How to Run a Seed Round in New Zealand

Michael Batko | ex-CEO Startmate, Cofounder Hourglass AI

builds a nine-part operator’s guide to raising a seed round in New Zealand: from the first pre-raise months through term sheet, diligence and close.

Real ANZ fundraising tradecraft drawn from 228 first-cheque investments, with the NZ-specific context founders can't Google.

Connect with Michael on LinkedIn

Learn more about Hourglass AI

In collaboration with Creative HQ - New Zealand’s innovation engine.

Explore Creative HQ

As CEO of Startmate from 2018 to 2025, Michael Batko backed 228 companies with first cheques across 16 accelerator cohorts at Australia and New Zealand's most active early-stage accelerator, where he started as Head of Operations before stepping into the leading role. That vantage point, the same seed rounds moving from "interesting" to a signed term sheet a few hundred times over, is what this guide is built on.

He founded and sold two startups of his own, both through his own network, without brokers. Today he coaches founders and CEOs through batko.ai, co-founded and leads AI firm Hourglass AI, is a Venture Partner at clinician-led medtech fund Australian Medical Angels, sits on the Australian Government's Industry Growth Program committee, and is a limited partner in funds including Blackbird and Square Peg.

This guide distils that pattern-recognition into a stage-by-stage playbook for New Zealand founders: how to tell when you're actually ready to raise, how to build and run a compressed process, what to negotiate and what to wave through, and every way a seed round breaks, so you can see it coming before it costs you the money or ownership.

Quick Navigation:

Part 1: Before You Raise

(Month -12 to -6)

1.1 - Are you actually ready to raise?

Here's the uncomfortable truth from 228 first cheques: readiness has almost nothing to do with your deck and almost everything to do with your customers.

A fundraise is a function of how well you understand the people who pay you. When an investor asks "what do customers actually pay for?" and the founder answers with a story - a specific customer, a specific before and after - the meeting changes temperature. When they answer with a category description, it's over.

My readiness test has two parts:

First: can you answer three questions without pausing?

• Who is your customer.
• What specific problem do you solve for them.
• Why do they pay you and not someone else.

Any hedging, any "it depends", and investors file you under "interesting, not yet."

Second: have you done 10 customer conversations in the last 30 days where you were actively testing your core value hypothesis?

Not demos. Not check-ins. Hypothesis tests. If yes, you're close. If no, that's your next two weeks.

On pre-seed vs seed in ANZ:

Pre-seed gets bought on team and insight - in Australia that's typically $200K-$750K, and in NZ the floor sits a little lower.

Seed gets bought on signal. The minimum signal that moves an investor from "interesting" to "let's talk terms" is evidence of pull: customers who came back, expanded or referred without you pushing. It doesn't have to be big revenue. It has to be a repeatable pattern you can explain.

And why raising too early is worse than raising too late:

The ANZ investor pool is small - a couple of hundred active angels, a few dozen funds - and everyone compares notes. You get exactly one first impression per investor. Raise before you're ready and you've spent it.

One more filter before you open a round: fundraising is at least a three-month, full-time, 40-hour-a-week job. If the business can't survive you doing that, you're not ready - keep building.

1.2 - How much to raise and at what valuation

Don't start with a round size. Work backwards from a milestone.

On valuation: ANZ prices below the US, structurally. Smaller funds, less capital competing for each deal. NZ seed deals run roughly half the US comps in SaaS and further below in deep tech. Don't burn weeks fighting that - outrun it. Raise a sensible amount at a market valuation, hit the milestone fast, and let the next round reprice you. A price your metrics can't grow into isn't free - you borrow it from the next round. If the milestone lands short, that raise prices flat or down, and the bill falls on you (heavier dilution than you avoided) and on the early backers you'd have to ask to eat the reprice - which is also the loudest "stay away" signal to the investors you need next. The founders who fight for a US-style number in an ANZ process usually end up with five months of meetings and no term sheet.

The unwritten ANZ rule: optimise for the investor, not the valuation. $1M at $4M pre from a lead with a real network and follow-on capital beats $1M at $6M pre from passive money every single time. The expensive thing at seed isn't dilution - it's 18 months (or even worse, a lifetime) with the wrong partner on your cap table.

1.3 - Building investor relationships 6-12 months out

Two numbers explain the whole pre-raise game:

• a cold email to a VC gets you under a 1% response rate.
• a warm intro from a founder they trust gets you 30-40%.

Everything you do in the 6-12 months before the raise is about closing that gap before you need it.

The engine is a monthly investor update. I've never met a successful company that doesn't send one. We call it the GBU - Good, Bad and Ugly. Your core metric, what worked, what didn't, and one specific ask. Sharing bad news early is the move - it builds trust faster than any wins slide.

And here's the trick: at the end of every valuable conversation, ask "would you like to get my monthly updates?" 99% of people say yes. Every coffee becomes a subscriber to your progress.

The mistake I've watched a hundred times: a founder goes silent for eight months, heads-down building, then surfaces with a cold "we're raising" email. The investor who might have said yes over one coffee now needs three more touchpoints to rebuild trust - and you've added two months to your raise. Updates are cheaper than meetings. Send them.

1.4 - The 10-week customer-only reset

If 1.1 caught you pitching too early, this is the fix - and it belongs here, in the pre-raise window before you're in market (though it works just as well in 4.1, as the recovery move after a window that didn't land.

I said this to a Startmate cohort and I'll stand by it forever: "You're not fundraising for 10 weeks. You're not talking to a single investor. You're just talking to customers." The signals a founder is pitching too early are always the same - they can answer every question about their product and none about their customer. Their traction story is a plan, not a pattern. And every investor meeting ends with some version of "come back when there's more."

The reset works because a fundraise is literally a function of customer understanding. Ten weeks of nothing but customer conversations rebuilds your story from the bottom: real quotes, real buying triggers, real numbers. You come back with specifics that no investor can poke through - and specificity is credibility.

The cost of going to market early in a pool this small is the part founders underestimate. Passes travel. If you pitched a fund with a weak story, walking back in six months later requires a visibly better one. The 10-week reset isn't a delay - it's how you manufacture that delta on purpose, rather than having it forced on you after 15 painful meetings.

Part 2: Getting Investor Ready

(Month -6 to -3)

2.1 - What "investor-ready" actually means

"Investor-ready" is not a checklist - it's knowing which of two states you're in.

State one: ready to have conversations. That's any time. Coffee, advice, a question about their thesis, a monthly update. No deck required, nothing at stake, you're learning and being remembered.

State two: ready to run a process. That's a compressed, deliberate, full-time campaign to a close date. Almost every fundraising disaster I saw across 228 investments started with a founder doing state two while only being ready for state one.

The process test is simple and brutal. Can you commit three months at 40 hours a week without the business going backwards?

Note: Fundraising is bloody hard, staying full-time on the raise without losing momentum is one of the toughest asks in the job, and it matters because investors are watching your most recent numbers each month and they need to tell a growth story. So a visible stall while you're in market works against you.

Are the materials done before meeting one - the one-pager, the model, a clean cap table, a data room built and sitting private? Do you have 50-70 researched names in tiers, with warm paths to the top ten? And can you answer the seven questions investors are actually asking - can this person execute, do they truly know their customer, is the market real, why now and why them, can I work with them for a decade, can it return the fund, and what aren't they telling me - without pausing?

Why conflating the two is so expensive: you get one first impression per investor, and in ANZ the network has a long memory. A half-ready pitch in what should have been a get-to-know-you coffee converts a future yes into a present pass.

Have conversations for months. Run the process for weeks. Never blur them.

2.2 - Your round narrative

Ambition first. Team second. Traction third. Most founders run it exactly backwards - they open with a product demo, mumble through team bios, and tack "we want to be huge" on the end. By then the investor has already filed you as a feature, not a company.

Ambition is the world you're building, big and specific and tangible - not "disrupting logistics" but what the industry looks like in ten years if you win. This is where ANZ founders consistently undersell. We're culturally wired against overstatement. Fight it. Be modest about yourself, never about the opportunity. Team is conviction signals, not bios - the thing you've done that proves you'll run through walls. Traction is the one metric that shows momentum, with the story behind it. Not a dashboard.

The deck is the container; the narrative is the content. The test: can you deliver it in 90 seconds at a dinner party, no slides, and leave people wanting more?

Then the mirror test: after you've run it, can the investor repeat your core insight back in one sentence? If they say "something about automation for SMEs", you haven't landed it. Keep sharpening until they can say it back.

On traction in ANZ vs the US: our investors see smaller absolute numbers by default, so they price pull over volume. Retention, expansion, referrals, customers dragging the product out of you. $20K MRR compounding monthly with negative churn is a better ANZ seed story than $80K MRR sitting flat. Frame the slope, not the intercept.

2.3 - Do you actually need a pitch deck?

I actually don't think you need a pitch deck at all. For early get-to-know-you meetings, what you need is a sharp verbal narrative and genuine questions about their thesis. A deck in a first coffee puts you in broadcast mode when you should be in conversation mode, and it hands the investor something to critique before they've decided whether they like you. The deck should follow interest, not create it. When they say "can you send me something?" - that's the cue.

When you're in a formal process and a deck exists, flip how you use it: send it 48 hours before the meeting, then walk in and open with "what stood out?" Three things happen. It filters serious investors from tyre-kickers - if they read it, they're engaged. It kills the 20-minute monologue, which is where most first-time founders lose the room. And it signals confidence: here's everything, let's talk about the real stuff. The meeting becomes a conversation about what the investor actually cares about, and you get to show how you think on your feet - which is what they're really evaluating.

The risk of a polished deck too early is that it generates questions you haven't earned answers to yet - unit economics, moat, competitive dynamics you're still learning. A half-baked deck is worse than no deck. The alternative I've seen work brilliantly for ANZ founders: a one-page written memo. The problem and why it's real, what you're building and why now, your best number, the ask. Easy to forward, readable in 90 seconds, and impossible to nitpick the way a slide is. Write clearly and half the investor's doubts dissolve before you've met.

2.4 - What to have ready before you go to market

The minimum viable investor pack is five things. Not fifteen. Get these right and you've removed most of the friction that kills early momentum:

That's the ANZ-practice baseline. The US-style 30-folder data room turns up at Series A, you don't need it for a Seed round.

Part 3: Building Your Investor Target List

(Month -3 to -1)

3.1 - Building your investor target list

Startmate hands every cohort founder a list of 1,000-1,200 investors. That list took a decade to build - but you can build your own working version in a fortnight. Start with Crunchbase and Dealroom: filter by geography (ANZ, plus global funds with ANZ portfolio companies), stage and sector. Cross-reference LinkedIn and anything you can find on Google and recent funding announcements. The filter that matters most: has this investor written a seed cheque in your category in the last 18 months? "Always evaluating" is not investing. Plenty of names on every NZ listicle haven't written a cheque in two years.

Then tier it.

A realistic ANZ seed target list is 50-70 names total. If yours has 200, you haven't done the work yet.

Why spray and pray destroys you here: the ANZ investor community sits at the same dinners, the same demo days, the same boards. If 15 investors have seen your deck and 12 passed, the remaining three will hear about it before your meeting. A warm lead is someone who's been reading your updates, has met you, and is waiting for the round to open. A cold name is a row in a spreadsheet. The entire pre-raise job is converting one into the other before you go to market.

On sequencing: don't burn your Tier 1 on a rough pitch. Run 3-5 sparring meetings first - friendly angels, Tier 3, investors you half-know - sharpen the narrative off their questions, then hit Tier 1 in a tight batch while the round is fresh. Fresh matters: a round that's been "open" for four months smells stale in a market this small.

3.2 - Mapping warm intro paths through the ANZ network

The numbers first: cold email to a VC converts under 1%. A warm intro from a portfolio founder they trust converts 30-40%. That gap is the entire meta-game of ANZ fundraising, and the good news is the paths are mappable.

The fastest path is portfolio founders. For every Tier 1 investor, find 2-3 founders in their portfolio building adjacent (not competing) things. Reach out with value - a customer insight, a genuinely useful connection, a sharp question about their market. No intro ask in the first message. Build it over 4-6 weeks and the intro comes naturally, because founders who've been helped are pre-wired to help. The accelerator lattice is the same mechanism at scale: if you've been through any program, the alumni network is your highest-conversion channel. Use it without embarrassment. Everyone in it was helped by someone.

When you do ask, make it one click for the introducer. Send a forwardable email: two paragraphs - who you are, what you're building, why this investor specifically, and the ask (a 30-minute conversation, not money). If your introducer has to draft something themselves, conversion drops to near zero. And end every single investor meeting with "who else should I be talking to?" - one good meeting should become three.

The cold email fallback works in exactly one form: short, specific and evidenced. Five lines. Why them (their thesis, a portfolio company, something they wrote), one number that proves momentum, one sentence of insight they haven't heard. It fails as a 40-fund mail-merge - and in ANZ a lazy cold email costs reputation, not just response rate.

On geography: accept that a big chunk of your investor universe lives in the main cities. Don't dribble it out over Zoom. Batch the coffee meetings into a week, fly in, and let the calendar create its own momentum - investors can feel when you're in town and in demand. A Wellington founder usually needs one extra hop to reach the rooms an Auckland founder reaches in one - which is exactly why the update list and the accelerator lattice matter more, not less, the further you are from the money.

3.3 - Choosing your lead investor

The lead matters more than the total. I'll keep repeating it because founders keep getting it wrong: $1.5M with the right lead beats $2M with no lead. The lead sets terms, anchors the social proof, and becomes the reference call every later investor makes. You're choosing a working relationship that outlasts most marriages - the average founder-investor relationship runs 7-10 years.

What to look for in an ANZ seed lead, in order:

• thesis fit (demonstrated conviction in your specific space, not "B2B software broadly"),
• portfolio relevance (companies you could call in a crisis - for hires, customers, the next round), and
• follow-on capacity (a fund that can write or anchor your next cheque).

Then run my favourite test: ask directly, "if we hit our 18-month milestones, would you plan to lead or participate in our Series A?" A great lead engages with the question. A passive cheque-writer hedges. The way they answer tells you more than the answer.

The signalling risk nobody warns ANZ founders about: small seed cheques from multi-stage funds. If a big fund writes you $200K at seed and then sits out your Series A, every other investor reads it as "the people who knew this company best opted out." That's a brutal signal to overcome in a market with two degrees of separation. It doesn't mean refuse the money - it means have the explicit conversation up front: what's your follow-on intent, what triggers it, and how often do you actually follow? Get the base rates, not the reassurance.

And on party rounds: in the US they're normal at pre-seed. In ANZ at seed they read as a yellow flag - our market is consensus-driven, and a round with no lead whispers "nobody wanted to own the conviction." Lead-anchored rounds, even smaller ones, generate more downstream interest. Find the lead first. Close them. Then fill the round - the fill is easy once someone credible has priced the conviction.

Part 4: Running the Process

(The 4-6 week window)

4.1 - How long this actually takes

Fundraising is at least a three-month, full-time, 40-hour-a-week process. I've said that publicly and I'll put it in writing here, because every founder hears it and quietly thinks they'll be the exception. You won't be. The founder is the only person who can close the round - everything else gets delegated for those 8-12 weeks.

The anatomy of those three months:

• 6-8 weeks of preparation (materials, target list, warm intros teed up),
• 4-6 week active window where all the meetings happen, then
• 4-8 weeks from term sheet to money in the bank.

The part investors see - the part that feels like "fundraising" - is about five weeks. The part that determines whether it works is everything before it.

And the dark version: unsuccessful fundraises can go on for five years if you have the runway. That's not a typo. A raise without a deadline isn't a process, it's a hobby - and it's the most expensive hobby in startups, because while you're "in conversations" the product stalls, growth flattens, and the story you're pitching gets worse every month you pitch it. Six months of drift costs more than a failed six-week sprint ever will.

The fix is dates. You're "in market" for a defined window.

• Before it: all prep, no pitching.
• During it: meetings every day, follow-ups same day, pipeline updated daily.
• After it: close, or call it - run the 10-week customer reset and come back with a better story. Don't let it bleed.

4.2 - Compressing meetings to build real momentum

Left to their own timeline, investors take 3-6 months to decide. With competitive tension, they decide in two weeks.

The only legitimate way to create that tension: batch all of those coffee meetings into a week. This is the single highest-leverage move in the whole playbook.

Execution: do all your prep before the window opens. Line up your warm intros in advance and ask the introducers to send them in the same fortnight - that part is easy to coordinate and almost nobody does it. Then tell every investor the plain truth: "I'm taking first meetings this week and next. If this is interesting, this is the window." That's not pressure and it's not a bluff. It's your actual schedule - and it quietly communicates that you run tight processes, which is exactly what they're trying to assess anyway.

Sequencing inside the window: put 3-5 friendly sparring meetings on Monday and Tuesday of week one - investors you half-know, angels who'll give you honest feedback. Your pitch improves more in three live meetings than in three weeks of rehearsal. Stack Tier 1 from midweek, when you're sharp. By week two you're taking second meetings while first meetings are still running - and the calendar itself starts doing the selling, because every investor can sense the others moving.

Investors who want to meet outside the window are giving you data. An investor who's genuinely interested moves their calendar - it's what they do for deals they like. Offer one alternative slot inside the window. If they can't make anything for three weeks, thank them, put them in the next batch, and keep moving. Chasing a reluctant calendar is how compressed windows decompress.

And the anchor effect: the moment one credible investor says yes - even verbally, even pre-term-sheet - everything changes. You can now honestly say "we have a committed investor and we're finalising the round over the next few weeks." That sentence compresses everyone else's timeline more than any tactic. But the operative word is honestly. Never invent commitments. In a market where everyone compares notes, getting caught inflating your round once doesn't cost you this raise - it costs you the next three.

4.3 - The follow-up cadence

The follow-up is where founders lose rounds they should have closed. The framework is simple and the numbers are specific:

Now the hard one: "interesting, keep me posted" is a soft no. After eight years of watching raises, that phrase almost never converts through nurturing.

What it means is: I don't see it yet, and I'm too polite to say so. Your move is not a monthly drip of updates hoping they warm up - your move is to go get a yes from someone else and then let them know. Nothing converts a keep-me-posted investor faster than hearing the round is closing without them.

What kills conversations: desperation cadence (five "any update?" emails), radio silence after a good meeting, and follow-ups with no new information. Every touch needs one new signal. If you don't have a new signal this week, that's a business problem, not a follow-up problem.

4.4 - Reading the room

There are two species of investor.

The first gives you a clear answer fast: yes with conviction, or no with respect - and the good ones intro you to someone better-suited even when they pass.

The second says yes slowly: more materials, another meeting, meet the team, "taking it to the partnership"... then quiet. No closed door, no honest no.

If you learn one skill before going to market, learn to tell these apart in the first meeting.

Real buying signals: they ask about terms, process and timing - not just the product. They request the data room or cap table without you offering. They say "let me intro you to my partner" and the intro lands within 48 hours. They ask who else is in the round. They run over time without noticing. These are people deciding whether to invest. An investor who starts giving you generic advice has mentally moved to helper mode - that's a pass wearing a friendly face.

The "I'm meeting with the partners next Tuesday" decoder: if it comes after a strong meeting, they set the date proactively, and they ask you for materials to prep the partnership - genuine. If it arrives after your third follow-up and they ask for nothing - it's a stall. What they request in the meantime is the tell. A real partner meeting has homework. A polite delay has none.

Here's what I wish I'd told every cohort founder before they went to market: investors aren't optimising to give you a fast answer. They're optimising to not miss a deal without committing prematurely - that's their whole incentive structure. Your job is to make the cost of delaying higher than the cost of deciding. That's all momentum is. The investor who's 60% convinced and can see three others moving will make a decision this week. The same investor at 60% with no pressure will pass in four months - politely, slowly, and after eating sixty hours of your time.

4.5 - Running a process from Wellington, Auckland, or Sydney

The ANZ geography is more manageable than founders fear, but only if you plan it deliberately. From Wellington or Auckland, your universe is the Auckland cluster plus the Sydney funds that genuinely invest across the Tasman - Blackbird, Startmate, AirTree and Folklore have all backed NZ companies. That's your map.

The Sydney trip is non-negotiable: book a week inside your compressed window, stack 8-12 meetings across four days, and let it travel through the network that you're in town and your calendar is full. That week will be the highest-ROI week of your raise.

Zoom vs in-person at seed: in-person for first meetings wherever you can manage it, Zoom is fine from meeting two. The first 15 minutes of a first meeting is pattern-matching - presence, energy, how you handle a room. That doesn't compress into a video call. ANZ is a relationship market; the investor who's had coffee with you refers you to more people than the one who's only seen you in a rectangle.

The SF question, honestly: for most NZ founders at seed, no. The US investors who'd genuinely lead an NZ seed are rare, and the trip - two weeks and $20K - usually buys one coffee and a "stay in touch." US seed investors want you reachable, in their timezone, with US-market evidence.

The exceptions: a real warm intro from someone they trust, a genuinely US-centric thesis, or US revenue already on the board. Otherwise spend the trip budget on product and raise from strength at the next round.

If your lead ends up in Sydney: brilliant - your Series A bridge is pre-built, but budget for being on planes and set a monthly call rhythm so the relationship doesn't thin out. If your lead is in Auckland: closer support day-to-day, but do the AU relationship-building separately and deliberately, because that's where your next round most likely lives.

Part 5: Term Sheet & Negotiation

(Post-process)

5.1 - What a term sheet actually means

A term sheet is a handshake in writing. It says: we intend to invest on these terms, pending diligence and documentation. It is not a closed round, it is not wired money, and it is not the finish line - it's the starting gun for the most fragile 6-8 weeks of the whole raise. The two most common founder mistakes at this stage are opposites of the same error: relaxing (slow responses, mentally moving on, treating legals as someone else's job) and announcing (telling the world, or even the team, before the wires clear). Both have killed real rounds.

What actually changes when you hold a term sheet: leverage and the clock. Use the leverage immediately - confirm your other investors in writing, fill the round, lock the timeline. Respect the clock - every week of drift post-term-sheet increases the odds that something (a market wobble, a partner change, a diligence surprise) resets the conversation.

On exclusivity: most ANZ term sheets ask for 30-45 days of no-shop. Granting it to a credible lead is fine and normal - but only once the round is substantially soft-circled, and only with a defined end date. Open-ended exclusivity with a slow-moving investor is how rounds die quietly: you're locked out of the market while their urgency evaporates. Short, dated, and earned - that's the standard you hold.

5.2 - SAFE vs convertible note vs priced round

The ANZ default at seed is a SAFE - Simple Agreement for Future Equity. Fast to execute, $5-10K in legals instead of $20-50K for a priced round, no interest, no maturity date, no debt on the balance sheet. It converts to equity at your next priced round at a cap or discount. Startmate's standard first cheque is a SAFE, and the format has become the de facto ANZ template - any decent startup lawyer turns one around in a week. If you're raising your first round from angels or a program, start here and don't overthink it.

The two numbers that matter: the valuation cap and the discount.

The cap is the ceiling your SAFE converts at.

Worked example: you raise $500K on a $4M cap. Your Series A later prices at $12M post-money. Your SAFE holders convert at the $4M cap - three times the shares per dollar that the new money gets. That's their reward for backing you early.

Set the cap too low and you give away too much of the company before you've built it; set it too high and your early backers feel burned when the next round barely clears it. And model the stack: every SAFE you've ever signed converts at once at the priced round, and the combined dilution routinely shocks founders who never ran the numbers.

Convertible notes are SAFEs with two complications: interest (typically 5-8%) and a maturity date (18-24 months), which makes them debt on your balance sheet. The maturity rarely gets called in practice, but it sits there complicating your next raise. I generally steer ANZ founders to SAFEs. When an investor insists on a note, it usually tells you they're more conservative or less current - which is worth knowing about someone joining your cap table for a decade.

A priced round at seed makes sense in three situations: you're raising $2-3M or more, your lead wants genuine governance (a board structure, not just a cheque), or you're in a sector where institutions expect priced equity from day one - some deep tech and biotech.

Across 228 investments, the overwhelming majority of seed rounds were SAFEs or equivalent simple instruments, and the founders who priced early usually wished they'd waited until they had the leverage to price on their terms.

5.3 - The clauses that actually matter

Founders spend their negotiation energy on the headline valuation and wave through the governance.

Three years later, the valuation is irrelevant and the governance is their life.

Here are the six clauses that actually matter at ANZ seed - operator tradecraft, not legal advice. Get a lawyer who does venture deals weekly for the real review.

Lawyer before signature, every time.

Of these six, the cap and the board are the two worth spending real negotiating capital on (see 5.4) - the rest you defend to "standard" and move on.

5.4 - How to negotiate without burning the relationship

The single most important fact about negotiating in ANZ: the ecosystem is tiny and investors talk constantly. A founder seen as difficult on terms hears about it later - because the investor they ground down mentions it to the next one. That's not a reason to be a pushover. It's the strategic context: every negotiation move is also a reputation move.

The play: pick two things that genuinely matter - usually the cap and the board - and accept the standard ANZ position on everything else. Frame your counter in data, not emotion: "comparable ANZ seed deals this year are capping at $5-7M - could we meet at $5M?" One thoughtful push, made once, then close gracefully whichever way it lands. Redlining twelve clauses doesn't read as rigorous; it reads as either inexperienced or distrustful, and both are expensive signals. And negotiate anything material by phone, never email - a 20-minute call resolves what a fortnight of redline ping-pong cannot.

Remember what's actually being evaluated: the relationship doesn't start at close, it starts at the first meeting - and how you behave under negotiation pressure is the investor's best preview of how you'll behave when the company hits a wall. Direct, reasonable, fast. The founder who negotiates well is the one who picks their battles, closes quickly, and leaves the investor feeling like they chose each other.

Part 6: Diligence - Both Directions

(Active deal)

6.1 - What investors actually check at seed in ANZ

Seed diligence is not Series A diligence. Nobody is trying to de-risk the business - there isn't enough business to de-risk. They're doing two things: confirming that what you told them is true, and building conviction on the only thing they can properly evaluate at this stage, which is you. Expect 2-6 weeks for the whole thing. If it's running longer, something has stalled, and your job is to find out what - politely, directly, this week.

The one place ANZ seed investors go genuinely deep is team. Expect 5-10 reference calls, and not just the names you supplied - they'll back-channel through former colleagues, mutual contacts, anyone in the ecosystem who's worked with you. The question isn't "is this person smart?" It's: will they listen when they're wrong, can they recruit, will they do the hard thing. If anything in your history is complicated - a failed company, a messy co-founder exit - raise it with the investor before they find it. Getting ahead of it reads as self-awareness. Being found out reads as concealment.

The rest is lighter than founders fear. Technical diligence is usually a 30-minute code walkthrough with an advisor - they want to see something real and maintainable, not perfection. Customer calls will happen: brief your customers honestly and don't coach them. An investor who hears "useful but rough around the edges" trusts you more, not less. Legal review covers the three documents that slow deals when they're missing: a reconciled cap table, IP assignments from every past contractor and co-founder, and signed employment agreements with vesting.

The founder behaviour that makes investors quietly pull away: surprises, slow responses, and defensiveness. Across 228 investments, surprises killed more deals post-handshake than bad metrics ever did. The fix costs nothing - disclose early, respond inside 48 hours, and treat every diligence question as a preview of how you'll behave as a portfolio founder.

6.2 - Diligencing the investor

Founders forget diligence is mutual. Before you sign anything, you need the answer to one question: what does this investor do when things go wrong? Because things will go wrong. A co-founder will leave, a quarter will get missed, a key customer will churn. You want to know how this person behaves in that room before you're in that room with them.

How to find out: ask the investor for three portfolio founders who went through a hard moment with them. Then do your own back-channel and find two they didn't volunteer - founders whose companies plateaued or pivoted, not the showcase names. Ask three questions: did the investor do what they said they'd do after the cheque cleared? How did they behave when the news was bad? Did they take their pro-rata in the next round? Yes, honestly, yes - that's a strong signal. Anything else, keep digging.

What red flags sound like on a reference call: long pauses before answering. "They're... fine." Praise that's all about the fund's brand and nothing about the person. And the killer - "just make sure everything you agree is in writing." Nobody says that about an investor who behaved well. The specific risk you're screening for is the fair-weather investor: brilliant at the announcement, invisible in the crisis, adversarial at the bridge round. In a market this small, three phone calls tell you who they are. Make the calls.

Three more checks before you sign.

• Conflicts: ANZ is small - ask directly whether they hold investments in or near your category.
• Fund lifecycle: "what year is your current fund and how much is reserved for follow-on?" An investor at the tail of a fund is a different partner than one at the start of a fresh one.
• Add-value claims: if they say they'll open enterprise doors, ask for one specific introduction before you sign - not as a test, as evidence.

And use the tool I built for exactly this: Founder Signal (callout below)- transparent founder reviews of ANZ investors..

Part 7: Closing Mechanics

(Final stage)

7.1 - The closing sequence

The closing sequence, term sheet to money in the bank:

• Sign the term sheet
• Share the data room within 24 hours
• Run legal docs and confirmatory diligence in parallel
• Get every co-investor confirmed in writing, signing call, wires sent, wires cleared

As a rule of thumb: 4-8 weeks on a SAFE, 6-12 on a priced round. Longer than that and something is stalled - and stalled deals don't usually resurrect, they quietly die.

Your job during legals is not to manage lawyers - it's to keep the deal alive. The lawyer drafts; you control the temperature. Data room inside 24 hours of the term sheet. Every diligence request answered inside 48. Every redline acknowledged same day, even if the substantive answer takes a week. Founders who go quiet during legal docs send a signal they never intended to send. The slowest thing in most closes isn't the law firm - it's the founder who treated a signed term sheet as the finish line and mentally moved on.

And never announce until the money is in the bank. Not at term sheet. Not at "closing Friday." Not at "the wires are going out." I've watched rounds die at every one of those stages. The announcement adds nothing to a closed deal and subtracts everything from an open one - because if it leaks that your "closed" round didn't close, that story outruns you. Money in the bank, then champagne, then LinkedIn.

7.2 - The failure mode that kills deals after term sheet

Across 228 investments, the deals that died after a term sheet almost never died because of the business. They died from surprise. Diligence turns up the unhappy customer, the reference with a concern, the cap table that doesn't match the deck - and the issue is rarely the fact itself, it's that the founder didn't mention it. The prevention is one sentence: "before you find it, I want to give you context on X." Investors price disclosed risk. They walk from discovered risk.

Second killer: the round composition wobbles. You told the lead you had $2M committed; a co-investor goes quiet and suddenly it's $1.4M. The rule is verbal is not written is not wired - never represent commitments you don't have in writing, keep two backup investors warm through the close, and if the composition shifts, tell your lead early. Leads can handle a changed plan. They can't handle discovering one.

Third killer: someone tries to renegotiate a material term during long-form docs. The fix happens earlier - put every term you care about in the term sheet itself. A specific term sheet closes faster than a friendly vague one.

Multi-investor wire coordination is duller than it is deadly: set one close date, send wire instructions with a deadline, and chase like it's a sales pipeline - because it is. Small cheques drift without a date.

And on bridges: a short bridge to a named milestone, honestly framed, works - "we need three more months to hit the number that anchors this round." What doesn't work is a failed raise papered as a bridge. The next investor can always tell, and it signals dysfunction at exactly the moment you need momentum.

Part 8: Every Way it Breaks

(Pattern recognition)

8.1 - Preparation mistakes

Across 228 first cheques, the rounds that failed before they started failed the same four ways. All preventable. That's what makes them worth writing down.

8.2 - Process mistakes

Process mistakes are where good rounds go to die - the product was real, the interest was real, and the founder lost control of the timeline anyway.

1. The drip-feed cadence. Two meetings in week one, positive signals, then the rest of the list spread over three months. By the time momentum arrives, the earliest conversations have gone cold and the interested investors have filled their quarter with other deals. Urgency creates urgency; drift creates drift. Batch the meetings or don't start.
2. Follow-up at the wrong frequency. Five "any update?" emails reads as desperation; silence after a good meeting reads as disinterest. The founders who close well send one crisp touch per week: one new signal, one ask, one easy way to respond. The best raise I watched closed off weekly two-line traction screenshots - no follow-up calls at all.
3. Negotiating by email. Valuation, pro-rata, board seats - these are conversations, not correspondence. Every founder I've watched try to resolve a term sheet point over email either got ignored, got a hard no, or lost a week to ping-pong that a 20-minute call would have settled. Phone first. Always.
4. Announcing before the close. I've seen a round collapse the week before wires because the founder posted "excited to be closing our seed round" - and an uncommitted investor read it as the round being done without them, so they moved on. Silence is a strategic asset during a raise. Announce when the money is in the bank, not before.

8.3 - Cap table mistakes

Cap table problems are quiet killers. They never show up in the pitch - they show up in diligence, when it's too late to fix them cleanly.

1. The 50/50 split with no vesting. An investor opens the cap table and immediately asks the question you didn't: what happens when one founder leaves in year two? Without vesting, the company is stuck with an inactive half-owner and no mechanism to fix it. Vesting from day one, 12-month cliff minimum, and a split that reflects contribution - not a desire to avoid an awkward conversation.
2. Option pool timing. Agreeing to a 15% pool carved out of the pre-money means the dilution lands entirely on you before the investor's money arrives. Negotiate the pool against your actual 18-month hiring plan, not a default percentage. The difference is routinely 3-5% of your company.
3. Raising too high too early. A $10M post-money with no revenue feels like a win until you need the next round and the metrics support a flat price at best. Down rounds aren't fatal, but the conversation - asking your earliest believers to absorb dilution - is harder than any founder expects. Price for the round after this one. For more on down rounds, see Section 1.2- How much to raise and at what valuation.
4. Too many small cheques with no structure. Fifteen names at sub-$25K each means fifteen signatures on every future document and governance friction forever. Pool small investors through a syndicate, SPV or nominee structure from the start - any institutional lead will make you do it eventually, at the worst possible time.
5. On government equity (NZ specifics covered above): the portable principle from the Australian side is to model the next round before you sign this one. Anti-dilution, information rights, pre-emptive rights, observer seats - each can be workable, all of them need a proactive conversation with your future lead. Take government money for what government funds well - R&D and early commercialisation.

WFW note: the "government took 20-30% early" pattern is more Australian than NZ.

In New Zealand most government support is non-dilutive and never touches your cap table, and where government money comes in as equity it is usually NZGCP's Aspire fund co-investing on the same round terms. Two NZ watch-items are real: a legacy Callaghan loan (now held by MBIE, which is enforcing arrears) is a diligence item you resolve before you raise; and any early convertible or equity carrying anti-dilution, pre-emptive, information or observer rights beyond market standard should be modelled to your Series A before you sign.

Programme detail is in WFW's Government Support Directory.

8.4 - Rounds that should have closed and didn't

Three case studies. Composites - details blended across companies to protect the founders, patterns absolutely real.

The verbal round that evaporated.

A SaaS founder with $10M in verbal commitments across 14 investors after four months of process. Nothing signed. They'd stopped actively raising - the round felt done - and had started hiring against it. Then the market turned. Six investors went dark, three asked to "revisit terms." The founder let two people go, restarted the raise with seven months of runway, and took a bridge from an existing angel at punishing terms. Verbal is a statement of intent under current conditions. Conditions change. Don't stop until the money moves.

The $5K problem that cost $2M.

A deep tech founder with a lead ready to sign. Week two of diligence surfaces a co-founder who'd left 18 months earlier - still on the cap table at 22%, no buyout agreement, no vesting. The deal paused while the founder chased their ex-co-founder for three weeks. By resolution, the investor had committed to two other deals and the appetite was gone. The fix had been available two years earlier for about $5K in legal fees.

The slow yes that was always a no.

A B2B founder ran six months of process with one prestigious fund as the presumed lead. Five meetings. Three separate versions of the financial model, each with new assumptions. Never a no - until month six: "we've decided not to move forward at this time, but would love to stay in touch." The founder rebuilt their list from scratch with four months of runway and closed with a different fund six weeks later - barely. Two rounds of diligence requests with no forward movement is a soft no. Treat it as one and keep the pipeline warm.

Part 9: NZ-specific Considerations

(NZ context layer)

9.1 - The NZ valuation gap

The right response to the valuation gap is calibration, not complaint.

The gap is structural - smaller funds, less capital competing per deal, longer paths to exit - and it says nothing about the quality of your company. Reading US seed announcements from Wellington and anchoring your raise to them is like pricing your house off Manhattan listings. Different market, different buyers, different maths.

When the gap matters: at the moment you set your ask. Anchor to US numbers and one of two things happens - you price yourself out of your actual investor universe and burn months discovering it, or you somehow get the number and set up a flat-or-down next round, which is a far more expensive problem than dilution. When it doesn't matter: at the outcome level. What you own at exit is the product of every round's dilution and the speed you compound between them. The NZ founder who raises at a sensible local cap, hits the milestone, and reprices in 18 months ends up owning more than the one who fought five months for a US-style number and stalled.

What to actually do: price to the investors who will actually be in your round, raise to a milestone with a 30% buffer, and treat the gap as information about where to raise rather than a tax to resent.

And the honest exception: if your comps genuinely are American - US revenue, US category, US buyers - then raise from US investors at US prices. Their comps apply to you. Otherwise, neither their comps nor their valuations do, and chasing them costs you the local round you could have closed.

9.2 - Government co-funding (Innovation Services/MBIE) and venture capital

The principle that applies regardless of programme: non-dilutive money is almost always worth taking, equity co-funding is a structural decision dressed up as free money. Grants, R&D tax incentives, RDTI - anything that doesn't sit on your cap table extends runway, signals credibility to investors who know the programmes, and costs you nothing structurally. Apply early (timelines run 3-6 months) and never budget it as operating cash before it lands.

Government equity is the different animal. From the Australian side I've watched the same movie with similar structures: the problem is never the government's intent, it's how the equity behaves at your Series A. Before you sign anything, pay a startup lawyer to model the next round: does the entity hold anti-dilution rights? Board observer rights? Information rights beyond what an institutional lead will accept? Pre-emptive rights that can slow a close? Each one is workable. All of them need a proactive conversation with your future lead - and most VCs have a private view on government equity that they won't volunteer until it's a problem.

My rule of thumb from the Startmate years: take government money for what government funds well - R&D, early commercialisation, technical milestones. Take venture money for what venture funds well - go-to-market, speed, scale. When government equity is funding the sales team, the structure is backwards, and the VC across the table can see it.

9.3 - NZ-only vs trans-Tasman vs US raise

My honest answer for most NZ founders at seed: NZ lead, Australian co-investor, US at Series A.

NZ investors price NZ context correctly: they're not surprised by NZ-scale early numbers, they understand the small-domestic-market constraint, and a credible NZ lead (Movac, Icehouse, GD1, Punakaiki, or a strong angel syndicate) gives you runway plus a platform to raise the next round from. Skipping NZ to pitch Australian funds cold at seed is high-variance: some AU funds genuinely look across the Tasman, but most NZ seed companies don't yet show the metrics that make an AU fund lead a deal in a market they know less well.

When trans-Tasman at seed makes sense: an AU investor is offering a meaningful cheque ($250K+, not a token allocation), you have AU customers or revenue that makes the story concrete, or you're going through the accelerator path - which is the single most direct route for NZ founders into warm AU VC relationships. Blackbird has an Auckland presence; Startmate has backed NZ founders for over a decade; AirTree and Folklore have done NZ deals. The play is not to cold-pitch Sydney from Wellington - it's to bring one AU investor into the seed round so your Series A across the Tasman starts warm.

And the US at seed, from NZ, is almost always premature: I've watched founders spend two weeks and $20K in SF to come home with one coffee and a "stay in touch." US seed investors want you reachable, in their timezone, with US-market evidence - none of which you can show from NZ at seed.

The exceptions are real but narrow: a genuine warm intro from someone the fund trusts, a thesis that's US-centric by nature, or US revenue already flowing. Otherwise, put the trip budget into product and revenue, and arrive at the US conversation at Series A from a position of strength.

9.4 - The active NZ and ANZ investor map

Here's the Australian layer that matters for NZ founders, because your Series A most likely lives on this list. The shortlist:

How to use any investor map: not as a cold outreach list. A map gives you names, not context. Before reaching out to any fund, find one founder they've backed and ask two questions: what's the partner actually like to work with, and would you take their money again?

For the ANZ funds, I built Founder Signal (callout below) for exactly this - transparent reviews of investors from founders who've worked with them. Read the reviews before you take the meeting.

Summary: seed raise timeline at a glance

The "save and refer back to" section. A founder who reads nothing else should land here and know exactly where they are and what to do.

Further reading

The five references on seed fundraising with the biggest reach and the most authority:

1. Y Combinator - A Guide to Seed Fundraising (Geoff Ralston) - the canonical text, on the highest-authority startup domain on the internet. US-centric, which is exactly the gap this edition fills.
2. Paul Graham - How to Raise Money - still the most honest essay ever written on fundraising process mechanics and investor psychology.
3. Lenny's Newsletter - Raising a Seed Round 101 (Jack Altman, Terrence Rohan) - the strongest execution-level walkthrough, with the biggest tech-newsletter audience in the world.
4. Carta - State of Seed / State of Private Markets - the benchmark data everyone cites: round sizes, valuations, dilution, time between rounds.
5. First Round Review - the deepest operational essays on narrative, investor meetings and running a process.

The Hourglass AI

Michael co-founded The Hourglass AI, which makes companies AI-native from the foundations up. The model runs in three layers:

1. A company "brain" that connects your CRM, email, files and finance system into one memory both people and agents can use
2. Shared infrastructure like pre-drafted email and a Slack coworker that the whole team runs on.
3. Specialised agents your team builds, or Hourglass builds for you.

It starts with a short audit that turns your own team's interviews into a build roadmap, then ships working systems inside the tools you already run, no rip-and-replace. If you want to learn the stack yourself, the AI Pod takes you from "I should learn AI" to shipping with Claude in four weeks, co-taught by Michael.

20% off for anyone who wants to ship a website or product in 4 weeks. Mention "What Founders Want" when signing up.

Creative HQ

https://creativehq.co.nz/

Creative HQ is NZ's innovation engine, with a vibrant startup hub in Wellington, running programmes to support founders from their first idea through to fast-growing scale-ups. They’ve supported 1,500+ entrepreneurs, whose companies have created 2,000+ high-value jobs and built a $2b+ pipeline, raising $450m+. 45% of alumni remain active five years on, 4.5x the global average. Their alumni include Hnry, Sharesies, Tapi and 100+ more.

Quick Navigation:

Back to Expert Editions