Founders spend months preparing to be evaluated by investors. They refine their decks, practice their answers, anticipate the hard questions, and build the metrics that will hold up under scrutiny. The preparation is thorough, the stakes feel high, and the evaluation runs in one direction: investor assessing founder.
What most founders do not do — or do not do rigorously enough — is run the evaluation in the other direction. The investor is about to become one of the most consequential relationships in the company's life for the next five to ten years. They will be present at every major decision point. They will have information rights and sometimes governance rights over outcomes that will define the founder's professional trajectory. And in most cases, the founder has spent fewer hours evaluating that relationship than they spent preparing for the first pitch meeting.
That asymmetry is a mistake. And it is one that is entirely within the founder's control to correct.
The power dynamic of fundraising makes thorough investor evaluation feel uncomfortable. The founder is, in most cases, the party seeking capital — which creates a psychological frame where being too evaluative feels like overstepping, or like risking the relationship at a moment when the relationship needs to be cultivated.
That frame is wrong, and founders who operate inside it consistently end up with investor relationships that are harder to manage than they needed to be. The right frame is that a term sheet is the opening of a negotiation between two parties who are each evaluating whether the relationship is right — not a provisional acceptance of an offer that the founder should be grateful to receive.
Investors who are worth taking money from will respect rigorous founder diligence. Investors who become uncomfortable when a founder asks hard questions about their track record, their behavior in difficult portfolio situations, and their actual value-add are showing the founder something important before any money has changed hands.
Most founders who do investor reference checks ask the same question: what is it like to work with this person? The answer is almost always positive — because investors curate their references carefully and because most investor-founder relationships are cordial when things are going well.
The questions that reveal something real are about adversity. Ask specifically about a portfolio company that went through a hard period — a missed quarter, a pivot, a co-founder departure, a down round. How did the investor engage with it? Did they show up with tools or with anxiety? Did they add to the founder's cognitive load or reduce it? Did their behavior in that moment make the founder more or less likely to take their call during the next difficult period?
Ask about a situation where the investor disagreed with a founder's decision and what happened. Investors who cannot name a specific example of productive disagreement are either not engaged enough with their portfolio companies to have had one, or are not honest enough in the reference context to share it. Neither is a good sign.
Ask the founders you speak with what they wish they had known before taking the investment. That question, more than any other, produces the honest version of the relationship — the things that were not visible in the pitch process and only became clear over time.
Beyond reference calls, there is a set of diligence that is available to any founder willing to do it and that most founders never attempt.
Read everything the investor has written publicly. Their blog posts, their social content, their public statements about what they look for and how they operate. Not to evaluate their investing thesis — to evaluate whether what they say publicly is consistent with what their portfolio founders describe privately. Consistency between public presentation and private behavior is one of the most reliable signals of character available.
Look at their portfolio for patterns that are relevant to your situation. What has happened to the companies in their portfolio that are most similar to yours — in stage, in market, in the challenges they were navigating at the time of investment? That pattern is more predictive than any conversation.
Pay attention to how they behave during the diligence process itself. Investors who are responsive, clear, and direct during diligence are showing you the best version of how they will behave as a partner. Investors who are slow, inconsistent, or evasive during the process — when they are ostensibly trying to win the deal — are showing you something more reliable about their defaults.
The investor relationship is one of the longest and most consequential professional relationships a founder will have. It deserves the same rigor the investor applies to evaluating you.
#Investor Relations #Fundraising #DueDiligence #FounderPlaybook #Opinion
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date with the latest news.
.png)
.png)
