Liquidation preference math.

Liquidation preference: investor's right to receive specified amount before common shareholders in exit. 1x non-participating preference: investor gets max(preference, pro-rata share) - simple founder-friendly. 1x participating preference: investor gets preference PLUS pro-rata of remainder - investor double-dips at founder expense.

Example: 5M investment for 25% ownership. 20M exit. 1x non-participating: investor gets max(5M, 5M pro-rata) = 5M. 1x participating: investor gets 5M (pref) + 25% × 15M (pro-rata of 20M-5M) = 8.75M. Common shareholders worse off with participating.

Multiple preferences (2x, 3x): investor receives 2x or 3x investment before others - extremely founder-unfriendly. Standard now: 1x non-participating. Avoid: 2x+ multiples, participating preferred. In down rounds or modest exits, preferences matter most - 100M acquisition with 80M total preferences leaves only 20M for common (founders + employees). Always model exit waterfall scenarios when negotiating term sheets.

Run it with sensible defaults

Using investment amount of 5,000,000, preference multiple of 1, exit value of 20,000,000, fully diluted ownership of 25%, the calculation works out to 5,000,000.00. Nudge the inputs toward your own situation and the output recalculates instantly. The defaults are meant as a starting point, not a recommendation.

The levers in this calculation

The inputs — Investment Amount, Preference Multiple, Exit Value, Fully Diluted Ownership %, and Participation (1=Non-Part, 2=Part) — do not pull with equal force. Not every input has equal weight. Flip one at a time toward extreme values to feel which ones move the needle most for your situation.

How the math works

Non-participating: max of preference or pro-rata. Participating: preference + pro-rata of remainder. The working is transparent — you can verify every step yourself in the formula section below. No black box, no opaque "proprietary model".

Why investors run this

Most people's intuition for compounding is wrong — not because the math is hard, but because linear thinking doesn't account for curves. Running numbers through a calculator like this one is the cheapest way to recalibrate that intuition before making an irreversible decision about contribution rate, asset mix, or retirement age.

What this doesn't capture

Steady-rate math ignores real-world volatility. Actual returns are lumpy; sequence-of-returns risk matters most in drawdown; fees and taxes drag on compound growth; and behaviour changes in drawdowns can reduce outcomes below the projection. Treat the number as one scenario, not a forecast.