An analysis of Crunchbase data finds US-based VCs raised more sub-$100M venture funds in 2018 than in any prior year
Jason Rowley is a venture capital and technology reporter for Crunchbase News. — Recently, we bore out with data what has been felt for several years in most U.S. tech scenes … Tweets: @leepnet , @ownmarket , and @rrhoover Tweets: Tommy / @leepnet : More small funds = more diversity in fund managers = more shots for new startups targeting diverse markets = better for everyone http://twitter.com/... @ownmarket : Both seed and early-stage deals are getting bigger, on average, at the same time deal volume growth is stagnating in the U.S. and Canada. http://techcrunch.com/... #VentureCapital #funds #raisingcapital #SMEs #startups Ryan Hoover / @rrhoover : The rise of nano and micro VCs: http://techcrunch.com/... by @Jason_Rowley AngelList launched its Venture Funds platform (http://angel.co/...) ~2 years ago. It now powers over 130 funds, including this “nano” fund @weekendfund http://twitter.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
The Crunchbase finding lands on top of an already-documented fund-formation wave: Dow Jones VentureSource counted 516 new US venture funds raised since 2013, with 133 formed in 2016 alone. An earlier analysis found 60% of US VC funds raised every year since 2011 have been seed funds — so 2018 setting a record for sub-$100M vehicles is the continuation of a half-decade pattern, not a break with it.
What makes the record notable is where the rest of the money went: VCs raised roughly $55B in 2018, but most of the increase flowed into growth rounds functioning as private IPOs. The market was splitting even as it grew.
First-order effects
- First-time and emerging managers gained their largest-ever share of new fund launches, giving them more shots to back startups outside the established Sand Hill networks — the dynamic Tommy Lee flagged when arguing more small funds mean more diverse managers and markets served.
- Seed-stage founders face a wider set of potential lead investors, but also larger average seed and early-stage checks, since deal sizes were already growing while US-Canada deal volume growth stagnated.
Second-order effects
- Established firms' response is visible in the same year's data: rather than compete for small-fund territory, they pushed capital upmarket into growth rounds, leaving the seed end crowded and the growth end concentrated.
- LPs choosing between hundreds of sub-$100M funds face a selection problem that favors platforms aggregating small vehicles — the niche AngelList's Venture Funds platform, powering over 130 funds including nano funds like Weekend Fund, was built to serve.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, US venture structurally bifurcates: a long tail of micro-funds at seed colliding with a shrinking number of giant growth checks, which is exactly the environment where non-traditional investors later captured a record share of deals.
- A crowded seed tier with stagnant deal volume pressures small funds on returns, accelerating consolidation among emerging managers and raising the bar for what differentiates a sub-$100M fund.
The trend: US venture capital is barbelled — record numbers of sub-$100M seed funds forming at one end while aggregate dollars concentrate in growth-stage private-IPO rounds at the other.