Venture

Michael Moritz moves on, book-ending a long chapter at Sequoia Capital

Michael Moritz, the journalist-turned-VC who has long been one of the most prominent and respected investors at Sequoia Capital, has left the firm after 38 years to “deepen his advisory relationship” with Sequoia Heritage, the wealth management unit he spun up in 2010 with colleague Doug Leone and on whose board he has sat for years.

The move is effective immediately. In a note to LPs that we obtained earlier, Roelof Botha, who is managing partner of Sequoia Capital, said Moritz will continue to represent Sequoia Capital at a handful of companies but that those seats will be “transitioned” to other partners over time.

A source familiar with the firm said the development was not socialized within the partnership far in advance of its announcement because Moritz long ago relinquished his day-to-day responsibilities. Indeed, he stepped down from an active management role in 2012, telling investors then that he’d been diagnosed with a “rare medical condition which can be managed but is incurable” and explaining that he’d been told that “in the next five to ten years, the quality of my life is quite likely to decline.”

Despite the adjustment, Moritz has continued to remain busy inside Sequoia. For example, he became closely involved with Getir, the Turkey-based instant delivery company that Moritz’s family office backed in 2020 before Sequoia wrote the company a check. And some of his board seats include Instacart, the U.S.-based delivery outfit; Strava, the social network for athletes; Klarna, the Stockholm-based payment outfit that last year accepted new funding at a starkly lower valuation than the previous year; and San Francisco-based Stripe, which may prove one of Sequoia’s biggest outcomes to date.

In contrast, when Leone stepped down last year from his role as “Senior Steward” of Sequoia to be replaced by Botha, who was previously managing partner of Sequoia’s U.S. and Europe operations, the move was roughly two years in the making, given the many hats the role requires.

At Sequoia, stepping away is often an attenuated process. Leone continues to be part of both Sequoia’s seed and growth teams. So does another past manager at Sequoia, Jim Goetz, who oversaw Sequoia’s U.S. business for a period until 2017, and who continues to make new investments for the firm. (Firm founder Don Valentine famously attended partner meetings for 10 years after handing the reins to Moritz and Leone.)

Moritz, however, will not be making new investments, and perhaps inevitably, that has raised eyebrows in some corners, particularly given that Sequoia has undergone a string of other recent changes.

0 of 33 minutes, 5 secondsVolume 0%
00:04
33:00
33:05
 

In a piece published earlier today, the Financial Times quotes one venture capitalist who has invested alongside Moritz and Sequoia and who reportedly said Moritz’s departure risks leaving a “leadership gap” at Sequoia. “It’s been a long time coming, but it comes at a bad time.”

The world of startup investing is still recovering from years of froth, for one thing. Further, in one of the most dramatic moves in Sequoia’s history, the firm — which has enjoyed tremendous success around the globe — announced early last month that it had decided to break up, with Sequoia’s China and India and Southeast Asia funds relaunching as new firms: HongShan and Peak XV Partners, respectively.

In an interview with Forbes, Botha, along with the firms’ two other investment heads, Neil Shen and Shailendra Singh, said the decision tied to conflicts between the funds’ respective portfolios and downplayed a geopolitical environment that has made it nearly impossible for U.S. investors to fund China deals in particular and vice versa.

It wasn’t the only big shift for Sequoia. Less than two years ago, the firm announced that it was “breaking with the traditional organization” based on fund cycles and restructuring Sequoia Capital around a singular, permanent structure that would allow it to hold public shares long after a portfolio goes public (versus distributing the shares to its investors). The decision, said Sequoia, would also enable the firm to “further increase our investments in emerging asset classes such as cryptocurrencies.”

While over the long term the move may prove fruitful, its timing proved inauspicious. Roughly six months after Sequoia restructured, the broader markets tanked, dragging down the price of public company shares that Sequoia’s investors might otherwise have sold. Sequoia also suffered a rare embarrassment when FTX, the crypto exchange into which Sequoia plugged more than $200 million, imploded nearly overnight owing to mismanagement.

Partner Alfred Lin told this editor later that the investment represented a reasonable amount from a risk management perspective when considering the $6.3 billion multibillion-dollar fund from which Sequoia’s checks were written. But a growth-stage investor who worked with Lin on that deal, Michelle Fradin, has since left Sequoia in search of an operating role.

And there have been other departures. Two investors, Kais Khimji and Daniel Chen, have left to spin up two different AI companies, both of them backed by Sequoia. (Sequoia has a history of backing its own investors, including Nubank founder David Vélez.) Also gone: Mike Vernal, a former Facebook VP who joined Sequoia as a partner in 2016 and who is taking time off until the end of this year, according to a source familiar with Vernal’s plans.

Vernal had a more senior role compared with the others, including to help oversee Sequoia’s “scout” program, wherein founders in its portfolio and their friends are given the ability to write checks from Sequoia and to share in any later rewards. Now, longtime partners Bryan Schreier and Jess Lee oversee the program along with Ian Taylor, who joined Sequoia last summer after spending three years with the seed-stage firm Pear VC.

DealBook reported first on Moritz’s departure; The Information reported first on the departures of Vernal, Khimji, Chen and Fradin.

Like any firm of its size and reach, Sequoia has also been hiring new talent. Earlier this year, David Cahn agreed to join Sequoia Capital as a partner on its growth team after spending more than five years with Coatue Management. Sequoia more recently poached a principal from Accel — Julien Bek — who joined its growing London-based practice.

Either way, Moritz won’t be traveling far to spend time with the team at Sequoia Heritage, which was seeded by $150 million from Moritz’s own money, $150 million from Leone and $250 million from outside investors they brought in.

Run by head investors Keith Johnson and Kevin Kelly, the separate legal entity holds office space in the same building as Sequoia Capital. Sequoia Capital Global Equities, Sequoia’s hedge fund unit, also has an office there.

According to a recent Bloomberg piece, Heritage was designed to work closely with Sequoia but has always retained the right to make its own investment decisions. It has made some good decisions, evidently; its assets under management reportedly grew from $4.2 billion in April 2018 to $16.4 billion as of this past April.

As for Sequoia Capital’s assets, which are separate from Sequoia Heritage and Sequoia Capital Global Equities, they’ve been trending down along with the broader startup market. As flagged by Bloomberg, those assets recently stood at $55.58 billion, per an SEC filing, compared with $85 billion at the end of 2021.

Below is Botha’s letter to investors, sent out early this morning:

We are writing to inform you that Michael Moritz will leave Sequoia Capital after nearly 38 years with the Partnership, effective July 19, 2023. We are immensely grateful for all of Michael’s contributions. He helped establish Sequoia as one of the leading technology investment groups in the world, both as a leader of the firm for two decades and through his representation of the Partnership in companies like Yahoo!, PayPal, Google, Zappos, Instacart, Stripe, and Klarna, to name a few.

Michael intends to deepen his advisory relationship with Sequoia Heritage, an independent business where he has been a founding limited partner and Board member since 2010. Sequoia Heritage is now a $15B global fund with investments in a diversified range of assets and partnerships and houses a large portion of the assets of Crankstart, the family foundation of Michael and his wife, Harriet Heyman, as well as investments from many other members of the greater Sequoia community.

Michael relinquished day-to-day management of Sequoia more than a decade ago but, since then, has provided support and counsel to the Partnership.

Michael will continue to represent Sequoia’s interests in a handful of companies where we have all enjoyed long-standing relationships with founders and CEOs. Over time, we will partner with portfolio companies to smoothly transition Sequoia board seats currently occupied by Michael.

Sequoia Capital wouldn’t be what it is today without Michael. More personally, he shaped my career, taking a chance on me as CFO of PayPal and then recruiting me to Sequoia in 2003. He has been, and will continue to be, a mentor and an inspiration to me and countless others.

Best,

Roelof on behalf of Team Sequoia

Topics

, , ,
Keep reading
Elon Musk at the tenth Breakthrough Prize ceremony
Image Credits:Jesse Grant/The Hollywood Reporter / Getty Images
Transportation

How Elon Musk will increase his power through the SpaceX IPO

Elon Musk has incredible sway over the companies he leads. And while he already calls himself “TechnoKing” at Tesla, he is a real ruler over SpaceX, wielding an unprecedented level of control over one of the most valuable companies in the world. 

Musk’s monarchical grip on SpaceX was finally laid bare in the company’s IPO filing made public on Wednesday.  

Post-IPO, Musk will be CEO, CTO, and chairman of SpaceX’s board. His current 85% voting power will drop following the IPO, but it will still be above 50%, giving him the ability to appoint directors as he sees fit. He essentially cannot be fired.  

The company has placed limits on how shareholders can file legal challenges, and it will benefit from a far more permissive regulatory regime in Texas, its home state – an environment Musk helped create when he loudly moved Tesla’s incorporation there from Delaware. 

As SpaceX bluntly tells prospective investors in the filing: “This will limit or preclude your ability to influence corporate matters and the election of our directors.” 

More control than Mark

Tech founders have enjoyed increased control over public companies over the last two decades, especially as Google, Meta (then Facebook) and other tech firms went public with dual-class shares. 

But Musk and SpaceX are taking things much further, according to Ann Lipton, professor of law at the University of Colorado. 

SpaceX files to go public, and the math requires a little faith | Equity Podcast
0 seconds of 33 minutes, 5 secondsVolume 0%
 

Lipton argued, in a blog published last Friday, that Musk is obliterating the three most powerful levers that shareholders can typically pull to pressure a public company’s top executive. 

The first is voting. SpaceX uses a dual-class structure, with Musk holding 93.6% of the Class B super-voting shares that won’t be available to the public in the offering.  

Despite aiming to become the largest IPO in history, Musk will still hold more than 50% of the voting power once SpaceX lists. That makes it a “controlled company” by stock exchange standards, and controlled companies are allowed to exempt themselves from rules requiring independent oversight. 

SpaceX states in its IPO filing that regular shareholderss (who will own Class A shares) “will not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.” 

Crucially, Musk’s voting control means he will be able to decide anything requiring shareholder approval. That includes decisions such as mergers and acquisitions. If Musk eventually wants to somehow merge with or acquire Tesla, as many people have speculated, he won’t need to convince SpaceX shareholders.  

Voting control is the biggest difference between Musk’s power at SpaceX versus Tesla. Musk only has around 20% voting control at Tesla and has had to put tremendous pressure on the company in recent years – including, at one point, threatening to leave altogether – to be granted more stock. (Tesla obliged last year by concocting a $1 trillion compensation package approved by shareholders.)  

The second lever SpaceX is curtailing is the ability to sue. 

By incorporating in Texas, SpaceX has ensured shareholders can’t file what’s known as a “derivative suit” unless they own at least 3% of the company’s shares. (At the expected $1.75 trillion valuation, that would amount to a position worth roughly $52 billion.)  

Derivative suits occur when shareholders sue a company’s directors on behalf of the company itself – like when a small shareholder sued Tesla’s board over the $56 billion pay package awarded to Musk in 2018.  

What’s more, SpaceX has included language in its bylaws, funneling most lawsuits to either the new Texas Business Court, which only started operating in 2024, or through mandatory arbitration. 

In other words, Lipton told TechCrunch: “Forget it, that’s it. There isn’t going to be a lawsuit” in most cases. 

This wasn’t the case prior to Musk ripping Tesla out of Delaware and moving it to Texas, she said.  

In fact, Lipton said that up until a few years ago, Delaware was increasingly scrutinizing the exact kind of controlled company SpaceX has become.  

“You could have the dual-class shares, and that would give you outsized voting power, but it also meant that you were subject to a greater amount of oversight by the Delaware court system,” she said. 

Vote with your feet

The final lever of shareholder power that SpaceX has broken, Lipton argued, is the ability to sell shares and walk away. 

SpaceX has successfully lobbied the Nasdaq stock exchange to loosen rules governing how and when it adds companies to its Nasdaq 100 index – a group of large-cap companies that it bills as “fundamentally sound and innovative.” 

That process used to take months, but now it’s expected that SpaceX will be added to the list in a matter of weeks.  

When companies are added to these indexes like the Nasdaq 100 or S&P 500, they become automatic buys for large financial institutions (like 401k providers).  

Therefore, Lipton argues SpaceX’s stock price will be buoyed in the early days of public trading by that impending inclusion, since traders will want to buy before institutional investors come in and drive the price up even higher.  

“Normally, if you can’t vote, and you can’t sue, you can at least sell and drive down the price, and that hurts,” Lipton said. “It hurts the controller [of the company], it hurts executives who are paid in stock. But now even that is being manipulated.” 

Chan Ahn, a former executive at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, and the current CEO of tokenized private equity company Tessera, said he broadly agrees that rapid inclusion in the Nasdaq 100 could drive the price higher.  

But, he told TechCrunch, shareholders will still be able to “vote with their feet” and sell their stock – it just may not have the same impact. 

“You don’t have to buy, and if you have it, and if you don’t like it, you can sell,” he said. 

All the money 

On top of this control, Musk stands to make a historically anomalous amount of money from SpaceX going forward.  

Not only will the IPO likely make him the world’s first trillionaire, he was granted a compensation package consisting of 1 billion Class B shares. 

Those shares don’t vest until Musk makes the company worth $7.5 trillion and, crucially, accomplishes the “establishment of a permanent human colony on Mars with at least one million inhabitants.”  

But while the “Mars colony” requirement may make the package seem unobtainable to many, Musk can still extract a ton of value from these shares long before SpaceX ever reaches the red planet. 

In the stock award agreement attached to the IPO filing, SpaceX reveals that Musk can vote with these shares even before they vest. What’s more, he can also pledge them as collateral for loans. It’s a popular move for the ultra-rich to get access to lots of cash without being taxed on unrealized gains, and it’s something Musk has often done in the past with his shares of SpaceX and Tesla.  

While borrowing against these Mars colony shares technically requires board approval, Musk controls the board. Ultimately, the decision will be up to him. 

These incredibly valuable shares become normal common stock if and when Musk sells them.  

But there is one notable exception. Musk can place them in trusts to retain their super-voting status, meaning it’s possible that the king of SpaceX – who has at least 14 children that we know of – is positioning himself to create dynastic control. 

Topics

, , , , ,
Keep reading
Image Credits:Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP / Getty Images
Transportation

Who will benefit most from SpaceX IPO? Mostly Elon — and a few from his inner circle

While there are some shocking revelations in SpaceX’s S-1 as it gets ready to become a public company, Elon Musk’s total control of the company perhaps isn’t one of them.

I could argue that the oddball provision where Elon Musk gets up to a billion more shares to add to his already oversized, company-controlling cache once a million people are living on Mars (yes, really), is perhaps the most jaw-dropping. It is also fairly unserious. Musk controls and can vote those shares now, by the way.

But even a billion extra super-voting rights shares are immaterial in this company’s setup because Musk is, by miles, the largest shareholder in the company.

He owns just under 850 million Class A shares, entitled to 1 vote per share, and another nearly 5.6 billion Class B shares, entitled to 10 votes per share. That includes the billion shares contingent on a million people living in a SpaceX company-town colony on Mars.

Sci-fi conditions aside, there are a handful of people who stand to benefit most should the SpaceX IPO be a success and the stock continue to do well in the future: the 5% shareholders. These are the people who hold at least 5% of the company.

While the company has not yet said how many shares it will sell or at what price, the whisper number on the street is that this IPO will raise a whopping $75 billion, with a post-money valuation of $1.7 trillion. At those numbers, even a 1% stake is worth $17 billion.

Here’s the rundown of who owns what.

SpaceX files to go public, and the math requires a little faith | Equity Podcast
0 seconds of 33 minutes, 5 secondsVolume 0%
 

Elon Musk, founder, CEO, CTO and chairman. Total SpaceX stock holdings: just over 6.42 billion shares.

Antonio Gracias, investor and board member. Total SpaceX stock holdings: just over 503.4 million shares

Gracias is founder and CEO and of Valor Management and a long-time Musk friend, pro-Musk board member and financier. He was on Tesla’s board from its startup days through the years after its IPO. He was also a board member of Musk’s solar company Solar City during its controversial sale to Tesla. He’s backed and held board roles for Musk’s Neuralink, including The Boring Company. He was also among the financiers that agreed to fund Musk’s failed attempted hostile takeover of OpenAI for $97 billion in early 2025.

Luke Nosek, investor and board member. Total SpaceX stock holdings: nearly 33 million shares.

Nosek is a co-founder of venture investment firm Gigafund, and a fellow PayPal mafia member. Nosek joined Peter Thiel at Founders Fund during its early days and led Founders first investment into Space X. He took a board seat, then, and has been on the board ever since. Gigafund also backs other Musk companies, The Boring Company and Neuralink.

Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX COO. Total SpaceX stock holdings: nearly 12.6 million shares.

Shotwell has been with SpaceX since 2002, and COO since since 2008. She’s the aerospace engineer genius that runs day-to-day operations. In another age, with different majority founder, someone like Shotwell would have been granted co-founder status, and likely have a bigger stake in the company. However, it’s hard to call her underpaid. For instance, in 2025, she received a large tranche of restricted stock units, bringing her total compensation to $85.8 million that year.

Bret Johnsen, CFO. Total SpaceX stock holdings: nearly 9.6 million shares.

Bret Johnsen has been SpaceX’s CFO since 2011. Prior to SpaceX he held CFO and financier roles in the semiconductor industry.

Ira Ehrenpreis, investor and board member. Total SpaceX stock holdings: 809,050 shares.

Ehrenpreis is a founder and managing member of VC firm DBL Partners. He’s been on the SpaceX board
since February 2026 and is also on Tesla’s board.

Randy Glein, investor, board member. Total SpaceX stock holdings: 277,800 shares.

Glein is co-founder and managing partner of DFJ Growth.

And around 400 other VCs. SpaceX has raised around $30 billion in private capital to date from hundreds of investors, according Pitchbook estimates. None of the others have a stake big enough to be reported, although, again, even a small percentage of the company should be worth billions at the debut.

The company did, however, share the prices that these investors paid for their shares. Series A investors paid $1 per share. Series F investors paid $7.50 and the final investors, in Series N, paid $270 a share.

Topics

, , , , ,
Loading the next article
Some areas of this page may shift around if you resize the browser window. Be sure to check heading and document order.