3 ms·
The prior information was as according to the article. Supposedly, $0.5 billion must be committed for such use (though, it may not be). I don't think it requir
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
The prior information was as according to the article. Supposedly, $0.5 billion must be committed for such use (though, it may not be).
I don't think it requires corruption, or malevolence; only a source of cash, and a desire to get cash to prior investors.
- gumby 10y agoAh, I think you misunderstand the structure. They have structured the raise as two interrelated related funds. The two funds presumably invest in the same set of portfolio companies. I assume they structured it this way as way of reducing fees and perhaps because some LPs were interested in different levels of exposure. This is the same size as Andreessen Horowitz’s past two funds and, like each of those efforts, includes a primary pool (which can do both early and late-stage deals), plus an overflow pool for portfolio companies that require significantly more capital. The breakdown this time is $1 billion for the main fund and $500 million for the parallel fund―the latter of which only collects management fees once capital is committed. If this parallel fund had been able to invest in earlier funds (remember each fund is a separate company with a different set of LPs and GPs) I am sure they would have mentioned it.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoThat's what I thought at first, as well; until I scrolled past some advertising to, what I think is, the last sentence: > Andreessen Horowitz’s still-private portfolio companies include Airbnb, Buzzfeed, Cyanogen, Lyft, Instacart, Jawbone, Magic Leap, Okta, Product Hunt, Slack, and Zenefits. If we believe the Fortune magazine, AH may have raised the side pool for any number of those companies.