Incolator
Incolator/Spending & savings/Angel Cheque Sizing

Spending & savings · 2 min

Angel Cheque Sizing

Angel returns follow a power law: most cheques die, a few pay for the graveyard. That is survivable only at a position size where zeros are boring. This instrument sizes the cheque against your balance sheet, not against your enthusiasm for the founder.

Currency-agnostic · symbol only Rules version 1.0 Reviewed July 2026

Position-sizing arithmetic under stated conventions — not investment advice, and no opinion on the deal itself.

Your details

Σ
Σ

Cash and listed holdings — what could actually move this year.

Σ

Everything already committed to cheques, SAFEs and venture funds.

Σ

House practice: every cheque implies an equal reserve for the next round, or you are the investor who gets diluted at the worst moment.

Everything is calculated in your browser as you type. Nothing you enter is sent or stored, and no account is needed.

Your result

Halve the cheque; keep the deal.

$100,000

full commitment — cheque plus 1:1 follow-on reserve

The sizing ledger

Angel allocation before this cheque
Full commitment this cheque implies
Allocation after, including reserve
This commitment as a share of liquid assets
Room left under the 5% line

Three cheque sizes, same book

If you writeAllocation afterShare of liquid

What moves this result

Worth checking

Illiquidity is the quiet term: this money is gone for seven to ten years, cannot be rebalanced, and cannot be lent against. Price the cheque as spent, mentally, on the day you wire it.

One cheque is rarely one cheque. Pro-rata rights, bridge notes and the founder's second company all arrive with your number attached — the 1:1 reserve is the minimum honest accounting.

The reading says nothing about the deal's quality. A cheque can be beautifully sized and still be a bad investment; sizing just ensures a bad investment stays an anecdote.

Common questions

How much of my net worth should go into angel investing?
Common practitioner convention holds aggregate private/angel exposure at or under 5% of investable net worth — a level at which a total wipeout is survivable — with roughly 1% per cheque so the power law has 15–25 positions to work across. Both are conventions, stated as such, and this instrument reads your book against them.
Why measure an angel cheque against liquid assets too?
Because net worth can be rich while the current account is poor. A cheque that is 1% of net worth but 12% of your liquid assets will be felt every time an opportunity or an emergency arrives during the next decade of lock-up.
Do venture fund positions count toward the same limit?
House practice says yes — funds, direct cheques and SAFEs share the 5% aggregate line, because they share the same liquidity profile and the same failure correlation in a downturn. The label differs; the lock-up doesn't.
How this is calculated

Everything below is calculated from your inputs; no recommendation on the deal is produced.

commitment = cheque × (1 + reserve) reserve ∈ {0, 1} alloc_after = (current + commitment) / net_worth lines: alloc_after ≤ 5% · commitment ≤ 1% of net_worth

The gauge shows the after-cheque allocation against the 5% aggregate line. The verdict also checks the per-cheque line: a single commitment above 1% of net worth reads at least a warning even when the aggregate is comfortable — position sizing is what keeps one enthusiasm from becoming a story you tell for the wrong reasons. Between 5% and 8% the instrument reads "last one for a while"; above 8%, reconsider.

Limitations. The instrument sizes; it does not select. Valuation, terms and the founder are your desk's work, not this one's — and staged deployment across vintages matters as much as any single cheque's size.