Archive for June, 2009

The Startup Funding Gap – from Angel to VC

Re-Post from Startup CFO Mark MacLeod (link)

This week, I was on a call with an active US Angel who said his group is looking for deals where the company can get to break even on $750K of total investment! Now, in the grand scheme of things, $ 750K is not a lot of capital. And there is a big gap between this and the traditional sweet spot of the bigger VC funds that are looking to place $2M – $5M in at the beginning with up to $10M over the life of the investment.

If you’re pitching angels and they are looking for such capital efficient deals, then you need to know where their ceiling is. What is the max you can raise in general before you get into VC territory? And of course when it comes to VC the big question is: does your company have the team, traction, metrics, growth and exit potential that they are looking for? You need clear answers to these questions in order to lay out a credible strategy for raising money.

To help guide you and the startups I work with, I turned to two experts in angel financing: Bryan Watson, President of the National Angel Organization and Basil Peters, an experienced Angel, former VC, author of the excellent Angel blog and book on Early Exits. Here’s what they had to say:

Bryan:

“A lot of Angels, it seems, are moving to this sort of deal because it has the promise (if not the reality, sometimes) of capital efficiency. Good for Web-tech companies. Not good for biotech companies.

The problem: The capital risk Angels face (i.e. where is the next round coming from??) has shot through the roof over the last 6 months. Many Angels no longer believe they can rely on the capital ecosystem to provide subsequent rounds of financing.

Realistically, most angels know their investee companies may need additional funding to get to break-even (enter co-investment). Looking for investments that “only need $750k” helps to screen for capital efficient businesses.

If I had to give numbers, the current sweet spots I see in the Angel community (i.e. where deals seem to be getting done) are raises of $200K, $500K, and $1mm. Through co-investment, those numbers are increasing. I am starting to see the company asks come into line with that now as well”.

Basil:

“Generally, angels today want to invest in companies where they can get their money back in 3 to 5 years. That precludes traditional Venture Capital funds. Angels prefer companies they can finance themselves all the way to exit. A couple of years ago, I would have said that angel funding topped out around $1 or 2 million per company. In the last couple of years I’ve seen quite a few companies that have raised over $5 million from angels.

In summary, I think angels prefer to find companies that will require a million or two to fund to exit, but now with syndication between angel groups, the upper end of the range is now $5 to 10 million. The most important thing is alignment on a realistic exit strategy before you approach the angels”.

So, what I take from this is if you want to raise from angels first, you need to start with a story and plan that is truly angel friendly. You need to show you can get to cashflow break-even with $1M or less of financing. That means early commercialization and very tight expense management. You may choose to raise more capital and go for a bigger opportunity, but if your business plan depends on raising more capital, then – in the current environment at least – your plan may not get funded.

The state of the Canadian VC industry

Report from Startup CFO Mark MacLeod


The Wall Street Journal recently reported that VCs are heading for the door. “Not since the dot-com bust has the industry experienced as much turnover as it is now”. Partners from some of the biggest funds have retired or otherwise moved on. The same is true at all levels of these funds.

Healy Jones, a friend and former Associate at Atlas Ventures gave his very personal account of why he recently left the VC industry here. Its definitely worth reading. What should we make of all this turnover? Is this just part of the normal cycle of expansion or contraction that all industries go through? Or is there a bigger story here?

While the WSJ article talks only of contraction, there is still growth taking place in the industry. PEHub recently reported about five new and relatively small early stage funds.

VC in Canada

Here in Canada, we’re getting set for what I hope is a period of big growth, due in larger part to the Quebec government’s $ 700M commitment to investing in innovation and entrepreneurship. Jacque Bernier‘s Teralys Capital fund of funds is getting set to have a big impact! Alberta’s largest fund manager has also recently announced a $1B commitment to private equity investing.

So, who’s got it right?

As I look at these varying stories – tier 1 US VC funds like Atlas, Bessemer and Vantagepoint downsizing, while the Canadian space gets set to expand, you have to ask who’s got it right? Is Canada crazy or inspired to be expanding? Are the US funds that are downsizing smart or unlucky that they can’t get more capital now?

Traditional investing theory says: buy low and sell high. While public markets (led by the tech-heavy NASDAQ) have recovered somewhat from the beating they took after the U.S. credit crisis, startup valuations are still down. So, from the point of view of pricing, now is a great time to be investing.

In the absence of another big market shock, then the primary buyers of startups and their products and services should see a broad-based recovery. And with all this new capital coming in, the Canadian industry can afford to take a long term view. So, I’d have to conclude that the decision to invest in the industry is inspired, and timely. With one but…

A new approach

If these new VC funds execute on the same model of the past, then we should expect poor returns. in its 2009 report on emerging Canadian Software companies, PwC reports that “the median Canadian VC has shown a cumulative-since-inception return of 0%”. This is for a 10 year period that includes the end of the last bubble. Two years from now, those returns will be negative. More of the same just won’t get the job done.

The new commitments to VC and PE in Canada are coming from public / governmental sources. That’s all good, but for the long term health of the industry, private pension players need to be drawn back into the mix.

I am hearing a lot of encouraging talk about new models and approaches to VC investing – especially at the seed and early stage level. We have a small market here in Canada. We have to do things differently. People cite the Israeli-model as a great way to build a successful startup ecosystem.

Bottom line for me: I am truly excited for the future. I am looking forward to seeing these new funds come online and for some fresh thinking (from all players) about how best to build great, valuable companies. So, from where I stand, the state of the Canadian VC industry is looking good.

Update:
I guess the Canadian VC industry just got even better: The Canadian government has announced $ 350M in new commitments to venture capital: $ 260M for BDC and $ 90M to invest in new, private funds. You can read about it here.

Podcast: What Private Equity Can Do For You

Provided by Loewen & Partners

In the May 27th FP Executive Podcast, Jacoline Loewen, Loewen & Partners (www.loewenpartners.com), talks to Sacha Ghai of McKinsey & Co about his recent research of the major trends in private equity. Sacha discusses how PE investors create value for their portfolio companies.

What is Private Equity?

First of all, Sacha talks about how the definition of Private Equity is a misnomer as it includes debt and additional fund types such as venture, real estate, infrastructure, mezzanine, and distressed debt, among others.

Private Equity is relatively new industry that has experienced strong long term growth and increased deal volume. However, it is cyclical in nature with the record amount of US$625 billion raised in 2007 and US$554 billion in 2008. The fundraising activity has continued to decline into 2009. Currently, private equity has over $1 trillion of dry powder globally ready to be invested.

Does Private Equity create “real” value?

Sacha discusses how the current economic downturn has prompted business owners to look for capital in places other than their local banks. However, many are wondering whether private equity is the right choice for them. Sacha discusses how private equity creates value and for whom – business owners, fund managers and society.

Interestingly enough, Sacha’s findings show that although buyout firms outperformed the public market, the average results were similar or worse. Only the top quartile of funds delivered consistently superior performance. Generally, those PE firms that achieve premium results maintain their superior fund management in its successor funds.

How value created and what is it like to work with a private equity firm?

Sachs goes into detail about how private equity creates value for both investors and business owners. PE investors who are top performers drive value throughout the term of the cycle of the investment:

           Deal sourcing – provide access to proprietary deal flow, leverage brand and industry network to aid the process

          Due diligence – present insights on potential improvement and links to external advisors

          Deal structuring – help align incentives for business owners

          First 100 days – establish clear actionable strategies and provide access to management expertise

          Medium/long-term – institute aggressive monitoring and refining of strategies

          Exit – provide insights on timing and tailored strategies for different buyer alternatives

Listen to the complete interview: The Financial Post Executive: What Private Equity Does for Your Business – Sacha Ghai, McKinsey & Company

 

Speaking of no “repeat entrepreneurs”

Re-Post from Wellington Financial Blog, by Mark McQueen

Truths, Myths and the Roadmap Part Three

It seems like forever, but it was only a few weeks ago when Mark Skapinker’s interview with The Wall Street Journal was all tech folks could talk about (see prior post “Skapinker gives his homeland the Bronx Cheer part 2” April 6-09). As you may recall, one of his complaints about the Canadian tech ecosystem was the lack of repeat entrepreneurs for VCs to finance.

That claim leapt into the minds of many of us when Osama Arafat, CEO of Q9 Networks, received the Entrepreneur of the Year Award at the annual CVCA AGM in Calgary two weeks ago. For those who didn’t know, Mr. Arafat started Q9 at the encouragement of JLA Ventures and VenGrowth Partners earlier this decade. With that encouragement came a very large whack of funding. And a big return last year for all concerned, with the $17+/share sale to a U.S.-based private equity shop.

Prior to Q9, Mr. Arafat co-led Isolation Systems (an award-winning manufacturer of VPN solutions). In 1994, Mr. Arafat co-founded InfoRamp (one of Toronto’s largest and best known Internet service providers). Sounds like a repeat entrepreneur to me, despite the Skapinker myth.

As for the myth that there are a lack of VCs with the wisdom to back the next Arafat, one can’t help but notice that the VenGrowth team, for example, has been an investor in three of the last four CVCA Entrepreneur of the Year Award winners: Sandvine, Lakeport and Q9.

Isolation’s second round was backed by Covington, GrowthWorks, JLA (also the Series A funder) and VenGrowth. $13MM of total VC funding; $55.5MM M&A exit.

What about that myth, promoted by Roger Martin among others, that LSIF funds can’t make a good investment to save their lives (see prior posts “This is Roger Martin, reporting from Mars” November 25-08 and “The great LSIF myth” July 2-08)?

Straight to the dustbin.

MRM