> Why don't Sequoia et al invest in Canadian (or Japanese or German) companies directly?

Economies of scale. Many investors can review and fund a standard Delaware C corporation without even passing it to outside counsel.

For Canada, not only will you probably special counsel, you may also have additional up front and ongoing accounting costs related to tax treatment, et cetera. You also know that this is potentially a hurdle that start-up will face in every sale and supply-chain contract it signs, unless it relents and just chooses a normal jurisdiction, at which point why don't they just create a Delaware entity and headquarter in Canada?

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I take your point, really, and I understand there's more friction. But do the people who authorize the checks also do the beancounting personally?

Accounting and legal stuff is going to be farmed out to licensed professionals regardless of where the company is. And you can't tell me there's a shortage of US + Canada tax or legal specialists.

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> do the people who authorize the checks also do the beancounting personally? There are a lot of small-shop and even one-man private investors. Increasingly as wealth accumulates and AI automates. > you can't tell me there's a shortage of US + Canada tax or legal specialists They're usually a different partner at a big, expensive firm. Or, if you use a small firm, it means establishing a brand new engagement. I make personal investments. That would be a dealbreaker for me. If I really liked the company I might try to talk a cross-border friend into running a fund that makes the investment so I don't have to deal with the B.S.