The term sheet looks attractive. The partner understands your market. The fundraising process finally has momentum. Before you commit, however, there is a different diligence question to answer: What will this investor be like when your company misses its plan?

Investor reference checks are not about finding someone universally liked. They are about understanding behavior, testing expectations, and identifying friction you can—or cannot—work with.

Bessemer Venture Partners’ 10 Laws of Cloud recommends selecting investors and board members with the rigor applied to core executive hires, including checking references to assess expertise, relationships, perspective, and compatibility. That is a useful frame: evaluate the working relationship, not just the financing terms.

Make Reference Checks Part of the Decision

CRV’s reference-check guidance recommends conducting calls after receiving a term sheet but before signing. Plan for that window rather than treating references as a final formality.

Tell the prospective lead investor that you want to understand their working style through founder conversations. Ask for introductions while independently identifying other founders who have worked with the partner.

Reciprocal diligence is not merely hypothetical. In The Investor Checklist, Point Nine describes offering portfolio-founder reference calls so prospective founders can learn what working with the firm is like.

References should complement, not replace, your review of governance rights and financing terms. For broader financing considerations, see our venture financing guide. Here, the task is narrower: checking whether the investor’s behavior matches the relationship you expect.

Select References for Range, Not Reassurance

An investor-provided reference can offer valuable detail. It is still a selected perspective. Independently sourced contacts help you test whether the same patterns appear outside the introduction list.

CRV recommends including supplied references, independently identified founders, and founders whose businesses struggled or failed. Build on that guidance with the following checklist.

Reference-selection checklist

• Investor-supplied founders: Ask why each person is relevant to your situation. Look for comparable operating challenges, not just recognizable company names.
• Independently identified founders: Use public portfolio information and your existing network to find people with direct experience of the prospective partner.
• Founders who experienced difficulty: Seek perspectives shaped by missed targets, financing pressure, strategic disagreements, or company closure.
• Founders with relevant governance exposure: If the partner will join your board, prioritize people who have worked with that partner in the boardroom.
• Founders at a comparable stage: Distinguish experience relevant to your current needs from experience at a much later stage.
• References for the individual partner: Establish who actually did the work. A positive view of the firm does not automatically describe your prospective lead.

Do not assume that an unsuccessful company implies a bad investor—or that a successful company proves a good one. The useful question is how the investor behaved under the circumstances.

Respect confidentiality. Ask references to discuss their own experience without sharing privileged board materials or sensitive company information.

Use a Call Script That Draws Out Behavior

Open with context: “We are considering working with this partner as our lead investor. I would appreciate candid examples of how the relationship worked, especially under pressure. Please avoid anything you are not comfortable sharing.”

Then establish the reference’s experience with the partner: the partner’s role, the company’s stage, and whether they worked together through difficult decisions.

Disagreements and decision-making

Ask:

• “Tell me about a significant disagreement. What did the partner do, and how was it resolved?”
• “Could you challenge their position without damaging the relationship?”
• “Did they distinguish between advice, board responsibilities, and decisions that belonged to management?”

Listen for the process, not just the outcome. An investor can disagree strongly while remaining constructive. Conversely, apparent agreement may conceal pressure applied outside the meeting.

Difficult periods

Ask:

• “When performance fell short, how did their behavior change?”
• “How did they respond when you brought bad news?”
• “During financing pressure or a strategic reset, what support did they offer, and what limits did they communicate?”

Distinguish tough questioning from troubling behavior. Tough questions are not inherently a warning sign. Examples involving humiliation, shifting expectations, or withholding material information warrant closer examination.

Responsiveness and actual help

Ask:

• “When you needed a decision, how did they handle the request?”
• “What help did they personally deliver, rather than suggest?”
• “Can you describe an introduction or intervention and what happened afterward?”
• “What did they say they could not help with?”

Distinguish availability from usefulness. Frequent messages may add little, while a well-timed intervention may matter substantially. Clear boundaries can also be more valuable than broad promises.

Fit and hindsight

Close with: “Would you choose this partner again? Under what circumstances would you hesitate?” Then ask what the founder wishes they had clarified before accepting the investment.

Compare Evidence, Not Enthusiasm

Write up each call promptly. Keep direct statements separate from your interpretation, and record the circumstances behind each example.

Use a worksheet like this:

| Dimension | Concrete example | General praise or concern | Context and open question | |---|---|---|---| | Disagreement | What the partner said or did | “Very collaborative” | Was there a consequential conflict? | | Difficult periods | Actions after a setback | “Founder-friendly” | What pressures were present? | | Responsiveness | How a decision request was handled | “Always available” | Was the response useful and timely? | | Help delivered | Specific action and resulting outcome | “Great network” | Who did the work? | | Governance | Behavior around board decisions | “Strategic thinker” | Were decision boundaries clear? | | Fit | Working habits described | “Easy to work with” | Would those habits suit your team? |

Do not convert every comment into an overall score. That can make weak evidence look precise. Instead, label observations as corroborated, isolated, conflicting, or unanswered.

When accounts differ, investigate context. A partner may be hands-on during a turnaround but less involved when a business is performing well. Different founders may also want different levels of involvement. Ask whether the accounts describe inconsistency or simply different needs.

Take Unresolved Questions Back to the Investor

References should produce a more informed conversation, not a secret verdict. Discuss unresolved themes directly, but obtain permission before identifying a reference or sharing details from their account.

Useful questions include:

• “How do you handle a disagreement with a founder when neither side changes its view?”
• “What involvement should we expect when performance falls behind plan?”
• “How should urgent requests reach you, and what happens when you are unavailable?”
• “Which types of operating help can you realistically provide?”
• “How are follow-on investment decisions made, and how would you communicate a decision not to participate?”
• “If your responsibilities change, who maintains the relationship?”

Compare the answers with the examples you heard. Where expectations differ, decide whether those differences reflect negotiable preferences or fundamental incompatibilities.

Accept With Clearer Expectations

The goal is not to eliminate uncertainty. These sources offer practitioner guidance, not empirical proof that reference checks improve fundraising or company outcomes.

The practical aim is a clearer decision: what you know, what remains unresolved, and what working relationship you are accepting. If you are preparing for an institutional raise, our Series A fundraising guide provides broader context.

A compelling valuation deserves attention. So does the person who will be across the table when the plan changes.

Book a Free Consult