Fund Structure
Portfolio Marking
Updating the internal valuation of portfolio companies based on new information.
Portfolio Marking (also called mark-to-market or fair value marking) is the process by which venture capital firms update the internal valuations of their portfolio companies. Since most VC investments are in private companies with no public market price, GPs must estimate the current fair value of each holding, typically on a quarterly basis.
The most common approach is to mark portfolio companies at the valuation of their most recent priced funding round. If a company raised a Series B at a $200M valuation, the fund marks its position at that implied value until a new data point emerges. Other methods include comparable company analysis, discounted cash flow, and revenue multiples benchmarked against public peers.
Portfolio marking directly impacts a fund's reported performance metrics, including TVPI (Total Value to Paid-In), IRR, and unrealized gains. Because these metrics influence a GP's ability to raise subsequent funds, there is an inherent tension between accuracy and optimism in marking practices.
Regulatory guidance (primarily ASC 820 / IFRS 13) requires fair value measurement, and most institutional LPs expect adherence to established valuation frameworks. However, the subjective nature of private company valuation means that two funds holding the same company might mark it at materially different values.
In Practice
Crestview Capital invested $5M in DataForge at a $50M post-money valuation during its Series A. Two years later, DataForge raises a Series B at $300M. Crestview marks its position up 6x, from $5M to $30M, which significantly boosts the fund's reported TVPI. However, six months after the Series B, DataForge loses a major customer and growth slows. Crestview faces a decision: maintain the $300M mark based on the last round, or write it down to reflect deteriorating fundamentals? The GP conservatively marks it down to $180M, reducing TVPI but maintaining credibility with LPs who value transparent reporting.
Why It Matters
Portfolio marking directly affects how VC fund performance is perceived by LPs, which in turn determines whether GPs can raise their next fund. Aggressive markups can make a fund look successful on paper even before any actual liquidity events, while conservative marking may understate true performance but builds LP trust.
For the broader ecosystem, marking practices influence capital allocation. When many funds mark their portfolios aggressively during bull markets, it creates an illusion of industry-wide outperformance that attracts more capital into venture — potentially inflating valuations further. Conversely, widespread markdowns during downturns can trigger a negative cycle where LPs reduce VC allocations just when valuations are most attractive.
VC Beast Take
Portfolio marking is where venture capital's self-reported track record gets complicated. During the 2020-2021 bull market, many funds posted eye-popping paper returns by marking at the latest frothy round prices. When the correction hit in 2022, those same funds were slow to write down — because admitting that your $500M mark is really a $150M mark is painful, especially when you're raising Fund IV.
The best GPs are brutally honest markers. They write down quickly, don't rely on stale round prices when fundamentals have changed, and use multiple valuation methodologies. LPs have gotten much more sophisticated about scrutinizing marks, and the GPs who built trust through transparent marking practices during the downturn are the ones successfully raising new funds today.
Related Concepts
Newsletter
The VC Beast Brief
Join thousands of founders and investors. Every Tuesday.
VentureKit
Ready to launch your fund?