This becomes part of the strategic planning from the start and while the business must come first it becomes a balancing reconciliation of the factors of control, dividends, and growth.

I have found that spending energy on outcomes can be very counter productive. The focus should be on goal setting (near/mid/far), understanding the competitive landscape and team building. It is important for all stakeholders to understand potential time lines (for an exit), but it is paramount that the business come first. Trying to force an exit because of preconceived ideas will always result in less than optimal outcomes.

That’s a challenge I’ve had to think through many times. When startups in a portfolio have conflicting exit strategies, alignment becomes the real game. For me, it comes down to three things: setting expectations early, maintaining open communication, and ensuring incentives stay balanced. You can’t force a single playbook on every founder, but you can create a structure where different exit paths don’t turn into a zero-sum game. The key is managing investor-founder dynamics in a way that respects both strategic flexibility and long-term value creation.

When investing in startups with different exit strategies, it’s crucial to align interests early to protect returns. Investors can negotiate rights to maintain equity in high growth startups or set liquidity preferences to ensure priority payouts in an acquisition. For example, if investing in a SaaS startup likely to be acquired, securing a participation preference can maximize returns, whereas for a deep tech company aiming for an IPO, using convertible notes can reduce early stage risk. Diversifying across various exit strategies while structuring deals to match founders’ goals helps investors maximise upside while managing risk.