Talk:Series A round

Sourcing

It has been exceedingly difficult to find reliable sources for this and other articles about venture capital transactions. Most that I could find are self-interested pieces by company advisers, lawyers, accountants, book publishers, etc., trying to hawk their services. They border on spam links and as such they are not suitable sources for an article like this. The only other material one commonly sees are academic-style papers and analyis that may be interesting in their own realm but seem to miss the point about how venture capital actually functions in the real world. Technical academic papers also suffer from being (by Wikipedia standards) primary sources that cannot generate useful article content without some original research or synthesis.

If anyone cares to help, it would be great if you could add some sources to back up, change, or expand this article with in-line citations. If you don't have the time or patience, at least add a "references" or an "external links" section and I'll come back some day to integrate these into the article. Thx, Wikidemo 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge this article into private equity

Hi. This article stands as tagged but unsourced for 4.5 years now. There are specific facts about share classes and amounts without verifiability, as well as many weasel worded statements ("usually", "routinely", "critical", "typically"). Deleting all the unsourced content is not going to leave very much, so I suggest this article be merged into the larger and better maintained article on private equity. --Ds13 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this was one of my first articles before I had the hang of things. If necessary I'll clean it up over the next several weeks. The problem isn't that there are too few sources for verifiability, but rather there are too many to sort through (for example, this search) It's such a common business occurrence with so many sources that it's hard to find ones that discuss the topic in a comprehensive way. There's a similar difficulty with articles like angel investor, or seashell for that matter. Series A rounds are a distinct encyclopedic subject (perhaps $10-20 billion per year of investment in the US and a necessary feature of the entire tech economy), whereas private equity is a much broader topic that encompasses many different things. This article is getting 5,000+ views per month, which is probably in the top few percent of all Wikipedia articles, so there's clearly some reader interest in the subject as opposed to finance overall. This kind of merge would be like merging the Automated teller machine into Banking - someone who wants to know about an ATM doesn't need a treatise on the entire banking industry. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC).

Hi. Thanks for responding. With such an old plea for help on verifiability, the article appeared abandoned so that was my rationale for folding it into an article with more eyes on it. What you say is reasonable, though, so if you think this article can stand alone, then my suggestion would be to work on WP:Verifiability before any additional material is added. If this article is receiving as many views as you claim, then verifiability is tantamount. I agree, there are SO many ways to slice venture funding, investing, small and large corporate finance, etc. So I predict reliable sources will contradict each other when it comes to defining "Series A" or "typical" dollar thresholds. And that's fine; all views can and should be presented with due weight. We'll see if anyone else chimes in... Cheers. --Ds13 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Series A rounds are now well embedded as part of the business landscape and requires a separate article from Private Equity. The issue of citations and verifiability is separate from the discussion of merging the article. Peterjthomson (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Reporting requirements

I assume these need to be reported to the SEC in the U.S. and possibly other regulators? -- Beland (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias

"Smaller investment amounts are usually not worth the legal and financial expense" This seems to be an opinion. To whom are smaller investment amounts not worth the expense? Tcdaly (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)