Views: 21
Ownership matters in venture. But in a market where capital is concentrating into fewer companies, access may matter even more.
One of the most repeated pieces of advice in venture capital is: own enough for it to matter. The logic is sound. Venture returns follow a power law, and if a fund does not own enough of its winners, even great investments may not return the fund.
That is why fund construction models exist. They force discipline around check size, ownership, dilution, reserves, and concentration. For emerging managers in particular, the model can feel almost sacred: write the right check, own the right percentage, and follow on in the companies that break out.
But like many useful rules in venture, this one becomes dangerous when applied too rigidly. Sometimes the question is not whether you can own 8 percent or 10 percent. Sometimes the question is whether you can get into the round at all.
What AngelList’s data suggests
AngelList recently published an analysis of more than 15,000 seed investments, and one of the most interesting findings was counterintuitive: smaller checks often performed better than typical-sized checks. That does not mean small checks are inherently better. It probably means something more nuanced.
Big caveat, the latest deals considered were from 2022, so the conclusions are based on ‘pre-AI’ data (pre-chatgpt and genAI craze, that is).
From the data, two key takeaways stand out:
- Small checks were the best performers. Despite being the smallest category, they delivered the highest average returns (outperforming typical checks by 1.17x) and the strongest 75th percentile returns—even though they had slightly more “losers”.
- Large checks showed slight outperformance. On average, large checks beat typical-sized checks by just 1%, making the signal less clear.
Angelist
GPs rarely choose to write small checks into companies they do not like. More often, they are forced into smaller allocations because the round is competitive and demand is high. In that sense, a small allocation can be a signal of quality rather than a sign of low conviction.
This matters because venture is becoming even more concentrated. More capital is flowing into fewer companies, and the most attractive rounds often get crowded very quickly. In a market like that, access itself becomes a source of edge.
Capital concentration changes the game
The current venture market is not evenly distributed. LP dollars are concentrating into fewer managers, VC dollars are concentrating into fewer startups, and later-stage capital is increasingly reserved for companies that already look like category leaders. The result is a sharper divide between the companies everyone wants to fund and the companies struggling to get noticed.
For seed investors, this creates a paradox. The model says you need meaningful ownership to generate fund-level returns, but the best companies may not give you the ownership your model requires. If you insist on perfect ownership every time, you may end up with a cleaner portfolio but miss the most important companies.
This is especially true in smaller ecosystems like Israel, where repeat founders, elite technical teams, and trusted insider networks can close rounds before the wider market even sees them. By the time a company is obviously hot, the allocation may already be gone.
Why a small check can still matter
The obvious objection is that small checks do not move the needle. In many cases, that is true. A tiny position in a good company may produce a nice mark-up, but it may not return the fund.
Still, a small check can create value beyond the initial ownership. It gives the fund a relationship with an exceptional founder, a seat inside the information flow, and potentially the right to participate later if the company breaks out. It can also create network value with co-investors, operators, future founders, and LPs.
In venture, being close to the best founders is itself an asset. The first check may be small, but the relationship can compound across future rounds, future companies, and future opportunities.
This does not mean funds should abandon ownership discipline. A portfolio full of tiny checks can quickly become a collection of logos rather than a strategy. LPs do not pay managers to collect access for its own sake. They care about fund-level performance.
But the model should not become a reason to miss exceptional opportunities. The job of the investor is to know when a small allocation is a compromise and when it is a privilege. There is a big difference between writing a small check because you lack conviction and writing a small check because the company is so competitive that this is the only way in.
A useful approach is to separate the core portfolio from an access sleeve. The core portfolio is where the fund sticks to its ownership targets, does the work, and builds concentrated exposure. The access sleeve is reserved for rare cases where the company is exceptional, allocation is scarce, and the answer to “why are we lucky to be invited?” is obvious.
Small tickets need a high bar
Small checks should not have a lower bar. They should have a higher one. The round should be genuinely competitive, the founders should be exceptional, the company should fit the fund’s thesis, and the co-investors should be people the fund respects.
The check should also be capped so it does not distract from the core strategy. A small access investment should not require the same time commitment as a lead position, and it should not become an excuse to avoid making harder, higher-conviction bets.
The best version of this strategy is not spray and pray. It is disciplined access. It recognises that ownership matters, but also that in a power-law business, the cost of missing the right company can be much higher than the cost of owning less than planned.
Sometimes the small check is the right check
Venture capital loves models because they make an uncertain business feel more controllable. They are useful, but they are not reality. The best companies rarely fit neatly into the spreadsheet.
Sometimes the model says the check is too small. The market is saying the round is oversubscribed, the founders are exceptional, and you are lucky to be invited. In those moments, the right answer may not be to pass because the ownership is imperfect.
Sometimes, getting in is the edge.
He is a former General Partner at Google Ventures (GV) in Europe, former head of Google for Entrepreneurs in Europe, and founding head of Campus London, Google’s first startup hub. Eze writes on Israeli tech, venture capital, artificial intelligence, and founder strategy.
He is also the founder of Techbikers, a nonprofit that brings together the startup ecosystem on cycling challenges in support of Room to Read.