Deal-by-Deal Attribution in Venture Capital
The 2026 NVCA Yearbook shows how concentrated venture deal activity can be. A small share of very large financings can represent a large share of market value. Fund attribution should reveal whether a manager captured the companies that truly move outcomes.
NVCA reported that 487 US VC mega-deals of $100M+ represented 3.2% of deal count and 67% of deal value in 2025.
Show Each Company's Contribution to the Fund
Deal-by-deal attribution shows how each company changed the fund result. For every investment, the fund should report cost, realized proceeds, remaining value, gross gain or loss, ownership, and share of total fund value. The important figure is contribution to the whole fund, not only the multiple on one cheque. A 20x deal can be less important than a 5x deal if the first cheque was tiny. A modest multiple on a large investment can create more total value.
Multiple and Contribution Are Different
| Company | Invested cost | Value and proceeds | Gross MOIC | Gross gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | $2M | $40M | 20.0x | $38M |
| B | $15M | $75M | 5.0x | $60M |
| C | $20M | $30M | 1.5x | $10M |
| D | $10M | $0 | 0.0x | -$10M |
Company A has the highest multiple, but Company B creates the most dollars of gain. Company D reduces total fund gain by $10 million. An LP needs both the multiple and the dollar contribution to understand the portfolio.
Separate Realized and Remaining Value
Two companies can show the same MOIC while carrying different levels of risk. One may have returned cash through a sale; the other may be marked at the last financing with no liquidity. The schedule should split realized proceeds from remaining fair value. Age matters too. A 3x mark in year three and a 3x mark in year ten do not tell the same story. The older position needs a clearer path to cash and a stronger explanation of the valuation.
Consider three investments in a $100 million fund. Company A cost $10 million and returned $50 million in cash, creating a $40 million realized gain. Company B cost $20 million and is marked at $60 million, also creating a $40 million gain, but none of it has been distributed. Company C cost $15 million and is now worth $5 million, reducing value by $10 million. A and B make the same gross contribution to TVPI, yet A has removed valuation and liquidity risk while B has not.
The attribution schedule should make that difference visible and then reconcile the company-level gross result with the LP's net result. Management fees, fund expenses, carried interest, and any subscription-facility effect sit above the individual investments. Allocating those costs precisely to each company can create false accuracy, so the cleaner approach is usually a gross deal schedule followed by a transparent fund-level bridge to net returns.
Follow-On Attribution Shows a Second Decision
Venture funds often invest in the same company several times. The opening cheque reflects selection at entry. Later cheques reflect the manager's ability to update the view as new evidence arrives. Where data allows, show each round separately: date, price, cheque, ownership bought, and current value. This reveals whether the fund added capital before value creation or followed at a high price after most of the upside was already visible.
Avoid False Precision
IRR at the company level can be sensitive to small cash-flow timing differences, especially early in an investment. It is useful, but it should not crowd out simpler measures such as gross gain, MOIC, and share of fund value. Fund fees and carry also sit above individual deals. A deal-level schedule should stay gross and then reconcile to the net fund result separately.
What the Investment Committee Should See
- Cost, proceeds, and fair value: The basic return bridge for every company.
- Opening and current ownership: Evidence of dilution and follow-on use.
- Which companies actually move the result.
- Realized status: Cash returned versus value still at risk.
- How later decisions affected the outcome.
Build the Deal Contribution Table
In a $100 million fund, a single investment returning $80 million contributes 0.8x gross fund MOIC before fees and carry.
NVCA reported that 487 US VC mega-deals of $100M+ represented 3.2% of deal count and 67% of deal value in 2025, showing why LPs should examine deal-level contribution.
Separate Realized and Unrealized Winners
Realized and unrealized value affect TVPI differently. A $60 million realized distribution and a $60 million unrealized mark both add 0.6x to gross value on a $100 million fund, but only the first improves cash DPI.
In a simplified $100 million fund, three companies can generate most of the gross value while the rest of the portfolio contributes less.
Deal Contribution to Gross Fund MOIC
Deal-by-deal attribution shows whether returns are concentrated in one investment or supported by several contributors.
View deal attribution data
| Portfolio component | Gross value | Contribution on $100M fund | Question for LPs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Company A | $120M | 1.20x | Was this sourced and won repeatably? |
| Company B | $60M | 0.60x | Was follow-on capital allocated well? |
| Company C | $35M | 0.35x | Is value realized or marked? |
| All others | $85M | 0.85x | How much capital was lost or written down? |
Find Which Companies Moved the Fund
The measure should help the investor choose whether to invest, wait, or investigate further. The same return can mean something different for a young fund, an older fund, or a fund that has already distributed cash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should LPs ask for deal-by-deal data?
Yes, within confidentiality limits: Without deal-level contribution, it is difficult to judge repeatability and concentration.
Can deal attribution reveal manager skill?
It can help: The key is whether the same team repeatedly found, won, and supported the investments that mattered.
Related Reading
fund performance attribution, concentration, and partial realizations.