Best Startup Blog Posts of 2012

I am not a huge fan of all the “Best Of” lists that come out just after Christmas, but I just read one that is absolutely worth a look.  It is a full compilation, broken down by practical categories, of the best startup blog posts of 2012.

Here it is – Best Startup Blog Posts of 2012.  It is like a startup textbook!  Enjoy.

When Does a Seed Stage Company Need a Board with More Than Just the Founder?

I recently engaged in a conversation (over a few days) about the need for a seed stage company to have a board member other than the founder.  There is not a “right” answer to this, but the positions are worth exploring.  For clarity, a company with one founder can have a one member board (assuming a corporation).  Might be kind of lonely, but completely legal.

There are many angel investors that rarely take or want a board seat.  It is not their operating model.  Dave McClure (500 Startups) and David Lee (SV Angels) are 2 examples, but there are many many others.  Their model is invest relatively small amounts in ($50K to $200K) in lots and lots of companies.  No way to be actively engaged with all of them day in and day out with board seats.

And there are some angel investors that know that even with “light” preferred stock terms (sometimes called Series Seed), there is enough control built into the terms of the preferred stock that the company is still mostly restricted when it comes to making key decisions.  So why need a board seat when the control already exists? Fair point.

My subjective view is that once a company raises money from a few institutional investors over $400K – $500K in total that the company should have an investor representative on the board.  This is particularly true if the founding team is new in terms of “running a company” experience.  I think that the founders will benefit from the oversight and hopeful board partnership and I think that the investor board member benefits by being more engaged and learning more about the business.

This can be a tricky line.  The decision to have an investor on the board is really one for the founder.  If the investor insists, the founder can turn them down (if other investors are waiting in the wings).  And the other investors not taking a board seat should defer to the founder’s desires too.  If the founder is ok with an investor board member that is the what counts.

One final thought – what about the VC’s fiduciary duties to its own investors (called limited partners).  We are investing other people’s money.  Let’s say a seed stage company raises $600K from a group of seed stage VCs.  It is reasonable to think that the limited partners would expect their money managers (i.e., the VCs) to have a board representative to better oversee the investment and hopefully help build value at the company?  I think many limited partners would answer “yes”.

Love to hear your thoughts on this.  Happy holidays too!

Startup Valuations Revisited

On October 17th I posted on seed and early stage startup valuations.  This morning I read a post by Marty Zwilling on startup valuations.  Here it is.  Marty’s posts are solid in my opinion – short and content driven.  His post on startup valuations lists the following rules of thumb (i.e., possible inputs) for the calculation (and he explains each):

  1. Place a fair market value on all physical assets (asset approach).
  2. Assign real value to intellectual property.
  3. All principals and employees add value.
  4. Early customers and contracts in progress add value.
  5. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) on projections (income approach).
  6. Discretionary earnings multiple (earnings multiple approach). .
  7. Calculate replacement cost for key assets (cost approach).
  8. Look at the size of the market, and the growth projections for your sector.
  9. Assess the number of direct competitors and barriers to entry.
  10. Find “comparables” who have received financing (market approach).

I was a little surprised that his list did not include the following:

  1. Demand for your deal, measured by the number of term sheets you have obtained.
  2. The reality that an early stage VC is going to want to typically obtain between 20-35% of your company in the financing (the point of my original post).

I actually think that these 2 are probably the most important.   And just for fun here is my quick take on the others that he did list; these factors will help drive where in the 20-35% range you end up.  Critically, I am only talking about seed and early stage company valuations as opposed to valuations for more mature companies:

  1. Place a fair market value on all physical assets (asset approach) – pretty much a waste of your time.
  2. Assign real value to intellectual property – only worth something if patents have actually issued or the invention is so unique that the application and eventual patent could really serve to block competitors.
  3. All principals and employees add value – the team is very valuable.  The better the team, the better the valuation.
  4. Early customers and contracts in progress add value – completely agree that real customers are big boosters.
  5. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) on projections (income approach) – worthless.
  6. Discretionary earnings multiple (earnings multiple approach) – worthless.
  7. Calculate replacement cost for key assets (cost approach) – worthless.
  8. Look at the size of the market, and the growth projections for your sector – sure, big markets are more attractive.
  9. Assess the number of direct competitors and barriers to entry – see number 2 above.
  10. Find “comparables” who have received financing (market approach) – very difficult to ascertain as the information is well guarded and the media is usually wrong on this one.

Add to the list……

Startup Company Valuations

I hosted a guest lecturer today named Doug Rowan at Johnson (for those of you not in the Cornell ecosystem, “Johnson” is how the marketing department likes us to refer to Cornell’s business school).  Doug is an older guy with lots of startup experience both as entrepreneur and investor.  He currently mentors a lot of companies at the “tiny” stage.

Doug’s lecture was on startup company valuations.  Here was his key takeaway:  the best way to look at valuations of seed or Series A companies is to consider the amount being raised and the fact that the investors will want to own between 20% – 35% of your company after they invest (assuming a priced equity round).  Period, the end.  Yeah, it is that simple.

So, you want to raise $500,000, well guess what, your pre-money valuation will be between $930,000 and $2mm.   You want to raise $1mm, then your pre-money valuation will be between $1.857mm and $4mm.  You want to raise $5mm (big first round), well just do the math.

[desired %] = (Amt to be raised)/(X+Amt to be raised)

Just put in the “desired %” and “Amt to be raised” and solve for X.  That is your pre-money (well at least one end of the range).   Doug’s view point is often right.

Q3 2012 VC Fundraising Data and Conclusions

I have an unable to post anything original for the past 2 weeks….and this week is not going to break the streak.  But I did come across a super post today by Michael Greeley at Flybridge who reported on the just announced Q3 2012 VC fundraising data released by the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and Thomson Reuters.  I trust the NVCA data the most though there are a number of other sources.

Anyway, Michael’s piece is full of conclusions and facts and worth re-posting.  Here it is as a link and in full text:

“The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and Thomson Reuters released today the 3Q12 VC fundraising data, which is a report I eagerly await as it is a barometer of the health of the VC industry. And while 53 funds were raised – the largest number since 3Q11 – only $5.0BN was raised which continues the quarterly trend downwards since mid-2011; there was $6BN raised in 2Q12. Year-to-date VC’s have raised $16.2BN which suggests that for the full year VC’s will raise between $21-$23BN – not too shabby given the Great Recession and the generally uninspiring returns for the past decade across the industry. In all of 2011 VC’s raised $18.6BN. But it is what is beneath the headlines that I always find fascinating…

– No doubt the industry is shrinking (which over time will be very healthy for those firms that remain active) – year-to-date there was a 13% decline in the number of funds raised when compared to the same period in 2011

– But over that same year-to-date period the amount of capital in 2012 was up 31% when compared to the first nine months of 2011 – which included arguably the worst two quarters in recent memory (2Q11 and 3Q11) for VC fundraising

– Interestingly, of the 53 funds raised, only 16 were new funds (more on that later)

– If one considers NEA a Silicon Valley firm (I know they are headquartered in Baltimore but they have a very large and successful west coast practice), the top five funds raised are in San Francisco and represented 55% of the capital raised

– Nine of the top ten funds are in California; #10 (Pharos Capital) calls Dallas and Nashville home

– The average size of fund raised in 3Q12 was $94M, although the median was $160M

– This is more troubling – the average size of new first-time fund raised was $9M while the median was $2.5M (that is not a typo). In fact 19 of the 53 funds raised this past quarter were less than $5M in size

– The largest new first-time fund raised was by Forerunner Ventures ($42M) which ranked #22 of the 53 funds raised

– The largest fund raised in 3Q12 was the $950M growth fund raised by Sequoia Capital – the rich get richer!

So what is there to make of all this? While I expected more rapid contraction of the industry, the amount of consolidation at the top of the pyramid is dramatic. Arguably this implies a more challenging time for entrepreneurs as there continues to be fewer robust VC franchises available to them, and those that are active, will tend to be centered around San Francisco. On a more hopeful note though, VC returns have meaningfully improved in recent times so perhaps we may start to see over the next few quarters a greater fundraising pace across more firms – a trend well worth monitoring.

Michael Greeley is a managing director with Flybridge Capital Partners. Opinions expressed here are entirely his own; to view this post please visit his blog.