The venture capital world is being reshaped by an innovative approach: the Dual Entity Model for venture studios. This model combines the operational expertise of a startup studio with the financial power of a dedicated investment fund, creating a dynamic partnership that drives rapid startup growth and delivers superior returns. But what makes this model so effective, and why is it gaining momentum among forward-thinking studios and investors? In this article, we explore the mechanics of the Dual Entity Model, its advantages, practical strategies for implementation, and a real-world example of its success, drawing on insights from industry leaders and data from the Global Startup Studio Network (GSSN).
Venture studios have seen explosive growth, with a 480% increase in their numbers globally, from 171 to 824 between 2019 and 2022, according to Enhance Ventures. Unlike traditional venture capital firms that spread investments across many startups hoping for a few big wins, studios focus on creating a smaller number of high-potential companies, acting as institutional co-founders. This approach has proven highly effective, with studio startups achieving a 60% success rate in reaching Series A funding, compared to 42% for traditional startups!
Understanding the Dual Entity Model
The Dual Entity Model is one of three primary venture studio structures, alongside the Studio Holding Company and Studio Enterprise Partnership models. In this model, the studio focuses on ideation, validation, and company-building, while a separate investment fund provides capital to both the studio (typically a 10-30% stake) and its portfolio startups. This separation allows each entity to specialize, enhancing efficiency and alignment of interests.
Key features include:
Diversified Investment: The fund’s investment in the studio provides indirect exposure to all portfolio startups, reducing risk with a 40% failure rate comparable to Series B startups.
**Pre-emption Rights: **The fund gains exclusive rights to invest in startups on favorable, pre-agreed terms, simplifying due diligence.
High Ownership, Low Cost: Investors gain significant equity stakes at early valuations, as seen in Sutter Hill Ventures’ $12 billion return on a $200 million investment in Snowflake.
Speed to Funding: Studio startups reach seed rounds in 10.7 months and Series A in 25.2 months, compared to 36 and 56 months for traditional startups.
The Dual Entity Model offers significant benefits:
Aligned Incentives: The fund’s stake in the studio ensures mutual success, as studio growth drives portfolio value.
Capital Efficiency: Studios achieve a 53% internal rate of return (IRR) and a 5.8 total value to paid-in (TVPI) ratio, far surpassing traditional startups’ 21.3% IRR and 1.57 TVPI.
Faster Scaling: Startups benefit from the studio’s resources and the fund’s capital, accelerating growth and exits (3.85 years vs. 6.6 years for traditional startups).
However, the model’s complexity and higher implementation costs can be challenging, particularly for early-stage studios without an established portfolio. Critics argue that simpler models, like the holding company, may be more suitable for new studios, but the Dual Entity Model’s scalability makes it ideal for established players.
Choosing between a holding company and dual entity fund isn’t just a structural decision—it’s a survival question. Holding companies are common, even popping up within dual entity setups, but they come with a catch: dilution. Investors take permanent ownership in the studio itself, a bitter pill for founders who’ve spent years wrestling with controlling investors. When those investors bring expertise, it’s a win. When they don’t—lacking operational or industry chops—it’s a recipe for frustration. Most exited founders have endured this at least once, so their resistance is no surprise.
The dual entity model rides in with a shiny promise: no studio dilution! The studio runs on fund fees or payments, keeping ownership intact. But here’s the rub—running a studio on a traditional 2% management fee needs a $50M fund minimum. For seasoned founders, that’s doable. For newbies? Not so much. Limited partners (LPs) demand proof the studio model works, and bigger LPs raise the bar higher. A new studio might try building 2-3 companies to show it can execute—without infrastructure or funding. It’s a Herculean task. Some pull it off, self-funding staff and early ventures, but too many die trying, losing 1-2 years or collapsing entirely.
New studios face a brutal catch-22: LPs want evidence of execution, but execution needs capital. VCs can pitch deal flow via SPVs while raising. Studios? They’re stuck building companies from scratch to prove their worth—a resource-intensive slog. A fund-only path sounds ideal, but it’s a trap for untested teams. Instead, a permanent or temporary holding company can be a lifeline, letting studios raise smaller sums and build traction without betting the farm.
Enter the second holdco—an additional holding company that sidesteps the pitfalls. One holdco means dilution, permanent investors, and tax headaches when paying dividends. A full dual entity setup demands at least $20M and can box in the studio’s mandate. The second holdco splits the difference: isolated capital pools that don’t dilute the studio, tax-efficient liquidation, and flexibility for strategic investors’ specific goals. It’s often the Goldilocks option for studios balancing growth and control.
Your legal structure can make or break you. Here’s how to choose wisely:
Assess Your Odds: New studio? Raising $20M-$50M for a dual entity fund is a long shot without a track record. Start with a holding company—permanent or temporary—to secure capital and prove your model.
Dodge the Trap: Building companies to impress LPs sans funding is a 1-2 year gamble that can kill you. Self-fund minimally or lean on a holdco first.
Embrace the Second Holdco: Need flexibility without dilution? This hybrid isolates capital, cuts tax burdens, and accommodates strategic mandates.
Clarify Roles: In dual entity setups, split duties—studio builds, fund invests. Allocate 10-30% to the studio, the rest to startups.
Align Incentives: Share carried interest or equity to bind studio and fund success.
When eyeing studios, focus on:
Proven Execution: High Alpha’s 19 companies and four exits set the bar.
Fund Fit: Match the fund’s strategy (e.g., B2B SaaS) to the studio’s focus.
Risk vs. Reward: High ownership mitigates downside, but weigh the capital demands.
High Alpha, launched in 2015, nails the Dual Entity Model for B2B SaaS. Its studio builds, its fund invests, and the results speak: 20+ companies, $160M raised, and four exits, including Lessonly’s sale to Seismic in 2021. With 500+ jobs created in Indianapolis, it’s a blueprint for blending operations and capital—though its success hinges on a seasoned team that dodged the newbie traps.
The Dual Entity Model can turbocharge venture studios, aligning interests and accelerating returns. But it’s no magic bullet. New studios risk years of delay—or outright failure—chasing its fund-heavy ideal. Holding companies offer a practical start, while the second holdco strikes an elegant balance, dodging dilution and tax woes. Success hinges on picking the right structure for your stage, resources, and goals. Choose wrong, and you’re sunk. Choose right, and you’ll reshape the venture game.
