Expect to see start-ups and VCs hit standoff over valuations

start-ups and vcs struggle over valuationsWhen the stock market goes into the dumps, it takes a while for the effects to trickle down to start-ups. That’s because start-ups are often are working away on a project that’s isolated from the larger market — and if they’re lucky, they have money from venture capitalists.

For the start-ups with no angel or VC backing, forget about raising money. They’re going to have trouble immediately. VCs are paying too much attention to their existing companies. But what about those lucky ones — those who already have a venture backer? The conventional wisdom is those companies will have an easier time getting money again when they need it, because VCs want to make sure the companies survive long enough so that they can earn a profit on the investment.

But it comes at a price. When the entrepreneur returns to the VC, an epic battle ensues over valuations. In a climate of fear, the power pendulum swings back to the VCs. The VC knows that an entrepreneur won’t be as likely to get money elsewhere, so he plays hardball. The entrepreneur is more ready to cave in on the valuation. That means when a VC gives the entrepreneur money, the VC can claim more ownership of the company with a given amount of investment (because the company is worth less.) Tension rises, and boardroom fights begin. I saw it all unfold last time, when I started covering venture capital in 2001.

valuations

Let’s take a look at the valuations of start-ups during the last boom, and how they trended in subsequent years. The National Venture Capital Association’s statistics are about as good as we’re going to get. They aren’t perfect, because they rely on valuations as voluntarily provided by the NVCA’s member venture capital firms, so the sample size may be too small to be completely reliable. But with that caveat, they do show that from 2000 through 2003, valuations fell pretty hard. You can see it took a while for the valuations to hit bottom, even though the market crash took place in mid 2000.

What does that mean for today? Well, the market’s crash these past two weeks is too fresh to have worked itself through the system. Companies are in the middle of tension-filled negotiations with their venture backers, but we don’t have any stats yet.

Now lets take a look at some recent valuations at one of the most aggressive venture capital firms in Silicon Valley: New Enterprise Associates. That firm has demonstrated how it has offered very rosy terms to entrepreneurs in recent years, bidding up value levels of companies like SolFocus and SugarCRM by offering large amounts of cash for relatively small ownership stakes. It did so because it believed: 1) the deals were competitive and NEA wanted to participate, and so outbid other venture firms to do so, and 2) because it has more money than other venture firms, and so was mandated to put its money to work.

That’s a decent strategy when you’ve got a robust economy. But when the market turns negative, NEA will have difficulty justifying these valuations. They and other investors are more likely to negotiate tougher. In some cases, the dreaded “down round” will emerge, which is where a VC invests at a valuation lower than the company’s previous ones — a particularly brutal snub because it suggests the company has lost value since it raised its last round.

NEA is the leading VC firms this year (so far) in the amount invested. The firm is second in the total number of deals (again, so far this year) to Draper Fisher Jurvetson. I don’t mean to pick on NEA. But the folks at PE Data Center have provided three examples of the firm’s investments, and they’re good for illustrative purposes:

SiBeam (formerly Silicon Microwave Systems) — The Sunnyvale, Calif. company is a developer of chips for the wireless industry. In March, the company closed a third round of funding (Series C) totaling approximately $40 million, alongside U.S. Venture Partners and Foundation Capital. The post-money valuation was $138 million, or exactly in line with the most recent average valuation of late-stage private companies, as provided by the NVCA (see chart). However, as you can see from the last boom-bust, late stage valuations came down significantly. That’s not to say we’re going to see exactly the same scenario play out this time (last time, it was a tech bust, this time it is a credit bust, and companies are generally on much sounder footing). But with the market closed for new IPOs and companies slamming the breaks on acquisitions (they feel poorer, because their lower stock prices are their main currency), there’s no doubt that late-stage companies are going to get seriously slammed on the valuation side if they raise money this year.

CVRx –  The Minneapolis, Minnesota, company develops implantable devices designed to control hypertension. The company has raised several rounds of financing and New Enterprise Associates has participated in all of them. Other investors in the company include ABS Ventures, Kearny Venture Partners, SightLine Partners, and InterWest Partners. The company raised a third round $30 million in May 2006, at a valuation of $95 million, and then raised $65 million fourth round in April 2007 at a valuation of $267 million, and then a fifth round of $84 million in July year at a valuation of $424M valuation. Needless to say, those recent valuations are extremely high. Who knows, the company may be good enough to justify it. But expect them to come down, especially in light of the general decline in valuations for the health-care sector in general (see the chart below, courtesy of Dow Jones VentureSource).

DreamFactory Software The Mountain View, Calif. company offers on-demand software, and raised a first round of $5.8 million at post-money valuation of $16 million in 2006. Then it raised $3 million more in March 2008, at a post valuation of $24 million. New Enterprise Associates led both rounds financing. As you can see from the charts, the valuations of the earlier rounds didn’t drop as significantly during the last bust. Earlier stage companies will have it slightly easier than later stage private companies. They’re more protected from the market, because they’re not searching for an IPO just yet. However, that’s not to say that investors won’t fight to hard to lower valuations even at this level.

Third quarter statistics on valuations won’t be out for another couple of months. And even then, those stats won’t reflect what happened in the current fourth quarter, which is when the real pain will be felt.  It may be next year before we can give a serious assessment of the true fallout for start-ups. Expect to see more companies go out of business too, as VCs in some cases decide not to invest at all.

Sarah Lacy has some interesting thoughts on the future of the VC industry, by the way.

[Image credit: Salim Virji]

Next Story: How badly could a recession hurt cleantech?
Previous Story: Google prepping special iPhone ads?

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,

Photo of Matt Marshall

About the Author, Matt Marshall

Matt Marshall is editor and CEO of VentureBeat. Follow him on Twitter at @mmarshall, and follow VentureBeat on Twitter at @venturebeat.

  • "For the start-ups with no angel or VC backing, forget about raising money."

    The conventional wisdom might say that, but I really don't see why is that so, and especially why should that happen in current situation. The cash won't go away -- it's only that those who have it won't be able to put it to work through traditional ways -- loans and stocks -- and will have to find new ways to increase their wealth. And what better way than to put it into a venture which will bear its fruit in a 3-5 years, when the current crisis should be ending? If anything, early stage investments should only increase in the coming years...
  • I don't know...
    After reading the first paragraph I had to stop.

    It appears as if everyone is crying, "It's the end of the world!"

    When, in fact, Angels are the ones doing most of the crying. VCs are sticking to their guns and willing to invest if they see a promising opportunity.

    The only way VCs will stop investing is if their funding sources dry up (CAlpers, endowments, etc.).

    VCs will continue to invest because that's what VCs do. They invest. If not, they'd be out of work.

    - Scott from VentureDig
  • Scott - that is precisely the distinct possibility. VCs get their money from large institutions like Calpers and university endowments. These institutions allocate only a certain small percentage of their overall portfolio to venture capital and other alternative asset classes. Most of their money is invested in public equities and interest bearing debt instruments. When the general markets take a collective dump like we've seen in the last few weeks, these institutions see their overall portfolio shrink considerably. This means there will be less money allocated to VCs. Thus, VCs will slow their investments in startups and some of the bottom tier VCs won't even be able to raise new funds.
  • I know; however, what's ironic is that the only thing making them money is the private sector--specifically VC investments.

    Even more ironic--the VCs with the best returns tend to be 1st time VCs ("emerging managers").

    If anything, it could help VCS. Less money pumped into million-loss hedge funds; more into VC firms.
  • neil weintraut
    matt, valuations will drop and there may be some down rounds. that's not a headline. next time try and come up with something a bit more original, if you can
  • bob
    VC's and founders have always argued over valuations in good markets or bad not a real news flash.
  • jelpern
    Good article overall, but I'm not sure what the point was in using the three NEA examples. It seems like pretty bad statistics to extrapolate from three firms in different industries and stages. There are so many other factors that determine a company's valuation: sub-industry ("healthcare" is a pretty broad field), revenue, earnings, number of customers, product stage, etc, not to mention the subjective "sense" that a VC has to project whether a company will succeed. While these macro-VC trends are useful for sizing up the industry, it's hard to see the connection between them and the fates of these three firms.
  • If the start-up has a business model, is break even or makes profit, then VC's will come and try to get a piece of the cake.
    On the other side if your VC funded start-up is burning money, then VC's probably want to dump it as fast as possible. (example: Identity Engines www.idengines.com
    On sale:
    http://boic.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/sale-of-id...
  • edhardy622
    British law student sues Abercrombie-Fitch for disability discrimination.
    http://www.abercrombieonsale.co.uk