Entity Naming Pros and Cons - Management Company and Fund Series

There are not really "pros and cons" for naming a Fund's entities - however there are conventions that make it easy to follow (see below).

Generally speaking though, Firms/Funds do not have "series" like SPVs might - unless one is referring to a type of Fund of Funds structure (or potentially vehicles managed by AngelList). Whether a corporate suffix has periods or no periods is also generally immaterial. 

With respect to a fund thesis, a Fund 1 and a Fund 2 can have different ones - or the Fund name can specify the name of a vertical, region, etc.

Standard naming conventions:

The Management Company is the entity that endures across Fund 1, Fund 2, Fund 3, etc. - it is owned by the fund managers and typically employs only those analysts and other professionals working across all of the firm’s funds. 

Example Capital, LLC
Example Capital Management, LLC

Example Ventures, LLC

Example Ventures Management, LLC

The General Partner entity (important to note this isn’t referring directly to the fund managers, as is commonplace) is owned (mostly) by the Management Company. It manages the activities of the Fund, in a general sense. Venture Partners and any other advisors who are working only on the specific Fund managed by the specific General Partner entity will sit on this entity’s cap table, in most cases. 

*Note that a new General Partner Entity is set up for each Fund. The General Partner Entity for Fund I typically is not numbered, though General Partner Entities for subsequent funds are often denoted by arabic numerals starting with 2. 

Example Capital GP, LLC

Example Ventures GP, LLC

This is the Fund itself, where the Limited Partners invest into and portfolio investments are deployed from. 

*Note that a new Limited Partnership  is set up for each Fund, usually denoted by a roman numeral. 

Example Capital Fund I, LP

Example Ventures Fund I, LP