Classes Grenoble & Lexington · Detailed program
🇫🇷 🇺🇸 Grenoble & Lexington · 15-week COIL

Venture Finance in Grenoble & Lexington:
A Comparative Class

A fifteen-week Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) course taught jointly between a Grenoble-based partner in France and the University of Kentucky in Lexington. Students on both sides share a virtual classroom, work the same sixteen Venture Finance lesson modules, and complete joint binational assignments — testing every concept against two very different venture ecosystems: an Alpine European deep-tech hub and a mid-American ecosystem far from the coastal capital centers. The comparison is the point: the cap-table math is identical in both places, but the capital, the talent pipelines, the exits, and the regulation are not.

15
Weeks
16
Lesson modules
2
Countries · 1 classroom
COIL
Format
Course overview

What this class is — and isn't

This is a fifteen-week intermediate course in venture finance, taught as a COIL course (Collaborative Online International Learning) jointly between a Grenoble-based partner institution in France and the University of Kentucky in Lexington. French and American students share a virtual classroom, work through the same Globefin lessons, and complete joint module assignments in mixed binational teams. The course assumes students have seen the foundations of finance (time value, risk, basic valuation); it does not assume any prior exposure to venture capital, startups, or private markets.

The class uses the sixteen-module Venture Finance lesson track as its backbone. Students arrive at each week having read the assigned module(s) and completed the built-in self-quizzes; synchronous sessions are reserved for the thing that makes this class distinctive — the comparison. Every concept is examined twice: once through the French/European venture ecosystem that the Grenoble students live inside, and once through the Kentucky/US ecosystem the Lexington students know. The running example used throughout the lessons (Pipework, Inc.) anchors the mechanics; the two real ecosystems anchor the context.

Why Grenoble and Lexington?

The pairing is deliberate. Neither city is its country's venture capital. Both sit a meaningful distance — geographically and culturally — from the dominant capital centers (Paris and London; the Bay Area and New York). Both are anchored by a major research university and a specific industrial base. And both illustrate the central lesson of the lesson track's international thread: that venture is not one global system but many local ecosystems, each shaped by its own capital, talent, exits, and regulation.

🇫🇷 Grenoble, France

A European deep-tech and hard-science hub at the foot of the Alps. Anchored by CEA-Leti, the CNRS, and Université Grenoble Alpes; strong in semiconductors, nanotech, energy, and instrumentation. Embedded in the French and EU financing context: Bpifrance as a dominant public investor, the Crédit d'Impôt Recherche (research tax credit), French/EU company law, and exits that more often run through acquisition or a Euronext/US listing than a domestic IPO.

🇺🇸 Lexington, Kentucky

A mid-American ecosystem far from the coastal capital concentration. Anchored by the University of Kentucky; strengths in healthcare, advanced manufacturing, agritech, and equine/bourbon-adjacent industry, with Louisville (Humana, Render Capital) an hour away. Embedded in the US financing context: SAFEs and the Delaware-standard term sheet, R&D tax credits, deep US exit markets in principle but thin local deal flow in practice, and the challenge of raising from coastal funds at a distance.

Audience and prerequisites

Undergraduate juniors and seniors, or early master's students, in business, economics, engineering, or science-commercialization programs. Prerequisite: comfort with the Foundations of Finance material (time value of money, risk and return, basic valuation) or an equivalent introductory finance course. Comfort with basic algebra and spreadsheets is assumed; the cap-table and valuation modules involve real computation. Students should expect roughly 5–7 hours per week outside synchronous sessions for reading, quizzes, and binational team work.

How the COIL format works

The two cohorts are taught in parallel and brought together for the comparison. A typical week combines asynchronous lesson reading (done locally), a synchronous joint session bridging the time-zone gap between France and the US Eastern timezone, and binational team assignments where a French student and a Kentucky student must reconcile how the same concept plays out in their two ecosystems. The friction is productive: a discussion of "why don't more startups here just go public?" lands very differently when half the room is in a country with a thin domestic IPO market and the other half is an hour from a stock exchange but still rarely sees a local company list.

Learning objectives

By the end of the fifteen weeks, students should be able to:

Objective 01

Explain why venture finance exists — the power law, asymmetric payoffs, and why banks cannot fund high-uncertainty innovation — and recognize the same logic operating in both the French and US contexts.

Objective 02

Read and reason about a term sheet — liquidation preference, anti-dilution, protective provisions, board composition — and judge an offer as a complete package, not just a valuation.

Objective 03

Work the cap-table math — SAFEs and notes, the option-pool shuffle, preference waterfalls, dilution across rounds — correctly and by hand.

Objective 04

Analyze a venture fund as an institution — GP/LP structure, the 10-year clock, 2-and-20, the power law applied to portfolio construction — and compute a simple fund return.

Objective 05

Value an early-stage company using the VC method, comparables, and scoring methods — and articulate why venture valuation is closer to a negotiation than a calculation.

Objective 06

Map the exit landscape — IPO, M&A, secondaries — and explain how exit-market depth differs between France/Europe and the United States, and why that difference matters upstream.

Objective 07

Compare venture ecosystems structurally using the four-factor lens (capital, talent, exits, regulation), applied first-hand to Grenoble and Lexington.

Objective 08

Run and evaluate a fundraise — the process, the funnel, the pitch — from both the founder's and the investor's side, in a final binational capstone.

Assessment

Assessment is built around the lessons' self-quizzes plus a layer of course-specific work: weekly binational discussion contributions, several short comparative briefs (each contrasting how a concept plays out in France vs. Kentucky), a mid-course cap-table-and-valuation problem set, and a final capstone in which mixed teams build and pitch a financing for a venture — one French-context and one Kentucky-context version of the same company — and defend the differences. The assignment artifacts below are marked as in development; the lesson modules they rest on are fully published.

Phase 1 · Foundations

Why venture exists, and the two seats at the table

Week 01 · Orientation

Course launch & two ecosystems

COIL kickoff
Week 01

Orientation & binational team formation

What this week covers
No lesson module this week. The two cohorts meet, mixed binational teams form, and each side gives a short briefing on its home ecosystem — the Grenoble students on French/European deep-tech venture, the Lexington students on Kentucky and the broader US picture. The instructors lay out the comparative thesis that organizes the whole course and the four-factor lens (capital, talent, exits, regulation) students will use to compare ecosystems all term.
COIL collaboration
Icebreaker brief: each binational pair posts a one-page “my ecosystem at a glance” comparing one fact about venture in their respective regions — a notable local startup, the nearest major investor, the closest stock exchange.
Week 02 · Modules 01–02

Why Venture Exists & the Stages of Financing

The funding ladder
Week 02

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
The problem venture solves: funding companies with no collateral, no cash flows, and a high probability of failure. The power law, asymmetric payoffs, and why bank debt cannot do this work. Then the funding ladder — pre-seed through growth — the milestones that justify each round, and how dilution accumulates across stages.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: who actually writes the first cheque? In France, the answer often involves Bpifrance and regional public funds long before private capital appears; in Kentucky, the early money is more often angels, university-linked funds, and Louisville's Render Capital. Same ladder, very different bottom rungs.
Week 03 · Modules 03–04

The Founder's & the Investor's Perspective

Both seats at the table
Week 03

Readings & content

What this week covers
Equity as the founder's scarcest resource: the build-vs-raise decision, the dilution-vs-control trade-off, and the multi-year commitment of taking venture money. Then the full taxonomy of who funds startups — angels, accelerators, seed and multi-stage funds, corporate VC, growth, sovereign wealth, crossover funds — with a worked fund-math example.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: the investor mix differs sharply. The French side leans public and corporate (Bpifrance, CEA spin-out vehicles, corporate strategic investors); the Kentucky side leans private and out-of-state, raising the “coastal capital at a distance” problem. Students compare what each founder population realistically faces.
COIL collaboration
Comparative brief #1: binational teams write a two-page contrast of the early-stage investor landscape in their two regions, using the Module 04 taxonomy as the common framework.
Phase 2 · Instruments and Mechanics

What investors buy, and how ownership gets divided

Week 04 · Module 05

Preferred Stock & the Term Sheet

What investors actually buy
Week 04

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
What investors buy, and why it isn't common stock. A clause-by-clause walk through a real term sheet: liquidation preference, anti-dilution, protective provisions, and board composition. The central lesson: terms can matter more than valuation. Worked on the Pipework term sheet.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: the US term sheet is heavily standardized around Delaware-incorporated C-corps and NVCA-style documents. French rounds use a different legal vehicle (often a pacte d'actionnaires under French company law) with its own conventions. Students compare the same economic terms expressed in two legal systems.
Week 05 · Module 06

SAFEs & Convertible Notes

Early-stage instruments
Week 05

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
The instruments that dominate early-stage financing. Pre- vs. post-money SAFEs, caps and discounts, the SAFE-stack dilution surprise, and convertible notes. Worked conversions on the Pipework example.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: the YC SAFE is near-universal in US early-stage; the Kentucky students will see it everywhere. France historically leaned on the convertible loan / BSA-AIR (the French SAFE analogue). Students map the YC SAFE onto its French cousin and find where the analogy breaks.
Week 06 · Module 07

Cap Table Math

The most technical week
Week 06

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
Venture Finance Module 07 · Cap Table Math — including self-quiz. The most computational module; budget extra time.
What this week covers
The technical core. The option-pool shuffle, preference waterfalls at multiple exit values, participating preferred, and weighted-average anti-dilution — worked step by step, with the common mistakes shown and corrected. This is where students do the most computation in the course.
COIL collaboration
Mid-course problem set (assigned): a multi-part cap-table-and-waterfall problem worked in binational pairs, with the same company financed once under US-style and once under French-style terms so the pairs can compare outcomes at exit.
Week 07 · Module 08

Venture Debt & Non-Equity Financing

Raising without selling equity
Week 07

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
Raising without selling equity: venture debt, revenue-based financing, and R&D tax-credit financing. The SVB collapse and what it revealed about the venture-debt ecosystem.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: this is one of the sharpest contrasts in the course. France's Crédit d'Impôt Recherche (CIR) is one of the world's most generous R&D tax credits and a genuine financing tool for Grenoble deep-tech firms; the US R&D credit and SBIR/STTR grants play an analogous but differently-shaped role for Kentucky firms. Students compare non-dilutive capital regimes directly.
Phase 3 · The Investor Side

Inside the fund: structure, portfolio, exits, valuation

Week 08 · Module 09

The VC Firm as an Institution

GPs, LPs, and the clock
Week 08

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
GPs, LPs, the 10-year fund clock, and the 2-and-20 fee structure. The endowment model that funds venture, the fee-vs-carry tension, and TVPI vs. DPI. A worked fund return from LP commitment through to GP carry.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: who are the LPs? US venture is funded heavily by university endowments and pensions; French/European funds draw more on public institutions (Bpifrance as a fund-of-funds), insurers, and EU programs. Students compare the capital sources upstream of the funds in each region.
Week 09 · Module 10

Portfolio Construction & the Power Law

How investors build a book
Week 09

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
How investors build a portfolio around the power law. The fund-returner test, position sizing, reserves for follow-on, and the concentration-vs-diversification debate — Benchmark vs. Y Combinator as the two poles.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: the power law needs a large enough top of funnel to produce outliers. Both regions face a thin-deal-flow version of the same problem — how do you build a power-law portfolio from a smaller local pipeline? Students debate whether smaller ecosystems must diversify more, specialize, or invest beyond their borders.
Week 10 · Module 11

Exit Strategies

Where paper becomes cash
Week 10

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
Where paper value becomes cash. IPOs and the post-2021 drought, M&A (strategic vs. financial buyers), the secondary-market explosion, and the decoupling of exit from liquidity.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: exit-market depth is the binding constraint for most non-coastal ecosystems. French deep-tech firms frequently exit via acquisition (often by a larger US or European corporate) or a US listing rather than a domestic IPO; Kentucky firms sit inside the deepest exit market in the world yet rarely access it locally. Students dissect why both ecosystems lean on acquisition.
COIL collaboration
Comparative brief #2: binational teams trace a plausible exit path for a real (or realistic) company from each region and explain why the paths differ.
Week 11 · Module 12

Valuation in Venture

Negotiation more than calculation
Week 11

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
How valuations actually get set — closer to negotiation than calculation. The VC method, comparables with stage adjustments, Berkus and Scorecard, 409A and option pricing, and the macro-over-method lesson of the 2021–23 cycle.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: comparables travel poorly across borders. The thinner the local market, the fewer local comparables, and the more a valuation leans on the negotiation and the lead investor's return math. Students test the VC method on a Grenoble deep-tech case and a Kentucky case and compare where the numbers come from.
Phase 4 · International and Contemporary

The world's ecosystems — and the two in this classroom

Week 12 · Module 13

International Venture Ecosystems

The comparative centerpiece
Week 12

Readings & content

Pre-class readings
What this week covers
The intellectual centerpiece of this whole class. A comparative world tour through one lens — capital, talent, exits, regulation — covering the US, Europe, Israel, India, China, and the emerging ecosystems. This is the module the course's structure has been preparing students to apply directly.
COIL collaboration
The signature exercise: binational teams write a full four-factor comparison of Grenoble vs. Lexington as venture ecosystems — scoring capital, talent, exits, and regulation for each, identifying each region's distinctive structural advantage, and naming its binding constraint. This is the assignment the entire course builds toward and is presented live in the joint session.
Week 13 · Module 14

Venture Finance in 2026 — Where It's Going

Forces and open questions
Week 13

Readings & content

What this week covers
The forward-looking module, framed as forces and open questions: the AI reshaping, the liquidity revolution, capital superabundance, geographic rebalancing, new fund structures, the honest contrarian critiques — and what stays durable.
Comparative anchor
Grenoble vs. Lexington: do the forces reshaping venture help or hurt non-coastal ecosystems? Remote work and AI tooling could disperse capital toward places like Grenoble and Lexington; capital superabundance and AI's concentration could entrench the existing hubs. Students argue both sides for their own region.
Phase 5 · Raising Money (the synthesis)

Running a raise — and the binational capstone

Week 14 · Modules 15–16

Fundraising as a Process & the Pitch Deck

The synthesis modules
Week 14

Readings & content

What this week covers
The synthesis. Raising as a structured process, not an event — the funnel, parallel conversations, the competitive dynamic, the term-sheet stage, and the close. Then the pitch deck, taught bilaterally: every element shown from both the founder's craft and the investor's read. This sets up the capstone.
COIL collaboration
Capstone launch: mixed teams are assigned their capstone company and begin building the two parallel financings — one French-context, one Kentucky-context — that they will pitch in Week 15.
Week 15 · Capstone

The Binational Capstone

Two ecosystems, one company
Week 15

Capstone presentations

What this week covers
No new module. Each binational team presents the same venture financed two ways: a Grenoble-context raise (French/EU instruments, investors, exit assumptions) and a Lexington-context raise (US instruments, investors, exit assumptions). Teams build the cap table, set the valuation, structure the terms, and deliver the pitch — then defend why the two versions diverge. Half the room evaluates as founders, half as investors, mirroring the bilateral framing of Module 16.
What the capstone integrates
Everything: the instruments (Modules 05–08), the cap-table math (07), the fund and portfolio logic the investors apply (09–10), the valuation method (12), the exit assumptions (11), the four-factor ecosystem comparison (13), and the process and pitch craft (15–16). The divergence between the two versions is the learning outcome — concrete proof that the mechanics are universal while the context is local.
Reference

Assessment & artifacts

In development

The lesson modules and their self-quizzes are fully published and available now. The course-specific assessment artifacts below are in development:

⊕ In development
Comparative briefs (×3)

Short binational write-ups contrasting the investor landscape (Wk 3), the exit landscape (Wk 10), and a synthesis brief, each using a lesson framework as the common lens.

⊕ In development
Mid-course problem set

The cap-table-and-waterfall problem (Wk 6), worked once under US-style and once under French-style terms, with an exit comparison.

⊕ In development
Four-factor ecosystem report

The signature Week 12 exercise: a full Grenoble-vs-Lexington comparison across capital, talent, exits, and regulation.

⊕ In development
Binational capstone

The Week 15 dual-financing project and pitch, evaluated from both the founder and investor sides.

In the meantime, the sixteen Venture Finance lesson modules stand on their own and can be worked through independently. Browse the Venture Finance track →