios to explore more complex investment structures that can accommodate their hands-on approach to company building while still appealing to a broad range of investors.
In this exploration, we'll dive deep into two key models: traditional fund structures and the innovative dual entity model. We'll unravel their intricacies and implications for both venture studios and their potential investors, providing a comprehensive understanding of these evolving investment structures.
Traditional Fund Structures in Venture Studios
For established venture studios looking to scale their operations and attract institutional capital, adopting the familiar "2 and 20" model can be a strategic move. This structure, well-understood in the venture capital world, offers a sense of familiarity to experienced investors. The "2" refers to the annual 2% management fee charged on committed capital, while the "20" represents the 20% carried interest or share of profits the fund managers receive after returning initial capital to investors.
This model offers several advantages for investors. Its familiarity makes it easy to evaluate and compare with other investment opportunities. The carried interest component ensures that fund managers are incentivized to generate strong returns, aligning their interests with those of investors. Additionally, the fixed management fee provides clarity on the ongoing costs of the investment.
However, in the context of venture studios, this model presents unique challenges. Venture studios typically have larger teams and more involved operational roles than traditional VC firms. The 2% management fee, which might be sufficient for a lean VC team, can quickly feel constraining for a studio with in-house developers, designers, marketers, and operators actively building companies.
Consider a venture studio raising a $100 million fund. The 2% management fee would provide $2 million annually for operations. For a traditional VC firm, this might cover a small team of partners and analysts. But for a venture studio, with its extensive operational staff, this budget can be stretched thin. The challenge becomes even more apparent when you consider that the studio's hands-on approach to company building often requires more resources than traditional VC investing.
Despite these challenges, many mature venture studios opt for traditional fund structures, and for good reason. As studios grow and seek to raise larger funds, the economics become more favorable. A $500 million fund, for instance, generates a much more substantial operating budget through its management fees, potentially allowing the studio to scale its operations while still adhering to investor expectations.
Moreover, the traditional structure offers benefits beyond mere economics. It provides a well-trodden path for regulatory compliance, simplifying the legal and operational aspects of fund management. For studios thinking about long-term sustainability, it also offers a framework for succession planning. The fund structure can potentially outlive its original founders, allowing the studio model to persist and evolve over time.
For investors considering a venture studio using a traditional fund structure, the evaluation goes beyond the usual metrics. Yes, the track record of exits and returns remains crucial. But equally important is understanding how the studio manages its unique operational model within the constraints of the traditional structure. How do they balance resource-intensive company building with the need to manage a diverse portfolio? How does their hands-on approach translate to better outcomes compared to more passive VC investments?
Key investor considerations include:
The studio's track record in generating returns that justify the 2 and 20 structure
How efficiently the studio manages its higher operational costs within the management fee constraints
The tangible value-add the studio provides beyond capital
Whether the fund size adequately supports both the studio's operational model and leaves sufficient capital for investments
The Dual Entity Model: Bridging Studio Operations and Investor Expectations
As the venture studio model has evolved, an innovative structure has emerged to address the unique challenges of venture studio operations while maintaining appeal for investors: the dual entity model. This approach attempts to capture the unique value proposition of the studio model in a way that's both operationally effective and attractive to investors.
At its core, the dual entity model splits the venture studio into two distinct, but closely related, entities:
An operating company, often structured as a holding company, that houses the studio's staff, resources, and operational capabilities.
A more traditional investment fund that provides capital for portfolio companies.
This separation might seem like a mere organizational shuffle, but its implications run deep, fundamentally reshaping how venture studios operate and how investors participate in their success.
Here's how this model typically works in practice:
Investors, much like in a traditional fund, commit capital to the fund entity. This fund operates in ways familiar to most institutional investors – it has a defined lifespan, a clear fee structure, and a mandate to invest in promising startups.
The fund pays a management fee to the operating company, which goes towards funding the studio's operations. It's this operating company that houses the entrepreneurs, developers, designers, and operators who do the heavy lifting of company creation.
When the operating company identifies a promising opportunity, it springs into action. It might dedicate a team to validate the idea, develop an MVP, find initial customers, and essentially do all the work typically associated with founding a startup. All of this happens before a single investment dollar from the fund is deployed.
Once a new company is ready for "investment," a fascinating dynamic unfolds. The operating company, having done the work of a founding team, receives founder's equity – typically in the form of common stock. This reflects the sweat equity and risk taken on by the studio in getting the company off the ground.
Simultaneously, the fund invests capital into this newly formed company, receiving preferred equity much like a traditional VC investment. This creates a two-tiered ownership structure that elegantly captures the dual nature of the studio's contribution – both as founder and investor.
Many dual entity models include a provision where a portion of the operating company's founder equity is granted to the fund as a "kicker." This additional equity serves to sweeten the pot for fund investors, giving them exposure not just to the preferred equity returns they're used to, but also to a slice of the founder's upside.
For investors, this model offers several compelling advantages:
Enhanced Returns: The potential to benefit from both preferred equity returns and a share of the founder's equity upside.
Clearer Value Attribution: The model more accurately reflects the value created by the studio's company-building efforts.
Operational Flexibility: The operating company can allocate resources more freely, potentially leading to better outcomes for portfolio companies.
Broader Appeal: The structure can attract both traditional VC investors and those interested in the operational value-add of the studio model.
However, the dual entity model is not without its complexities. Governance becomes a critical issue – how do you manage potential conflicts of interest between the operating company and the fund? Valuation, too, presents challenges. How do you fairly value the operating company's contributions, especially in the earliest stages of a company's life?
For investors evaluating a venture studio using a dual entity model, these complexities require careful consideration. How transparent is the studio about its operations and decision-making processes? How are incentives structured across both entities to ensure optimal performance? How might this structure impact potential exits and distributions?
The Road Ahead: Innovation in Venture Studio Structures
As we look to the future of venture studio investing, one thing becomes clear: the story is far from over. The venture studio model itself represents a fundamental innovation in how startups are created and scaled, and it's likely that we'll continue to see evolution in how these entities are structured and financed.
Potential future developments:
Hybrid Models: Structures that combine elements of traditional funds, dual entities, and even evergreen funds to optimize for both operational needs and investor preferences.
Performance-Based Fees: More nuanced fee structures that tie a larger portion of studio compensation to specific operational milestones or company-building achievements.
Tokenization: The potential use of blockchain technology to create more liquid secondary markets for venture studio investments, potentially opening up new avenues for investor participation and exit.
Sector-Specific Structures: As studios become more specialized, we may see the emergence of fund structures tailored to specific industries or types of company-building (e.g., deep tech, biotech with longer return horizons).
For investors, this ongoing evolution presents both opportunities and challenges. The potential for enhanced returns and more aligned structures is exciting, but it also requires a willingness to engage with new and potentially complex investment models. As always in the world of venture capital, those who can effectively navigate this changing landscape – understanding the nuances of different structures and their implications – will be best positioned to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the venture studio model.
Whether opting for a traditional fund structure or exploring innovative models like the dual entity approach, venture studios are rewriting the rules of startup creation and investment. For investors, understanding these evolving structures is crucial to identifying the most promising opportunities in this dynamic space. The venture studio model, with its hands-on approach to company building, offers a unique value proposition in the startup ecosystem. As these studios continue to refine their approaches and structures, they may well represent the next major evolution in how value is created and captured in the world of entrepreneurship and innovation.
If you are an accredited investor interested in venture studios, reach out to us to get exclusive access to our private investor only newsletter where we dive deeper this week on seven venture studio due diligence frameworks to evaluate a studio deal.
Get Access here →