The Smart Value Of Dumb Money For Start-ups

Author: Liz Gannes

Coming off the TechCrunch Disrupt conference this week, one of the interviews that sticks out most in my mind was that of Yuri Milner, CEO of the Russian Internet holding company Digital Sky Technologies, by veteran TV host Charlie Rose. Milner has quickly made a name for himself by investing hundreds of millions of dollars in hot tech properties Facebook, Zynga and Groupon. But it didn’t seem like Milner had any sort of overarching philosophy, agenda or insight into the technology market.

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

New Fund Hanse Ventures, Co-founded By Jochen Maaß: German Seed Stage Investing Gets A Boost

Author: Om Malik

German Internet entrepreneurs have a new friend — Hanse Ventures, a Hamburg-based Internet incubator that has been co-founded by Jochen MaaB, founder of Internet marketing firm, artaxo and Sarik Weber, formerly of XING and co-founder of Cellity. The founding share holders of the new investment group are publishing house Gruner+Jahr’s Chairman Dr. Bernd Kundrun and Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, CEO of Sony Music Entertainment.

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

5 Tips On VC Alignment: Discuss The Exit Before You Enter

Author: Jeff Bussgang.

One of the hardest things about venture-backed start-ups is achieving alignment.  When there is alignment between entrepreneurs and VCs, all collective energies are directed towards the magic of building an amazing, world-beating start-up from scratch.  When the entrepreneur and VC are out of alignment, the likelihood of success plummets and self-inflicting wounds, rather than market- or competition-related issues, tend to dominate the agenda.

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

The funding Bill of Rights: Helping entrepreneurs and VCs come together

Author: Lawrence Lenihan

The relationship between an entrepreneur and a venture capitalist can be enormously rewarding (monetarily and emotionally).  It can also be incredibly painful, costly and aggravating.

A few months ago at the NY Entrepreneur Week, I presented what I called the Funding Bill of Rights (FBR).  The purpose was to set a framework for a very direct dialogue between entrepreneurs and VC’s that would enable a successful relationship.  After 13 years as a VC, I have discovered (sometimes painfully) that the sooner you talk about sensitive issues, the better and more successful the relationship can be.

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

We Are No Longer Financing Start-Ups!

Author: Paul Jozefak

I've recently finished reading Rework from the guys at 37Signals and one phrase from the book stuck with me. It basically says you don't want to be a "start-up". You want to be a "business". Super simple statement and I couldn't agree more.

So why are we no longer funding start-ups? Well, to be honest, you don't make much money funding start-ups. Start-ups are more concerned about being cool and hyped than being profitable. Start-ups are more about "fun" than they are about "being businesses" and MAKING CASH! It's more important at many start-ups to bring your dog to the office than it is to bring in a new customer. Finally, many more start-ups fail than do real businesses. Basically, we're not changing much in terms of our strategy. We've always been funding businesses but at times, a start-up slipped in, disguised as a business. We screw up too. 

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Why VCs Say No To Good Ideas

Author: Peter Davis

With some frequency, I, like many investors, find myself passing on the opportunity to invest in a startup that is built upon the foundation of a strong idea and solid operating plan. Furthermore, in many cases such as this, I expect the entrepreneurs to make a substantial return for themselves (assuming that they finance their company properly). Ultimately, while saying ‘no thanks’ to a company that’s likely to become a nice business feels unnatural, it can be the right decision for an investor.

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

How To Judge A Potential Investor

Author: Matt Mireles is the founder and CEO of SpeakerText. This post was originally published on the author's blog, The Metamorphosis, and is republished here with permission.

Pitching your startup to investors is a deeply personal matter.

More often than not, they –– politely or not –– call your baby ugly. And that hurts. Good founders, I think, learn to not take the criticism too personally.

But in the end, it is personal. They are judging you. And your baby. Thumbs up, or thumbs down. 

And such is life. But how should we, as founders, judge them? Not all investors  are created equal, after all.  Once betrothed, the investor –– unlike the entrepreneur –– is unfirable, a step-father to your newborn startup, an undivorceable spouse in an epic marriage.

Like any proud founder, I am extremely protective of my newborn startup. She's my motherfucking baby, after all. 

Now, I don't claim to have years business knowledge or even necessarily have it right –– I'm doing this for the first time –– but I do have my own formula.

Read the rest of this post »

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

High Risk ≠ Innovation | A brief description of different kind of risks a start-up is confronted with

Author:

My friend, Chris, sent me a link to Why Venture Capitalists Avoid Innovation: They Like Making Money, written by Andy Singleton.  It was interesting reading, but I don't agree with many of the conclusions. 

One of the author's complaints is that VCs "claim to be in the business of innovation, but they also talk constantly, often in the same paragraph, about how much they want to avoid innovation."  However, Singleton is confusing 'innovation' with 'risk.'  There are lots of types of risk with any new venture:  technology risk, team risk, market risk, competitive risk, development risk, sales and marketing execution risk, financing risk, etc.  A brief word on each:

  • Technology risk -- The risk that some fundamental new innovation just won't work.  This tends to come up more often with 'hard' technologies like semiconductors, energy, drug development.  This is different from development risk.
  • Team risk -- The risk that you either can't build a team with suitable skills or that the team you build won't work effectively together.
  • Market risk -- The risk that the market for your product won't appear.  Perhaps you are counting on some market shift in the future.  If it happens, you'll be the big winner because you saw it first.  If it doesn't, you may be dead.
  • Competitive risk -- The risk that existing competitors in your market can fill the need that you are trying to fill more quickly than you can.
  • Development risk -- The risk that your development team will be ineffective and fail to build a product that works well and/or is done on schedule.
  • Sales and Marketing Execution risk --A set of risks ranging from getting the product requirements correct so that engineering builds the right thing to the ability to generate sufficient awareness and demand for the product to the ability to actually get customers to part with their cash in exchange for the product.
  • Financing risk -- The risk that you can convince investors, now and/or in the future, to invest in the company in light of all these risks.

There are probably other risks (add in the comments), but these are the main ones I think about.  One problem in Singleton's post is that he equates innovation to risk, and most likely technology risk.  I look at it differently.  I think that an investor looks at any early-stage company and weighs the risks versus the potential upside.  If they can mitigate the risks and the upside is big enough, they invest.  If the risks look too big and the upside doesn't justify them, they pass.

How would you mitigate some of these categories of risk?

  • Technology risk -- Is there a proof of concept or prototype that demonstrates the technological achievement?  Has the team demonstrated the ability to project the technology advance in the past?  Is there independent diligence that validates the planned technological advance?
  • Team risk -- Have you worked with the team before?  Have some of them worked together before?  Does that validated track record give you the confidence that they can execute the plan?
  • Market risk -- Are there early market trends that will tell you if the market is shifting in the direction you are hoping for?  Is there a fallback or interim plan that will keep the company going if the market shift happens later than you predict?
  • Competitive risk -- Can you gather some competitive intelligence that will give you a hint of what the competitors' plans are?
  • Development risk -- Similar to team risk: Does the technical team have a validated track record of developing similar projects with high quality and on time?
  • Sales and Marketing Execution risk -- Another team risk:  Does the Sales and Marketing team have a validated track record in specifying the product correctly, building awareness and demand, and closing profitable business?
  • Financing risk -- Does the plan give the company sufficient cushion to ensure that they can get far enough to attract additional investment?  Will an objective new investor be attracted to this opportunity?  Is there room for a reasonable valuation step up in valuation while still leaving room for a new investor to make sufficient money?

From my experience, the most common reason why a venture-backed IT company fails isn't technology risk but sales and marketing execution risk.  Products are poorly specified, requirements aren't honed sufficently, products are positioned poorly and undifferentiated, sales teams are ineffective, etc.  It's hard getting all this right.  If you don't, even the best product won't sell.  In fact, great sales and marketing execution can make a success out of a mediocre product.

The second most common reason is market risk.  Oftentimes start-ups are projecting that a new market segment will open up that they can capture.  If it doesn't happen, or doesn't happen before the start-up runs out of money, you are in trouble.  Hopefully, there is some sort of fallback plan.  If not, you are probably dead in the water.

Most VCs take on some level of technology and development risk as history shows that many times these can be overcome.  In fact, the first thing I read after reading Singleton's post was about Bloom Energy.  If that's not VCs backing innovation, to the tune of $400M, I don't know what is.  Of course, I am sure that these VCs see gigantic potential upside and had plans on how to mitigate the risks before they invested.  And, there are many others in clean tech, drug discovery, etc.

Some of Singleton's comments on the state of the VC business are accurate, but don't impact the calculus around these risks.  Some firms are more risk averse, but they still evaluate deals along all these axes.  An innovator has creative ways to mitigate these risks.  That's the type of innovation that VCs are looking for.  There are very few deals with no risks and big upside.  Instead, most VCs are looking at how some or most of these risks can be overcome.  It may be a high bar and may not always sound reasonable.  Perhaps they are looking for business innovation rather than just technological innovation.

Before you present your company to an investor, make sure you have thought through all these risks and what you would do to mitigate them.

 

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

So What Is Your Start-Up Worth?

 

Feb 22

So What Is Your Start-Up Worth?

Posted by: Mark Solon        
 

As venture capitalists, one question we get asked all the time is “How do you value a seed or early-stage company?” The truth is that there really aren’t many tools. Later-stage companies are often valued based upon metrics such as discounted cash flows and revenue or earnings multiples. The challenge is that many of the start-ups we invest in don’t even have revenue, never mind earnings!

It's hard to establish the value of a young company

It's hard to establish the value of a young company

Trying to establish the value of an early-stage company is complicated by many factors: there is very little operating history, forecasts are guesses at best, products are usually still in development stages and markets may not be developed, the investments are highly illiquid and lastly, first-time entrepreneurs tend to have an inflated sense of value.

When negotiation a price you’re willing to pay for the stock of someone’s company, the inclination is to point out all the risks, holes, and deficiencies in the business plan. The challenge in this exercise is that as soon as the negotiations are over, you’ll be partners in the business and you’ll want to make sure that everyone’s interests are aligned. That means that founders and management still own enough of the company to feel motivated to work hard and that the venture capitalist owns enough of the company to make it an important part of their portfolio. Importantly, room must be left in the capital structure to allow for future financings.

So how do we do it? At Highway 12 Ventures, we like to start at the end. What does that mean? Well, we subscribe to the notion that any negotiation in life is successful when both parties leave the table equally dissatisfied. An outcome where everyone is “mildly satisfied” and no one feels “ripped off” is a pretty good sign that a fair deal has been struck. This is usually the result of a tough but fair negotiation process where both parties have genuine respect for each other.

fair-deal

The fact is, valuing start-ups is far more art than science. Much like the US presidential election process, anyone who claims to be an expert is lying. Remember Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous quote regarding obscenity “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it?” Well that’s closer to the truth than any quantitative methodology we’ve heard of.

There are many factors that influence valuations: How big is the market opportunity? What are the risks? How experienced is the founder and the team? How much money will be required to bring the company to profitability and perhaps most importantly, how many other investors want to invest? At the end of the day, the value of your company is largely driven by commodity-like factors, i.e., what are people willing to pay for it?

Of course there are some techniques that we use to try and establish a fair value. Like most VCs,  we try to extract recent comparables of similar companies that have been funded. There are some rules of thumb with regard to stage and industry. However for the most part, these are just data points that help with a predominantly qualitative process.

At the end of the day, the most important job you have as the founder of a start-up is to make sure that your company is well capitalized to attack the opportunity you’ve identified and sustain the lean early days. Whether you’re taking investment dollars from friends, angel investors or venture capitalists, realize that the first money is the most expensive. If you have the chance to raise capital for your start-up and it’s not exactly the valuation you had hoped for, think twice before turning it down. Remember one thing when raising money for your start-up, drink when served…

This entry was posted on Monday, February 22nd, 2010 at 4:22 am and is filed under Start-Up, VC. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

201110 Responseshttp://www.highway12ventures.com/2010/02/22/so-what-is-your-start-up-worth/So+What+Is+Your+Start-Up+Worth%3F2010-02-22+10%3A22%3A21Mark+Solon to “So What Is Your Start-Up Worth?”

  1. Jana Briggs

    Jana Briggs says:

    Excellent post Mark. Thanks for sharing. :)

  • admin Mark Solon says:

    Thanks Jana, hope you gleaned something here as I know this is a process you'll shortly be in the middle of.

  • Mark, thanks for the great read.

    As a startup (two years in) and self-funded I can testify to the "lean" early days. That being said, the longer one can go without obtaining funding, the better valuation that they will have. There is a balance there, however.

    The balance is struck between the market opportunity and competition. Wait too long, and the opportunity is gone as others enter the market or the market changes.

    Funding makes a lot of sense for many types of tech-centric offerings because the dollar is in the volume. And, it makes sense for capital intensive operations like manufacturing, but knowing when it makes sense is not cut in stone. I strongly encourage the dialog with multiple funding sources. I think the real key is to know when to drink and when to say no thank you - politely.

    Reply
  • MattCope

    MattCope says:

    Who are you fooling? If it's a good idea, you invest $1mm at a $5mm valuation then go play golf!

    Kidding, of course. : )

    I've been re-reading Getting to Yes recently. One of the major lessons is to negotiate in terms of interests (I'd like to avoid red lights, even if the trip is longer) versus positions (Let's take the highway).

    I wonder, are there opportunities to negotiate on the basis of interests, rather than positions, in the VC investment process? It seems like, more often than not, the negotiations are positional ("Your company is worth $10mm." "No, it's worth $20mm." "Ok, let's call it $15mm.")

    Any thoughts?

    Reply
    • admin Mark Solon says:

      Hmmm, interesting concept Matt, but I wonder how it would work, practically speaking. Can you give me an example or two?

      Reply
      • MattCope

        MattCope says:

        Well, the classic example is two people fighting over an orange.

        Their positions are clear - both want the orange. An example of a resolution to this conflict (where both are equally dissatisfied) results in cutting the orange in half.

        But neither articulated their interests. While one wanted to eat the fruit, the other wanted to use the peel to bake a cake.

        Had they framed their negotiation in terms of their interests rather than their positions, the net benefit to both would have been greater.

        A real-world example is the resolution of Israel's occupation of the Sinai after 1973. The position of each party: "It's mine." But Israel's interest was security, and Egypt's interest was sovereignty over historically Egyptian land. An agreement that returned a demilitarized Sinai to Egypt met both parties' interests.

        So, I'm wondering if there's any application of this framework to venture investing. Maybe there's not. But the phrase "equally dissatisfied" - in the context of my rereading of Getting to Yes - got the gears turning.

        Reply
        • admin Mark Solon says:

          Okay Matt I get it. But I'm still scratching my head how that would work in this context. Help me out here pal!

          In 15 years of negotiating these things, when both sides honestly leave equally dissatisfied, it's a good indicator that a fair deal has been struck, but I'd love to improve upon that!

  • admin Mark Solon says:

    For all you readers, Gerry is one of the all-time good guys in venture. He's been at OVP Ventures in Portland for 25 years and enjoys one of the best reputations in the business. You can learn a lot from him at his blog - http://www.ovp.com/blog/

  • admin Mark Solon says:

    For all you readers, Gerry is one of the all-time good guys in venture. He's been at OVP Ventures in Portland for 25 years and enjoys one of the best reputations in the business. You can learn a lot from him at his blog - http://www.ovp.com/blog/

    Post a new comment


Filed under  //

Comments [0]

9 quick tips for raising venture capital

(Editor’s note: Dharmesh Shah is a serial software entrepreneur and the founder and CTO of HubSpot, which provides marketing software for small businesses. This column originally appeared on his blog. )

As the market improves, many start-up owners are likely be thinking about raising funding.  With my latest startup, I’m now a venture-backed startup founder (I’ve raised $33 million in three rounds of capital for my marketing software company).  So, I’ve got some direct experience with the process.  Several of the companies I’m an angel investor in or otherwise involved with have also been in the fund-raising process.  So, along the way, I’ve learned a few things, and I’d like to share them with you.

There’s already lots of great content on the web about raising capital and understanding deal terms. But, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to share some of the “lessons learned” from my own experiences.

1.  Get the first round right: The terms of your Series A deal are very important. Not just because of the impact on that first round, but because many of those same terms are likely to carry through to future rounds.  It’s tempting to concede on some important terms but try to resist that temptation.  When negotiating the term-sheet for your Series B or Series C round, the “base” terms (the starting point of negotiations) is whatever terms were in your Series A.  So, if you agree to some non-favorable terms on the “A” round, you’re likely going to continue to pay the price for that in future rounds as well.

2.  Avoid valuation infatuation: Entrepreneurs often become obsessed with the pre-money valuation on the deal.  Though this is certainly an important element of the transaction, there are other factors at play that have significant impact on the raw direct economics of the transaction including the employee stock option pool (and who pays for it). If you get close to finalizing a deal, it is imperative that you have a spreadsheet that helps you understand the economics of the deal.  (See Jeff Bussgang’s article on the topic.)

3.  Raise more than you need: Regardless of how much capital you raise, you’re probably going to have wished you had raised more.  Within reason, if you have access to capital and the terms are decent, raise more than you think you need.

To help overcome the fear of dilution, build a simple spreadsheet that models the actual financial impact to your personal bottom-line based on various outcome scenarios.  What you will likely find is that if things go really well, the extra dilution is not going to change things all that much.  And, if things go really poorly, it won’t matter either (because those extra common shares aren’t going to make you money).

While you might raise the additional capital in a future round at a much higher valuation, it’s easy to forget the transactional cost of the additional round.  Raising a venture-round is a very time consuming process and when your bank balance is getting low, you’re going to really want to just keep working on the business instead of shifting focus back to the funding game

4.  Know what “market” is: It’s possible that you’ll encounter some not so favorable (and fairly uncommon) terms during your VC negotiation.  It’s also possible that your potential investor is just pushing on the edges a little bit to see what they can get away with.

Your strongest line of defense against weird, non-favorable terms is the following reply: “That’s not market”.  This is sophisticated VC-speak for “what you’re asking for isn’t very common in VC deals right now.”  This line of defense has two advantages:  1) it works and 2) it demonstrates your savviness.

5.  Orchestration is important: Try to keep the interested parties moving along at as close to the same pace as possible.  This isn’t easy, but it’s important – because to get great VC terms in a round, the single largest contributing factor is competition.

If you can get two or more VCs competing to invest in your company, you’ll get much better terms.  But to get credible competition going, you’re going to need to have several VCs at the “termsheet” stage of the conversations.  If one VC delivers a termsheet to you, but you are still early in the process with others, it’s going to be tough to get a competing termsheet.  Meanwhile, the VC that gave you the first termsheet is going to be “anxious” for you to accept.

The good news is that nothing accelerates VCs more than knowing that you’ve already gotten a termsheet.  Once you get that first one, you’re likely to get more as the VCs jostle for position.

6.  Beware deal fatigue: Even in good times, fund-raising is an arduous process.  Be prepared for yet another round of meetings, yet another level of due diligence and yet another round of negotiations.  Don’t try to sprint to the finish line — you may have another lap to go.  And, it might be the most important lap.  Much like any large negotiation, there are often relatively important deal terms that get finalized in the final stages of the deal.  You need to maintain your energy so that you don’t just give-in on some of these seemingly unimportant details.

7.  Don’t Use Your Uncle Larry As Your Lawyer: As entrepreneurs, it’s not often that we need to engage legal counsel.   But if you’re raising venture capital, you need a lawyer – and experience counts. This is a high stakes game.

VCs are super-smart and they negotiate financing deals all the time.  You don’t.  You need someone that has competency in this area.  A great lawyer understands the nuances of this game both from the perspective of which deal terms are important, what “market” is (#4 above) and when to stay firm and when to concede. Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish on this.

8.  Partner personalities matter: Yes, ideally you’ll be raise funding from a top-tier fund that’s a great brand.  But, what’s more important is that you fundamentally like the VC partner that is investing in you.  This is a long-term relationship and life is short.  You might part ways with key team members along the way, but your venture investor will almost certainly be with you until the very, very end.

If you have the luxury of choice, you should put strong weight on the person you take money from, not just the firm and not just the deal-terms.  I followed my own advice on this in our funding rounds.  We had higher offers than the deal(s) we took, but we solved for the best overall deal and the best partner.

9.  Switching Partners Is Hard, Do Your Homework: It’s likely that in the early stages of your VC process, you’ll get introduced to a particular partner at a firm.  Usually, this is based on what area that partner invests in (i.e. which one you “fit” with).  But, in many larger firms, there might be more than one partner that could conceivably do your deal.  Or, you might get bucketed wrong (because your startup straddles a couple of areas of interest for the firm).

If that’s the case, you need to work hard to figure out who the best partner would be (from your perspective) and try to connect with that partner as early in the process as possible.  Once conversations begin in earnest, it’s very, very hard to switch to a different partner within the firm.

 

Filed under  //

Comments [0]