Anti-Dilution Calculator.

Why do anti-dilution clauses exist?

Anti-dilution clauses (also referred to as down-round protection) are meant to protect the historic investor if a later round takes place at a lower issue price, i.e. a lower valuation. Without protection, the historic investor's economic position worsens, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the severity of the down round. The clause reallocates part of that risk to other stakeholders.

Percentage dilution vs. economic dilution

Percentage dilution means that an existing shareholder's percentage interest in the company decreases, for example from 20% to 15%. That happens in every financing round and, apart from the effect on voting rights, is not a problem so long as the value per share remains at least constant.

Economic dilution is the real risk. It arises where new shares are issued at a lower price per share than in the previous round (the pre-money valuation of the new round is below the post-money valuation of the old round). In that case, the historic investor paid a higher price than the current market value. Anti-dilution clauses address exactly that scenario, not percentage dilution in up rounds.

The model assumes that the new investor keeps its ownership derived from investment divided by post-money valuation. The protected existing investor position is derived from historic investment amount and historic pre-money valuation; ESOP/convertibles are included as a percentage of current fully diluted shares. In practice, that reflects the usual new-investor position: anti-dilution adjustment shares are included in the pre-money capitalization. They therefore do not reduce the new investor's ownership, but are borne economically by the existing shareholders. If this point is negotiated differently, the issue price changes. In practice, that is often visible in the cap table model rather than in a standalone contractual clause.

Full ratchet vs. weighted average

Full ratchet is the most aggressive variant. The historic price paid by the protected investor is reduced in full to the price of the down round. Economically, the model treats the investor as if that investor had invested at the lower price from the outset (full repricing). This gives strong protection, but it will regularly dilute founders the most.

Full ratchet is often criticised as disproportionate because full repricing applies even where the down round is relatively small and the actual dilution would otherwise be limited. In that situation, the effect can be out of proportion to the trigger event. The opposing argument is that the original price was simply not validated by the market and the investor specifically negotiated protection for that case.

Weighted average is the milder approach. Here, the historic price is not pulled all the way down to the new price; instead, it is adjusted by formula. The decisive factor is the size of the new round relative to the company's existing capital structure. That is why weighted average is usually the market standard.

Broad-based vs. narrow-based: which shares count in the denominator?

Under the weighted-average method, the outcome depends critically on which shares are included in the formula base. There is no single standard formula; the contractual definition has to be drafted expressly.

Broad-based formulations typically use fully diluted shares. That means the denominator also includes ESOP, committed shares and convertible instruments. This broadens the formula base and is therefore milder for the holders of unprotected equity, especially founders.

Narrow-based formulations reduce the denominator. How much depends on the contractual definition: sometimes only actually issued shares count (excluding ESOP and options), sometimes only the shares of the protected preferred series count. The narrower the base, the stronger the price adjustment and the more additional shares the historic investor receives. The model here uses the strict variant, i.e. the protected series only.

Different economic intuitions sit behind the denominator question. The case for a broad base is consistency: if the original price per share was calculated on a fully diluted basis, the adjustment should be carried out on the same basis. The case for a narrow base, from the investor's perspective, is that the protection is intended to correct the pricing error affecting that investor's own series, so the shares of other shareholders are economically irrelevant.

In practice, there is no single “standard” weighted-average formula. Anyone negotiating such a clause should understand every single lever and draft it consciously.

Pay-to-play and sunset clauses

In some rounds, anti-dilution protection is conditional on the historic investor participating in the down round. This pay-to-play logic is meant to prevent investors from claiming protection without contributing fresh capital. In the market, it is an additional negotiating lever, not an automatic feature.

Anti-dilution protection can also be limited in time by a sunset clause. A typical formulation provides that the protection falls away after a certain period or after the next financing round if that round was not a down round. From the founders' perspective, that reduces the long-term burden of protection rights whose justification diminishes over time.

How to read it in the term sheet

Anti-dilution rarely stands alone. Valuation, liquidation preference and other economic provisions in the investment agreement interact. Anyone trying to understand the economic balance of a financing round should read those provisions together.

Note

Simplified illustration. Does not replace legal advice.