private equity Archives

There comes a point for all startup businesses where they have to consider taking on investors versus bootstrapping their operations to grow the company. For a lot of founders, they wrestle with this decision several times in the first few years.

While I do think bootstrapping is sexy as hell, I’m not opposed to investors. Some startups can’t even take a business idea off paper without significant seed investment and many investors are absolute rock stars that will do anything they can to help an investment succeed.

With that stated, there are a few things to consider before taking on investors. For the sake of this article, I’m going to consider accelerators, incubators, venture capital and any other scenarios where equity is exchanged for cash or subsidies as an “investment.”

A VC fund is considered successful if 10% of their investments do well while you could 100% fail like any of the other 90% of their plays that don’t pan out. Don’t believe the hype; succeeding as a company is way better than “learning from failing.”What is it about that VC fund that makes sense for you- other than their stacks of cash? A typical VC probably only has about 2% of their capital invested in your company while you may have every credit card maxed out, loans from friends and family due and employees to pay at the end of the week. The stakes for you are ALWAYS much higher than your VC investors. Choose wisely.
Who is actually managing that accelerator or incubator? Are they a subject matter expert in the markets their incubated companies are competing in or are they just a big name in the startup world? Name recognition can be a huge asset as long as it’s big enough. Minor celebrities in those communities are probably not driving enough value if they aren’t also providing super-relevant industry experience.
Be careful not to fall for the “easy” country-club deal. Raising money among friends and acquaintances can be a legit way to generate capital but they require much of the same structure, governance and construction as a VC/ PE deal.For example, I found one deal where a minority owner provided capital in exchange for equity but then expected their investment to be paid back first before any other owners could receive any distributions of profit. That’s a pretty crappy provision considering this came with a measly $20k investment.
Pick your startup competitions with care. As I have previously pontificated, startup competitions can be a total waste of time when they are poorly conceived, executed or judged.There was a competition recently announced here in Birmingham where the contestants have to pay $50 to enter, compete in three rounds over a 6 month time frame, 50 companies could enter and the prize was only $10k.The lost-opportunity cost alone is higher than $10k and the contestants are actually subsidizing 25% of the prize money through their own “application fees.” By winning, you would be doing so on the backs of other start-ups. That just seems crappy and it a massive waste of time and resources.

Capital, or the lack thereof, is always a primary concern for a company wanting to start, grow or innovate. Every founder needs to seriously consider their individual opportunities for outside investment. It should not be an easy question to answer and the more thought expended when considering funding options, the higher the likelihood that a company finds investors that are passionate, supportive and truly helpful. If the total value of what they offer is measured in decimal places, you may need to consider other options.

Marc Andreessen recently tweeted a reminder that a company’s stock or valuation is based on future performance—not current performance. He is, of course, correct.

I have been following, with great interest, the ongoing debate about current Venture Capital, Private Equity and Start-up funding activity over the last 5 years and if it has created another bubble. The money guys will tell you it’s very different than in the 90’s where EBITDA, not profitability, was the accepted measure of a tech company’s performance, IPOs were the preferred method of raising significant capital and investment banks didn’t really understand the technology.

I would argue the institutional money guys still don’t really understand the technology. Currently, raising money through private equity is the preferred path for many tech companies where everyone wanted an IPO in the 90’s. I would argue it is the same cow by a different name.

After Uber disclosed an operating loss of $470 million, it received enough participation in its latest bond offering to signal a valuation of over $50 billion. That’s right… $50 billion valuation on a company that lost $470 million last year and doesn’t even explain how or why it lost it before new investment dollars fly in through a bond offering.

At some point, profitability must have a far greater stake in the measurement of a company’s viability. Scaling a company through self-funding is slow and incremental. It can be tedious and frustrating.

This emphasis on profitability isn’t happening because the private equity market is flush with cash—enabling and encouraging start-ups to embrace concepts like “run-rate, IRR and total addressable market” to justify their race to scale at the cost of profitability. This is the rub. Private investment wants to see growth—especially top-line revenue. Profitability is assumed to be coming at some point—even when there are no strong indicators this will actually happen.

Revenues still rule in financing rounds. If you show exponentially increased revenues from the previous round, your valuation usually goes up. What if, instead of top-line revenue, PE shops saw profitability increasing on the same revenue numbers from the previous round?

Unfortunately, it is reasonable to assume the valuation suffers even though the founders were actually running a better company.

So what should a start-up do?

Elliot Bohm, the CEO of Card Cash offers a very reasonable strategy is his Inc Article, “Why you shouldn’t always be looking for Venture Capital.”

He proposes the strategy they executed at Card Cash which was to take an initial round from a VC fund which adds brand credibility and allows you to build your business and then use traditional debt funding to grow.

This, of course, requires startups to get off the milk wagon of private equity and focus on building a business where profitability is part of the strategy. To use traditional debt like short-term loans, you have to prove you can actually service that debt. Banks are a for-profit business so they aren’t likely to loan material amounts of money to a business that can’t create net income.

Private equity models work and they can help a good company and concept become great through financial support. They can also enable less than responsible behavior as startups enjoy playing with other people’s money.

Truly durable companies are profitable companies. The longer start-ups focus on the value of an exit and how many rounds of financing they can execute, the less likely they are to see a profit. It would be almost revolutionary to see the prestige of “exits” be replaced by the elusive, but more impressive measurement—profitability.

private equity

Read this Before Taking on Investors

Profit: The Inconvenient Metric for Start-up Businesses

Hire Us