Decoding the NVCA Term Sheet (Part I): Understanding the Economics
For many founders, a term sheet for a venture capital financing can feel deceptively simple. A handful of pages at most. A headline valuation. A short list of defined terms that look familiar enough to skim past. But venture capital economics are rarely determined by valuation alone. They are often embedded in provisions with unassuming names that subtly determine who gets paid, how much, and when.
Two term sheets with the same valuation can produce dramatically different outcomes at exit. The difference lies in how risk is allocated between investors and common stockholders, and how downside protection, upside participation, and future dilution are structured. Understanding those mechanics is essential for founders who want to evaluate not just whether a deal “looks good,” but how it actually works across a range of real-world outcomes.
This post is Part I of a two-part series decoding the “NVCA” term sheet, or a typical VC financing term sheet that assumes the deal will be documented using the standard National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) forms, which have become the market norm for VC financings in the United States.
Here, we focus on the economic terms that determine ownership, dilution, and exit proceeds. In Part II, we’ll turn to governance, including board composition, protective provisions, and control dynamics. The goal is not to turn founders into securities lawyers, but to provide a clear mental model for how these provisions interact and why they matter.
-
The NVCA term sheet will set forth either a pre-money valuation (the company’s fully diluted value immediately before the new investment) or a post-money valuation (which includes the new capital). While that distinction sounds straightforward, when it comes to the valuation, founders often get tripped up by how the employee option pool is treated.
In most venture financings, the term sheet requires that the available and unissued employee option pool equals a specified percentage of the fully diluted post-money capitalization. The critical point is that this pool is effectively carved out before the investors put in their money. As a result, in most term sheets, any increase to the option pool dilutes the pre-money valuation and is borne entirely by the existing shareholders.
For example, if investors require a 10% post-money option pool and the company currently has a 5% pool, the additional 5% comes entirely from founder and existing stockholder dilution, not from the new investors. Founders who focus only on the headline valuation number, without negotiating option pool size, are negotiating only half the equation.
Investors push for this structure for a reason. They want to ensure the company has enough equity reserved to hire key employees through the next financing without needing to expand the option pool shortly after closing, which would otherwise dilute their ownership.
Outstanding SAFEs are another important input. In most priced rounds, SAFEs are treated as part of the pre-money capitalization and effectively dilute the existing shareholders with no effect on the new investors. This ensures that new investors are not diluted by convertible instruments that were issued before their investment.
Finally, founders should pay close attention to how round size interacts with valuation. If a term sheet is anchored to a post-money valuation and the round is later upsized due to strong investor demand, the effective pre-money valuation is pushed down, increasing dilution to existing holders. By contrast, if the valuation is defined on a pre-money basis and the round is upsized, the post-money valuation may increase as well, depending on how the term sheet is structured and negotiated.
-
Liquidation preferences determine how exit proceeds are distributed between investors and common stockholders. In an NVCA-style term sheet, preferences generally come in three flavors, each typically expressed as a multiple of the original purchase price:
Non-participating preference (e.g., 1x non-participating): Investors receive the greater of (i) their liquidation preference or (ii) the amount they would receive if they converted to common stock.
Full participating preference (e.g., 1x participating): Investors first receive their liquidation preference and then participate pro rata with common stockholders on the remaining proceeds.
Capped participating preference (e.g., 1x participating with a 2x cap): Investors receive their preference plus participation, but only up to a specified multiple of their original investment, after which they stop participating.
In standard VC financings today, 1x non-participating liquidation preference is by far the most common outcome, particularly for early- and mid-stage rounds. This structure is best understood as baseline downside protection: investors are protected on the downside but do not receive incremental economics on successful exits beyond their pro rata ownership. Participating preferences or preferences with higher multiples go further, allowing investors to both recover capital and capture additional upside. Because of that enhanced return profile, these structures are most often used in down rounds, distressed financings, or situations where the company is compelled to offer stronger economic incentives to attract new capital.
The economic impact of these structures can be dramatic. Consider a company that raises $10 million at a $40 million post-money valuation, giving investors 25% ownership. If the company later sells for $50 million:
1x non-participating preference: Investors choose the better of their $10 million preference or their 25% as-converted ownership ($12.5 million). They take $12.5 million. Founders and employees split the remaining $37.5 million.
1x full participating preference: Investors receive their $10 million preference first, then participate pro rata in the remaining $40 million (25% of $40 million, or another $10 million), for a total of $20 million. Founders and employees split $30 million.
On the same $50 million exit, a participating preference captures 60% more value for investors than a non-participating structure. That additional return comes directly out of the common stockholders’ share.
This is why liquidation preference terms can matter more than headline valuation. Two term sheets with the same valuation can produce meaningfully different outcomes for founders depending on whether the preference is participating, capped, or non-participating, and at what multiple.
-
Term sheets typically take one of three approaches to dividends: paying dividends on preferred stock on an as-converted basis (meaning only when common stock receives dividends), cumulative dividends at a specified annual percentage, or non-cumulative dividends payable when declared by the board.
Most venture deals use as-converted dividends or omit dividend provisions entirely. When cumulative dividends do appear, they're typically in later-stage deals or situations where investors require more downside protection. Cumulative dividends, when included, are usually payable upon liquidation or redemption, effectively increasing the liquidation preference over time. An 8% annual cumulative dividend on a $10 million investment adds $800,000 per year to what investors receive on exit, which is a material number in modest exit scenarios.
-
Anti-dilution provisions protect investors if the company issues equity at a lower price per share than in prior financing rounds. Rather than rewriting ownership percentages directly, anti-dilution works by adjusting the conversion price of the preferred stock.
In a standard venture-backed company, each share of preferred stock is initially convertible into common stock on a 1:1 basis. When anti-dilution protection is triggered, the conversion price is reduced. As a result, each preferred share is convertible into more than one share of common stock, increasing the effective ownership of that stock and shifting dilution to the common stockholders.
The market standard mechanism is weighted average anti-dilution, which uses a formula that takes into account both (i) the price of the new issuance and (ii) the number of shares issued in the down round. Because it factors in deal size, weighted average anti-dilution softens the adjustment when a small amount of capital is raised at a lower price and produces a larger adjustment when a meaningful amount of stock is issued at that lower valuation.
By contrast, a full-ratchet approach to anti-dilution simply resets the conversion price to the new, lower issuance price, regardless of how little capital is raised. In this case, even a small bridge financing at a reduced price can cause preferred shares to convert into a dramatically larger number of common shares, resulting in severe dilution to founders and employees. For that reason, full-ratchet protection is generally viewed as punitive and is uncommon outside of distressed or highly investor-favorable situations.
Standard NVCA-style deals also include a list of excluded issuances that do not trigger anti-dilution adjustments. These typically include conversions of existing preferred stock, stock splits, dividends, and equity issued under board-approved equity compensation plans. The goal is to ensure that routine corporate actions and ordinary-course employee grants do not inadvertently reprice the preferred stock. These excluded issuances are also usually carved out from investors’ pro rata participation rights (discussed below).
-
Pro rata rights give certain investors (typically the company’s largest holders, often defined as “Major Investors”) the right to participate in future equity financings in proportion to their ownership of the company, calculated on an as-converted, fully diluted basis. In practical terms, pro rata rights allow investors to maintain their percentage ownership rather than being diluted by new money.
Term sheets often include oversubscription rights, sometimes referred to as “gobble-up” rights. If one or more investors decline to purchase their full pro rata allocation in a new round, other eligible investors may be permitted to purchase some or all of the unsubscribed shares.
For founders, pro rata rights are often a double-edged sword. On the positive side, they provide a predictable source of follow-on capital and signal continued investor support to the market. On the downside, in later-stage or highly competitive financings, extensive pro rata rights can constrain the company’s flexibility. A new lead investor may want to invest a large portion of the round, and accommodating multiple existing investors’ pro rata claims can make allocations difficult or force the company to increase the round size beyond what it actually needs and incur unnecessary dilution.
Some lead investors negotiate “super pro rata” rights, which give them the ability to invest more than their pro rata share in future rounds. These rights become particularly consequential in oversubscribed financings, where allocation decisions directly affect the company’s ability to bring in new strategic investors and manage its long-term cap table.
-
Pay-to-play provisions most commonly appear in down rounds or otherwise challenging financings. At a high level, these provisions require existing investors to participate in a new financing, typically by purchasing their full pro rata share, in order to retain certain rights associated with their preferred stock.
The consequences for not participating can vary in severity. In softer forms, an investor who does not participate may lose specific protective rights, such as anti-dilution protection or the right to participate in future financings. In more aggressive forms, a non-participating investor’s preferred stock may automatically convert into common stock, stripping it of its liquidation preference and other preferential terms.
Mechanically, pay-to-play provisions are designed to separate investors who continue to support the company from those who opt out at a difficult moment. The underlying logic is straightforward: investors who benefited from preferred protections at a higher valuation should continue to support the company when capital is needed at a lower valuation, or relinquish those protections.
Pay-to-play terms are often contentious and are not standard in healthy, competitive financings. They tend to surface when the company has an immediate need for capital, limited external financing alternatives, or a fragmented investor base where follow-on participation is uncertain. For founders, a pay-to-play can be a powerful tool to align incentives and secure committed capital, but it can also strain investor relationships and should be used deliberately and with a clear understanding of the long-term cap table and governance implications.
-
Mandatory conversion provisions specify the circumstances under which preferred stock is automatically converted into common stock. Unlike optional conversion, which is exercised at the investor’s discretion, mandatory conversion forces all outstanding preferred shares to convert once certain conditions are met.
In NVCA-style term sheets, mandatory conversion is most commonly triggered by a qualified public offering. This is typically defined as a firm-commitment underwritten IPO meeting specified minimum thresholds for proceeds and/or price per share. The rationale is that once the company reaches a sufficiently large and liquid public market, the special rights associated with preferred stock are no longer necessary or appropriate.
Mandatory conversion can also be triggered by a vote of the preferred stockholders, often requiring approval by a majority or supermajority of the preferred shares. This allows investors, collectively, to decide to collapse the capital structure in connection with certain exits or strategic transactions.
Economically, mandatory conversion matters because it determines whether investors retain their liquidation preferences and other preferred rights at exit. Once preferred stock converts into common, those preferences fall away. As a result, mandatory conversion thresholds are closely tied to valuation outcomes: if the company exits above the level where common stock economics are superior to the liquidation preference, conversion is largely academic; below that level, conversion can meaningfully shift value from investors to founders and employees.
For founders, mandatory conversion provisions are generally favorable, as they prevent preferred rights from persisting indefinitely and ensure that, at scale, all stockholders are aligned in a single class of equity. For investors, these provisions are a tradeoff in which they accept eventual conversion in exchange for downside protection earlier in the company’s lifecycle.
Practical Guidance for Founders
Understanding term sheet economics requires moving beyond the headline valuation to the provisions that significantly affect outcomes. Founders should model exit scenarios at multiple price points, not just the best-case outcome. A simple spreadsheet showing proceeds to each class of stockholder at exits of 0.5x, 1x, 2x, and 5x the current post-money valuation can quickly clarify how liquidation preferences, participation rights, and anti-dilution provisions affect founder returns.
Founders should negotiate option pool sizing before the term sheet is signed. Pay attention to non-participating liquidation preferences. In competitive financings, this structure better aligns investor and founder interests and becomes especially important in modest exit scenarios.
Ensure the term sheet clearly defines “fully diluted capitalization” and specifies which securities are included in that calculation. Ambiguity here can create real disputes later. Resist full-ratchet anti-dilution unless circumstances are truly distressed; weighted average protection is market standard and far more balanced.
Different companies and market conditions call for different structures. Founders who understand how these provisions fit together can negotiate from a position of knowledge rather than reacting to investor proposals. The economics encoded in a term sheet determine how the value founders create is actually distributed when it matters most.