search: results update below


browse funds: selections are stored



recently rated:

Rated by 2
5.0

top rated funds:

Rated by 12
4.1

Rated by 12
4.0
 

Rated by 11
4.0
 

Rated by 15
4.0

Rated by 21
4.0

Rated by 31
3.9

Rated by 41
3.9

Rated by 11
3.8

Rated by 44
3.8

Rated by 106
3.8

Rated by 32
3.8

Rated by 31
3.8

Rated by 64
3.7

Rated by 23
3.7

Rated by 27
3.7

Rated by 13
3.7

Rated by 11
3.6

Rated by 17
3.6

Rated by 10
3.6
 

Rated by 62
3.6

Rated by 21
3.5

Rated by 12
3.5
 

Rated by 28
3.4

Rated by 19
3.4

Rated by 14
3.4
 

Rated by 49
3.4
 

Rated by 31
3.4

Rated by 16
3.4
 

Rated by 11
3.4

Rated by 10
3.4

Please take a moment and make a financial contribution to TheFunded. If we have helped you, help us with resources to further grow the both the site and our entrepreneur training program, The Founder Institute.

Claremont Creek Ventures  CERTIFIED

Firm Rating:

Rated 2.8 / 5.0 by 24
Track
Record
2.6
Operating
Competence
2.9
Pitching
Efficiency
3.0
Favorable
Deal Terms
2.5
Execution
Assistance
3.1

Firm Homepage:

FIRM OVERVIEW: Medium Private VC founded in 2005 based out of Oakland, USA (US West)

FIRM DESCRIPTION: Claremont Creek Ventures is a venture capital firm investing in early-stage IT companies where we have deep domain expertise and operational experience, including - but not limited to - mobility, healthcare, and security markets. We strive to reach beyond the traditional Silicon Valley entrepreneurial community with our location in the East Bay Area.

TEAM MEMBERS: Brad Webb, John Steuart, Nat Goldhaber, Paul Straub, Randy Hawks, Ted Driscoll,

3
Agree
4
Disagree

Using Caution After Reading Reviews

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by Anonymous on 2012-03-01

PUBLIC:

After seeing their rankings and then reading all of the reviews, extra caution will be used in pitching this fund.

PRIVATE: Members Only

9
Agree
3
Disagree

Partners Out of Sync

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by experienced entrepreneur (5 startups, 1 IPO, 1 acquired) on 2008-08-20

PUBLIC:

In my three pitches to CC, I experienced partners who were way out of sync. In our last meeting, four partners were involved - three in the room and one via video conference. Other than the partner who was involved with the first two meetings, none of the others had read the plan (or even seemed briefed). One partner walked in 40 minutes late, another left early. During the meeting, only one seemed engaged. None seemed to 'get' our model or industry.

PRIVATE: Members Only (216 Characters)

10
Agree
3
Disagree

Rude Lemmings

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by teddis on 2007-09-26

PUBLIC:

We pitched Claremont and the experience was disappointing. We have a tremendous and unique business model with plenty of revenue opportunities in a hot mobile space. Their vision seems narrowed to Web2.0 startups that don't have a revenue model and compete with all other Web2.0 startups for eyeballs in a crowded space. Dare I say "lemmings""

PRIVATE: Members Only (487 Characters)

7
Agree
3
Disagree

Nice Guys

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by Anonymous on 2007-05-04

PRIVATE: Members Only

5
Agree
3
Disagree

A Promising New Fund

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by Maverick on 2007-03-20

PUBLIC:

Claremont Creek is new, but it certainly looks promising. Nat Goldhaber is a really smart guy with plenty of operational experience, including as a founder with successful exits. Randy Hawks is the analytical/finance guy on the team.

PRIVATE: Members Only (174 Characters)

4
Agree
2
Disagree

Good Feedback

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by schan on 2008-05-06

PUBLIC:

These guys were pretty good at speedy response and very knowledgeable about my niche market. They took the time to research and ask some very good questions even before the pitch. Eventually we were too small a market for them and did not get the investment, but both Paul and John seemed like good guys in my short dealings with them.

PRIVATE: Members Only

2
Agree
2
Disagree

Partners Too.

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by anon on 2007-07-12

PUBLIC:

Take the partnering approach with CCV. It's additive to the $ invested. The team has demonstrable execution success in the markets they understand - payments, biotech, internet. They are happy to work and be part of the team.

PRIVATE: Members Only (182 Characters)

13
Agree
2
Disagree

Dense

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by anonymous on 2007-06-20

PRIVATE: Members Only (306 Characters)

0
Agree
1
Disagree

Solid Early Stage Help

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by on 2012-03-17

PUBLIC:

Have found CCV to be a solid partner with good understanding of the challenges of Series A companies. They have been helpful with introductions, subsequent fund raising, and operating feedback. Some of their ideas materially benefited the direction of the company.

PRIVATE: Members Only

3
Agree
1
Disagree

Good Experience with Seed Investment

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by Anonymous on 2012-03-05

PUBLIC:

CCV is leading a seed round for my company, and they've been great in introducing us to other prospective investors and helping us navigate strategic relationships. We are working in a health IT space where business models are evolving, and they are able to see ahead to the bigger-picture potential.

PRIVATE: Members Only

11
Agree
1
Disagree

Moving Goal Posts

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by stonecrop on 2010-02-28

PRIVATE: Members Only (636 Characters)

6
Agree
1
Disagree

Beware Their Milestone Funding

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by anonymous on 2007-06-23

PUBLIC:

These guys are smart, and have good knowledge of internet marketing. Their reputation on deals is small tranches based on milestones. You miss them for whatever reason and they'll tighten the screws.

PRIVATE: Members Only (227 Characters)

0
Agree
0
Disagree

Nat Goldhaber Excellent Partner

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by mbrenner@legacyconnect.com on 2012-06-07

PUBLIC:

Nat Goldhaber has backed two of my previous companies and was a huge asset as a Board member and friend from investment through to sale. They were outbid by another venture firm in the third company. However, Nat continued to provide advice and help me sort through difficulties (even though he had no investment in the company).

PRIVATE: Members Only

10
Agree
0
Disagree

Not that Early Stage?

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by Anonymous on 2008-03-20

PUBLIC:

Met with Randy and Paul. Good enough session, and what we thought was a reasonable level of interest/understanding. They had some good feedback, but next step was "come back when you have sold it X times". Not unreasonable of course, but we would have liked to see more of a level of engagement. We decided to pass on following up with them because we didn't feel enough passion communicated and by the time we hit the milestone they set we were much further along with other conversations.

PRIVATE: Members Only (256 Characters)

11
Agree
0
Disagree

Competent, but Lacking Focus

Fund: Claremont Creek Ventures

Posted by Anonymous on 2007-12-11

PUBLIC:

I have met with Claremont on two occasions. Both times I was asked to come in by one partner and then met with another. They gave very curt, "come back when . . . " and never had any desire to answer follow up questions on our pitch, idea, etc. My company is a a little outside their expertise and I feel that they never invested any time in understanding our market. Overall, they were gracious with their time, but were not a value add experience.

PRIVATE: Members Only