VC money doesn’t make sense in every situation; start-ups are not “one size fits all” and nor should they be funded that way. Am I advocating entrepreneurs shouldn’t drop by for a talk with VC’s? Hardly.
I’m in the business of making solid returns for my limited partners. To deliver these returns, I’ve got to find great ideas and world-class entrepreneurs. Of equal importance is creating a relationship that yields positive results for these up-and-coming business leaders, in whose shoes I’ve personally been many times. This last requirement often leads me to counsel entrepreneurs with promising technology and a solid team to not take my venture money. Projects that can launch and grow with minimal capital infusion AND seek acquisition as the natural exit due to feature/function limitations, impending competition and/or limitations in the distribution model and market size are more appropriately funded by passing the hat. The minute venture dollars are put to work, the company will feel natural pressure to find ways to expand beyond what may be reasonable or optimal.
Here’s the type of math I consider every day:
HotFeature.com has 10 employees and the founders each own 35% of the company. They pitch me on the idea and I agree with their assessment that consumers want and need HotFeature.com. They have raised $1.5M in angel money to date and have given up 20% of the company to investors. They require another $10M to grow their audience and build brand.
Here’s where things get interesting. I point out to the founders that they could probably sell the company today for $20-$30 million and that they would each make $7-10M which is not bad for a few years of work.
If they take $10M from VCs at a $15M pre-money valuation and create an option pool for the next 30 employees (assume 15%), they each now own less than 20%. To make the same $10M, the company must now sell for a minimum of $50M. Achieving this type of valuation is significantly harder, as it suggests that the company has established a brand, demonstrated a business model and proven consumer adoption.
In addition, my partners and I won’t be too excited about a $50M acquisition. This type of exit is not sufficient to ensure superior returns to our limited partners across a broad portfolio of investments-our returns are determined by home runs, not singles. As such, we’re inclined to push for continued growth, market expansion and additional product development, which adds risk, requires more capital and creates additional dilution for the early employees (not always the win/win I seek). There are a number of good examples where entrepreneurs have made the correct decision regarding venture money; the most recent I’ve seen is Yahoo’s acquisition of Jumpcut. The purchase occurred after the startup had taken seed and angel money–no formal VC dollars. By keeping the company running thin, the founders reaped much greater returns than if they had traded some equity for venture money.
Of course there are VC firms putting money into these types of companies, but why would a VC fund a company that may not give them the double digit returns they’re typically looking for? Put yourself on our side of the table for a minute.
For microcap venture companies, these sorts of projects do make sense. An investment of a few million dollars can move the meter for a fund less than $50M in size. For VC firms with significantly larger funds, the partners are under a significant amount of pressure to do deals and put capital to work. Although the likely outcome may only be 2-3x, that’s still “putting points on the board”. Sort of reminds me of the fable of the Lion who had the choice of hunting antelope or field mice. He could catch field mice all day, but would burn more energy capturing mice than he would get from eating the mice and thus would starve to death. Only by landing the antelope could the Lion survive. Hotfeature.com is a field mouse. YouTube is an antelope!
To sum up, the point I’m making is pretty basic. When you’re looking to fund your young company, definitely consider venture capital, but also be aware that for your particular situation it may make more sense to explore alternatives to venture money, like angel investors or bootstrapping, with help from family and friends. We like to keep our focus on building successful, long-term companies of a certain scale. Not many mice ever grow up to become antelopes.
9 Comments
-
Chris Jeffers said:
Deja Vu.
This was forwarded to me after coffee this morning by an exceptionally successful entrepreneur during an uncannily similar dialog.
This could have been written about us.
Our space is hot… Technology and IP have business value… We even have clients and growing revenues… So now the VC calls are coming in. Junior partners extolling us to consider what they can bring to the table, and take some money….
We don’t want just money (’cause that costs too much)
There’s no question additional funding can enable us to accelerate selling and marketing (the tools we need to drive company value.)
But equally (more) important, is the business acumen and resources an external “partner” can bring to the table. It’s not really about valuation surrender. Angel, syndicate, VC Firm? This is the challenge facing us. From who/how can we best collaberate to leverage the extraordinary opportunities ahead?
Cj
-
Perry Mizota said:
I couldn’t agree more. It’s refreshing to hear this perspective from a VC.
-
Sramana Mitra said:
There is a glut of good small business opportunities out there right now, especially because the Internet makes it ever so easy to market, generate traffic, etc.
I want to also point out that entrepreneurs ought to consider not taking ANY outside money at all, which leaves them an option of running a cash business for years, without being forced to have an exit. The moment, however, they decide to take any outside money, they have to exit, and that’s not necessarily always desirable.
-
Vaibhav Domkundwar - BetterLabs said:
Charles:
This is one of the best written note on this “very common” discussion today. Every startup we work with is precisely evaluating these alternatives.
I have one question, though. You say, “Not many mice ever grow up to become antelopes.”. Can you expand on this? Are you assuming mice are HotFeature.com-like companies OR are you assuming mice are companies that decide to bootstrap?
There are tons of HotFeature companies that are getting VC money and there are a lot of product plays where the entrepreneurs are deciding to bootstrap.
How to VCs/entreprenuers decide if a particular company is a feature or a product? YouTube could VERY WELL have been a “feature” of Yahoo, MSN and AOL portals. Its just another content format, right? I think most smart entrenprenuers can argue that, what a VC considered a feature is actually a product. No one knows the real answer until it takes off. If it takes off, most admire it as a product. If it does not, everyone brushes it off as just another feature.
Thoughts?
-
John Doe said:
I think this kind of VC is ingoring the fact that hedge funds, corporations, and private equities are continueing to move in on the turf of VCs. On top of that, you have more active angel investors tool.
That is the reason why billion dollar CRV started giving out 250k loans with the option to match initial investments for a smaller piece of the pie.
If anything, it is more of a startups market and less of a natural VC market.
Times are changing ………..
-
Mike said:
This is a great article. When we started Cavenger, we considered taking VC money but decided to bootstrap it. It was definitely a good choice, because it allowed us to not give away a large portion of equity too early.
-
Ash said:
A refreshingly honest perspective. Thx Charles.
-
Pran Kurup said:
A refreshing change from the usual self-serving stuff from VCs.
Youtube became a great investment most likely because of the VCs and their connections. Money from a good VC has its advantages for sure.
Check out this article on the Odeo story.
http://gigaom.com/2006/09/14/evan-williams-how-odeo-screwed-up/
-
Dr Frank Morgan said:
I am a private investor based in UK . I focus on seed capital, early-stage
,start-up, ventures, LLC and all round for completion and expansion of
investment projects that need funding. I am interested to invest in your
company for a long-term business relationship. If this is alright with you
kindly get back to me with more details about your company. Thank you.
Dr.Frank Morgan,
(Individual/Angel investor)
Tel: +447031901860
Email: info_investment3@yahoo.co.uk
5 Trackbacks
4:50 pm
Texas Startup Blog: Web 2.0 and Social Media » Blog Archive » Are you sure you want to raise money? said:
[...] More and more entrepreneurs have been telling me they are going to bootstrap instead of trying to raise venture capital. Charles Moldow has an article titled, "VC to Aspiring Entrepreneur: Are You Sure You Want our Money?" He explains a situation that is all to familar: HotFeature.com has 10 employees and the founders each own 35% of the company. They pitch me on the idea and I agree with their assessment that consumers want and need HotFeature.com. They have raised $1.5M in angel money to date and have given up 20% of the company to investors. They require another $10M to grow their audience and build brand. [...]
5:57 pm
Sramana Mitra on Strategy » Blog Archive » Don’t Take Venture Money said:
[...] Charles Moldow of Foundation Capital writes a good piece on when and why entrepreneurs should not look for Venture money. [...]
12:49 pm
Buzzed about Venture Capital « Yoick - Hightechwire said:
[...] Charles Moldow, a General Partner at Foundation Capital, has written a great piece of advice for entrpreneurs considering their route to market titled VC to aspiring entrepreneur: Are you sure you want out money? in which he outlines the equity dilution principle vis a vis exit opportunities and urges would be investees to think hard about the path they choose. [...]
2:21 pm
Buzzed about Venture Capital « Venture Wrap said:
[...] Charles Moldow, a General Partner at Foundation Capital, has written a great piece of advice for entrpreneurs considering their route to market titled VC to aspiring entrepreneur: Are you sure you want out money? in which he outlines the equity dilution principle vis a vis exit opportunities and urges would be investees to think hard about the path they choose. [...]
12:02 pm
Venture Midwest » Stay Private and Avoid Venture Capital said:
[...] Bonjour les Lecteurs. The following advice is courtesy of Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX): Remain a private company and avoid venture capital funding. Jim Clark’s departure from the board of Shutterfly is the latest SOX related casualty in the venture capital industry. According to interviews with Clark post departure, SOX provides no benefits to the venture capital community. Existing large corporations are protected from accountanting and investor scandals, but SOX is debilitating for strapped start-ups: “If it did anything for you it would be O.K., but I’ve seen absolutely nothing except at least a doubling of the legal and audit bills. It’s very bad for small companies. The current notion of exempting smaller companies from Sarbanes-Oxley is stupid. Every small company wants to be a big company. It’s a continuum [so they’ll have to comply anyway]. It needs to just be flushed down the drain.” How can companies avoid the confinements of SOX? Remain private and small. Don’t dream of large revenues and global domination. Basically, operating with a complacent mentality unimaginable to entrepreneurs. Venture Capitalist and Venture Beat contributor Charles Moldow, however, offered some conflicting advice to entrepreneurs seeking capital, warning against venture funding in certain situations. Using the analogy “not many mice ever grow up to be antelopes,” Moldow infers that while every small company wants to be a big company, not every idea is venture worthy. A large investment for a company with miniscule pre-funding valuation is nonsensical, decreasing financial return for both entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. The Sox Strain is everywhere… [...]