Builds growth equity return models with minority/majority economics, participation rights, and preference stack analysis. Use when modeling growth equity returns, projecting minority investment outcomes, or analyzing preference structures.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add CaseMark/skills --skill modeling-growth-equity-returns --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Modeling Growth Equity Returns?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/casemark-modeling-growth-equity-returns)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: modeling-growth-equity-returns
language: en
description: Builds growth equity return models with minority/majority economics, participation rights, and preference stack analysis. Use when modeling growth equity returns, projecting minority investment outcomes, or analyzing preference structures.
tags:
- modeling
- growth-equity
- investment
metadata:
author: casemark
practice_areas:
- Growth Equity
- Expansion Capital
- Late-Stage Investing
document_types:
- Financial Model
skill_modes:
- Modeling
- Forecasting
---
# Modeling Growth Equity Returns
## When To Use
- Projecting gross and net returns for a minority or majority growth equity investment
- Analyzing how liquidation preference stacks, participation rights, and anti-dilution provisions affect investor economics across exit scenarios
- Comparing return profiles between participating preferred, non-participating preferred, and common equity structures
- Stress-testing entry valuation, hold period, and exit multiple assumptions for an expansion-stage deal
- Evaluating co-invest or follow-on allocation decisions within a growth equity portfolio
## Inputs To Gather
- **Deal terms**: Investment amount, pre-money valuation, ownership percentage, share class, liquidation preference multiple (1x, 1.5x, etc.), participation cap (if any), anti-dilution mechanism (broad-based weighted average vs. full ratchet)
- **Capital structure**: Existing cap table with all prior preferred rounds, option pool size, outstanding convertible instruments (SAFEs, notes), any pay-to-play provisions
- **Operating forecasts**: Revenue, EBITDA/EBIT, or net income projections for each year of hold period; gross margin trajectory; expected cash burn or free cash flow profile
- **Exit assumptions**: Target hold period (typically 3–7 years), exit revenue/EBITDA multiples, probability-weighted exit scenarios (IPO, strategic sale, secondary, recap)
- **Follow-on / dilution**: Expected future funding rounds, anticipated dilution per round, pro-rata rights and whether the fund intends to exercise them
- **Fee and carry structure** (for fund-level returns): Management fee rate, carry percentage, preferred return/hurdle rate, GP catch-up, fund-level recycling assumptions
## Workflow
1. **Map the cap table** — Build the current ownership waterfall including all preferred layers, common, and option pool. Confirm conversion ratios and any ratchet triggers. [VERIFY] anti-dilution provision language from the term sheet or charter.
2. **Construct the preference stack** — Order liquidation preferences by seniority (pari passu vs. stacked). Model each layer's claim: preference amount, accrued dividends (if cumulative), and participation rights. Calculate the "as-converted" breakpoint where preferred holders would elect to convert to common.
3. **Build exit waterfall scenarios** — For each exit value (e.g., 0.5×–5× of post-money):
- Pay senior preferences first, then junior preferences
- Distribute remaining proceeds per participation rights (uncapped, capped, or non-participating)
- Compare participating vs. as-converted payout at each exit value to determine optimal election
- Output investor cash-on-cash and IRR at each scenario point
4. **Model the operating case** — Project revenue and margin over the hold period using management forecasts and comparable company benchmarks. Apply a base, upside, and downside case. Tie exit enterprise value to exit-year revenue or EBITDA × selected multiple.
5. **Layer in dilution and follow-on** — Simulate future rounds with estimated pre-money valuations. Reduce ownership proportionally unless pro-rata is exercised. Recalculate waterfall economics post-dilution.
6. **Calculate return metrics** — For each scenario compute:
- Gross MOIC (multiple on invested capital)
- Gross IRR
- Net MOIC and net IRR (after management fees and carried interest)
- DPI (distributions to paid-in) if modeling interim liquidity events
7. **Run sensitivity analysis** — Build two-way data tables varying entry multiple vs. exit multiple, and hold period vs. revenue growth rate. Highlight breakeven and target-return thresholds (e.g., 3× MOIC, 25% IRR).
## Output
- **Waterfall summary table**: For each exit scenario, show total proceeds, preference payouts by layer, common distribution, and investor share
- **Return matrix**: Gross and net MOIC/IRR across base, upside, and downside cases
- **Sensitivity tables**: Two-way tables on key variable pairs (entry valuation vs. exit multiple; growth rate vs. hold period)
- **Breakeven analysis**: Minimum exit value required to achieve 1× return, target MOIC, and target IRR
- **Key assumptions register**: Itemized list of every assumption with source or [VERIFY] flag
## Quality Checks
- Waterfall total distributions equal total exit proceeds in every scenario (zero residual)
- As-converted breakpoint is correctly identified — preferred holders convert only when common payout exceeds preference + participation
- IRR and MOIC are internally consistent (IRR derived from actual cash flow timing, not approximated)
- Dilution math is additive across rounds — total ownership percentages sum to 100% after each modeled round
- Participation cap, if present, is correctly applied so that capped holders stop receiving pro-rata above the cap threshold
- Sensitivity ranges bracket realistic outcomes — entry and exit multiples aligned to comparable transaction data [VERIFY]
- Net return calculations correctly sequence management fees (on committed vs. invested capital) and carry (American vs. European waterfall) per fund terms [VERIFY]
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!