Venture Capital

June 15, 2009

Exploiting a Position of Power

Last week there was a meme flying around about "things VCs would never admit to."  If you read TheFunded, a decent amount of the posts follow the same theme (although far less than many folks think).  While I've always been slightly annoyed by these "traits" of VC, I've never paid it much mind and frankly don't care.  First it's a sweeping generalization that is right as often as it's wrong and second I don't think it's unique to VC but rather is a symptom of a relationship between two parties with asymmetrical power/influence.  Naturally the "weaker" party complains and the "stronger" party dismisses.  I've always thought that entrepreneurs are equally guilty of exploiting asymmetrical relationships (which is one reason I don't sweat this as much as some entrepreneurs do).  Well, today I saw a brilliant YouTube video that captures my point.  If you're an entrepreneur and you cringe and see a little bit of yourself in this video, remember that the next time you get it back from a VC.

My view on this is to treat people like you would like to be treated and avoid doing business with those who do not. I've learned this rule the hard way but when I stick to it, I have no complaints.

June 09, 2009

Successories' New Line of Posters for Venture Capitalists

Not really, but I had to chuckle when I saw this.  Of course like any good joke, there is enough truth to these to be funny.

June 07, 2009

Entrepreneurs on Twitter

I've been wondering how the previous list of entrepreneur bloggers I posted maps to Twitter so I redid the list (order is now by Twitter followers which is the number in parentheses).  80% of the bloggers on the list are on Twitter.  One thing that jumps out immediately is that several of the top bloggers are not (yet) on Twitter including: Seth Godin, Markus Frind, Linus Torvalds and Marc Andreessen among others.  I suspect there's a "sunk cost" argument driving this.  I think one of the reasons that Twitter is so popular is that it is a rare opportunity to redo the natural order of things (as evidenced by the changes indicated in the list below).  It is also a lot easier to Twitter than to blog. If you want to bulk scribe to all of these folks, see the instructions at the bottom of the list:

  1. Evan Williams, 0 (@ev) CEO @ Twitter (858,155)
  2. Kevin Rose, +13 (@kevinrose) Founder Digg (759,376)
  3. Tim O'Reilly, +3 (@timoreilly) Founder / CEO of O'Reilly Media (525,728)
  4. Rob McNealy (@robmcnealy) Entrepreneur (97,989)
  5. Jason Calacanis, +3 (@jasoncalacanis) CEO of Mahalo (68,583)
  6. Chris Pirillo, +9 (@chrispirillo) Geek, Internet entrepreneur, hardware addict, et al (65,181)
  7. Jerell Klaver, 0 (@jerell) Co-founder Salas Bath (60,578)
  8. Mark Cuban, +11 (@mcuban) Owner Dallas Mavericks; Founder Broadcast.com (59,888)
  9. Ed Stivala, 0 (@N3W_Media) Founder @ N3W_media (48,126) 
  10. Jeff Pulver, +13 (@jeffpulver) VOIP entrepreneur (26,538)
  11. Loic Le Meur, +20 (@loic) Founder / CEO Seesmic, Founder Le Web (26,499)
  12. Dave McClure, +20  (@davemcclure) Serial entrepreneur now adviser (20,100)
  13. Arianna Huffington, 0 (@ariannahuff) Founder Huffington Post (12,279) 
  14. Craig Newmark, +25 (@craignewmark) Craig from Craigslist (12,030)
  15. Jason Fried, -6 (@jasonfried) 37signals co-founder Jason Fried (11,475)
  16. David Heinemeier Hansson, -2 (@dhh) Co-founder 37signals (11,249)
  17. Paul Stamatiou, +29 (@stammy) Founder / CEO @ Skribit (11,204)
  18. Anil Dash, +25 (@anildash) Co-founder Six Apart (11,041)
  19. Ross Mayfield, +7 (@ross) Co-founder / President of SocialText (10,970)
  20. Joel Spolsky, -13 (@spolsky) Founder / CEO at Fog Creek Software (9,558)
  21. Mitch Kapor, +55 (@mkapor) Founder Lotus (9,287)
  22. Jason Shellen, +29 (@shellen) Founder / CEO at Plinky (7,555)
  23. Dharmesh Shah, -6 (@dharmesh) Founder / CEO of HubSpot (7,102)
  24. David Sifry, +6 (@dsifry) Founder / CEO at Technorati (6,713)
  25. Caterina Fake, +18 (@caterina) Co-founder Flickr (6,595)
  26. Steve Woda, +50 (@stevewoda) Founder buySAFE (5,792) 
  27. Elliott Ng, 0 (@elliottng) VP Marketing @ Kango.com (4,843)
  28. Maggie Fox, 0 (@maggiefox) CEO @ Social Media Group (4,797)
  29. Andrew Chen, -3 (@anderw_chen) Serial entrepreneur (3,971)
  30. Garrett Camp, 0 (@gmc) Founder / CEO @ StumbleUpon (3,576)
  31. Charlie O'Donnell, 0 (@ceonyc) Founder / CEO @ Path 101 
  32. Jonathan Schwartz, -13 (@SunCEOBlog) CEO at Sun (2,964)
  33. Christopher Carfi, +9 (@ccarfi) Co-founder Cerado (2,820)
  34. Eric Ries, +10 (@ericries) CTO and serial entrepreneur (2,639)
  35. Jon Bischke, 0 (@jonbischke) Founder / CEO @ EduFire (2,484) 
  36. Rahul Sood, +26 (@rahulsood) Founder VoodooPC (1,889)
  37. Nivi Babak, -15 (@nivi) Entrepreneurs helping entrepreneurs succeed (1,637)
  38. TheFunded, -3 (@thefunded) Various C-level executives at startups (1,582)
  39. Benjamin Yoskovitz, -7 (@byosko) Founder / CEO StandoutJobs (1,477)
  40. Rajesh Setty, +1 (@upbeatnow) Serial entrepreneur (1,405)
  41. Dan Bricklin, -7 (@danb) VisiCalc co-creater (1,365)
  42. Steve Blank, -5 (@sgblank) Retired serial entrepreneur now professor of entrepreneurship (1,304)
  43. Prasad Thammineni, +23 (@pixily_CEO) Serial entrepreneur and founder at Pixily (1,246)
  44. Mark Pincus, +26 (@markpinc) Serial entrepreneur / recovering VC (1,224)
  45. Gabor Cselle, +9 (@gabor) A blog about email and startups (1,175)
  46. Leon Ho, 0 (@leonho) Founder Stepcase & blogger @ Lifehack (1,193) 
  47. James Hong, +6 (@jhong) Founder Hot or Not (1,111)
  48. Tony Wright, +8 (@webright) Founder / CEO RescueTime (1,024)
  49. Mick Hagen, 0 (@mickhagen) Founder @ Zinch (968) 
  50. Jana Eggers, +28 (@jeggers) CEO of SPRD.net AG (879)
  51. David Cancel, +25 (@dcancel) Co-founder & CTO at Lookery.com (823)
  52. Sean Ellis, +7 (@seanellis) Serial CMO / VP Marketing (818)
  53. Daniel Tunkelang, +18 (@dtunkelang) Chief Scientist at Endeca (769)
  54. Naval Ravikant, -30 (@naval) Entrepreneurs helping entrepreneurs succeed (762)
  55. Pito Salas, +27 (@pitosalas) Founder BlogBridge; former CTO eRoom (754)
  56. Adam Wexler, 0 (@thewordpainter) Founder Rank'em (616)  
  57. Philip Hotchkiss, 0 (@philiphotchkiss) Founder / CEO @ BigCharts (564) 
  58. Steve Barsh, +14 (@sbarsh) Serial enterpreneur / interim executive (561)
  59. Barney Pell, +6 (@barneyp) CEO of Powerset (556)
  60. Laurent Feral-Pierssens, +34 (@lfp) Founder / CEO Silentale (532)
  61. Sean Lindsay, 0 (@rseanlindsay) Co-founder / CTO @ Viximo (517) 
  62. David Hauser, +30 (@dh) Co-founder ReturnPath; CEO Grasshopper (487)
  63. Jonathan Mendez, -20 (@jonathanmendez) Serial entrepreneur, online ad expert (477)
  64. Greg Reinacker, 0 (@gregr) Founder & CTO at NewsGator (477)
  65. Joe Krauss, -13 (@jkraus) Entrepreneur (473)
  66. Furqan Nazeeri, -13 (@altgate) Startups, venture capital & everything in between (428)
  67. Jules Pieri, +24 (@julespieri) CEO at Daily Grommet (414)
  68. Carson McComas, -36 (@carson) Entrepreneur (419)
  69. Jonathan Gross, 0 (@rubp) Founder / CEO @ BioDATA (393)
  70. Matt Blumberg, -13 (@mattblumberg) CEO @ ReturnPath (368)
  71. Alan Meckler, +17 (@alanmeckler) CEO WebMediaBrands (351)
  72. Dave Kellogg, -6 (@ramblingman) CEO of Mark Logic Corporation (349)
  73. Jeff Bennett, -2 (@dealsbennett) Entrepreneur (347) 
  74. Valto Loikkanen, 0 (@valto) Serial entrepreneur (339)
  75. Brian Balfour, 0 (@bbalfour) Co-founder / VP Product @ Viximo (287) 
  76. Various Entrepreneurs, +16 (@founding) Founder Institute (286)
  77. Doug Levin, +13 (@dalev) Entrepreneur / former CEO at Black Duck Software (258)
  78. Sim Simeonov, -4 (@simeons) Entrepreneur; recovering VC (248)
  79. Andrew Payne, -3 (@payne92) Serial entrepreneur (240)
  80. Angus Davis, 0 (@angusdav) Entrepreneur (199) 
  81. James Siminoff, -4 (@grid) Founder / CEO at PhoneTag (184)
  82. Alain Raynaud, +3 (@alain94040) Founder FairSoftware (182)
  83. Michael Gracie, (@michaelgracie) Serial COO / CTO (174)
  84. Alicia Rismach, 0 (@aliciarismach) Co-founder and VP @ SeerGate (163) 
  85. Colin Wong, 0 (@colinwong) CEO @ Zoecity.com (133) 
  86. Tom Keller, +15 (@tkeller) Founder & former CEO of Intense Debate (117)
  87. Matt Lauzon, 0 (@mattlauzon) Founder Paragon Lake (110)
  88. Jay Jamison, +19 (@jeremiahjamison) Serial entrepreneur (100)
  89. Bert Armijo, -12 (@barmijo) Co-founder & SVP at 3tera (81)
  90. Charles Teague, +1 (@dragonstyle) Technologist-in-Residence at General Catalyst (59)
  91. Jon Gillespie-Brown, +13 (@gillespiebrown) Serial entrepreneur (40)
  92. Brian Shin, -2 (@brianshin) Founder / CEO at Visible Measures (14)

If you want to bulk subscribe to all of these folks, one way is to use NinjaFollow.  You can copy these screen names and paste them into NinjaFollow, press submit and voila! 

Lastly, I'm sure there are many entrepreneurs on Twitter that didn't show up in this list (which was originally created as a list of entrepreneur bloggers).  Post comments here with my omissions.

June 01, 2009

Directory of Blogs by Entrepreneurs

This post was inspired by Fidelity Ventures Partner Larry Cheng who recently compiled a list of VC blogs and ranked them in order of Google Reader subscribers.  I have a few hundred feeds that I follow in Google Reader and the way that I find new ones is a random process of discovery so Larry's post was great in that he not only provided a rank-ordered list but also a convenient way to mass subscribe.

VC bloggers are fascinating to follow.  But I also love to follow blogs by entrepreneurs.  It's an unique viewpoint and one that I find that I learn a lot from.  So with that in mind, I created a list of entrepreneur blogs.  The criteria for inclusion on this list is rough but basically boils down to the primary author of the blog has to be a founder or C-level executive at an entrepreneurial organization and write relatively frequently about entrepreneurial stuff.  In compiling the list I made several exceptions.  For example, I included TheFunded which is not a single author blog but rather a feed from a members-only network of entrepreneurs and I included Marc Andreesson who has great stuff on his blog but he just hasn't written anything new in a while.

My list has many biases.  For example, it's tilted toward authors in the US who write about "tech" companies but I would love to expand and grow the reach.  So if you know of other blogs that should be included on this list, post a comment here and I'll update the list.

Lastly, here is a Google Bundle for the list.  Full disclosure: I included this blog in the bundle which you can feel free to delete.

  1. Joel Spolsky, Founder / CEO at Fog Creek Software (64,598)
  2. Seth Godin, Founder of Yoyodyne; creator of "permission marketing" (41,957)
  3. Jason Fried, 37signals co-founder Jason Fried (and other 37signals employees) (31,595)
  4. Tim O'Reilly, Founder / CEO of O'Reilly Media (10,269)
  5. Jason Calacanis, CEO of Mahalo (10,000) [note: this is an email list & not in Google bundle]
  6. Linus Torvalds, Creator of Linux (8,436)
  7. Jonathan Schwartz, CEO at Sun (7,750)
  8. David Heinemeier Hansson, Co-founder 37signals (7,000)
  9. Nivi Babak & Naval Ravikant, Entrepreneurs helping entrepreneurs succeed (6,897)
  10. Dharmesh Shah, Founder / CEO of HubSpot (6,723)
  11. Sergey Brin, Co-founder Google (5,782)
  12. Chris Pirillo, Geek, Internet entrepreneur, hardware addict, et al (5,437)
  13. Marc Andresseen, Co-founder of Netscape, Loudcloud, et al (5,116)
  14. Kevin Rose, Founder Digg (4,496) 
  15. Carson McComas, Entrepreneur (4,064)
  16. Mark Cuban, Owner Dallas Mavericks; Founder Broadcast.com (4,062)
  17. Andrew Chen, Analysis on viral marketing, freemium, design & online ads (2,407)
  18. Markus Frind, CEO of Plentyoffish.com (1,966)
  19. Jeff Pulver, VOIP entrepreneur (1,709)
  20. Benjamin Yoskovitz, Instigating discussion, ideas and better business (1,477)
  21. Ross Mayfield, Co-founder / President of SocialText (1,248)
  22. Dan Bricklin, VisiCalc co-creater (1,159)
  23. TheFunded, Various C-level executives at startups (1,137)
  24. David Sifry, Founder / CEO at Technorati (1,093)
  25. Steve Blank, Retired serial entrepreneur now professor of entrepreneurship (1,062)
  26. Jonathan Mendez, Serial entrepreneur, online ad expert (1,087) 
  27. Loic Le Meur, Founder / CEO Seesmic, Founder Le Web (855)  
  28. Dave McClure, Serial entrepreneur now adviser (796)
  29. Rajesh Setty, Serial entrepreneur (683)
  30. Wil Schroter, Founder Go Big Network (781)
  31. Christopher Carfi, Co-founder Cerado (761)
  32. Shai Agassi, Musing on alternative energy, electric cars and other topics (670)
  33. Eric Ries, CTO and serial entrepreneur (627) 
  34. Craig Newmark, Craig from Craigslist (609)
  35. Joe Krauss, Entrepreneur (578)
  36. Furqan Nazeeri, Startups, venture capital & everything in between (508)
  37. Caterina Fake, Co-founder Flickr (479)
  38. Anil Dash, Co-founder Six Apart (472)
  39. Matt Blumberg, A first-time CEO writes about entrepreneurship and email (438)
  40. James Hong, Founder Hot or Not (426) 
  41. Paul Stamatiou, Tech News, Reviews & Guides (379)
  42. Gabor Cselle, A blog about email and startups (337)
  43. Tony Wright, Founder / CEO RescueTime (291)
  44. Jason Shellen, Founder / CEO at Plinky (281)
  45. Sean Ellis, Serial CMO / VP Marketing (266)
  46. Tom Szaky, CEO at TerraCycle (263)
  47. Greg Reinacker, Founder & CTO at NewsGator (240)
  48. Dave Kellogg, CEO of Mark Logic Corporation (210)
  49. Barney Pell, CEO of Powerset (165)
  50. Rahul Sood, Founder VoodooPC (159)
  51. Antonio Rodriguez, Founder / CEO at Tabblo.com (142)
  52. Bert Armijo, Co-founder & SVP at 3tera (133)
  53. Sim Simeonov, Entrepreneur; recovering VC (115)
  54. Jon Bischke, Founder / CEO @ EduFire (114) 
  55. Prasad Thammineni, Serial entrepreneur and founder at Pixily (111)
  56. James Siminoff, Founder / CEO at PhoneTag (94)
  57. Steve Barsh, Serial enterpreneur / interim executive (92)
  58. Daniel Tunkelang, Chief Scientist at Endeca (91)
  59. Mark Pincus, Serial entrepreneur / recovering VC (91)
  60. Adeo Ressi, Entrepreneur, environmentalist & founder of TheFunded.com (70)
  61. Terry Gold, Serial entrepreneur (57)
  62. Andrew Payne, Serial entrepreneur (50)
  63. David Cancel, Co-founder & CTO at Lookery.com (41)
  64. Alain Raynaud, Founder FairSoftware (41)
  65. Jana Eggers, CEO of SPRD.net AG (36)
  66. Brian Shin, Founder / CEO at Visible Measures (34)
  67. Charles Teague, Technologist-in-Residence at General Catalyst (30)
  68. Michael Gracie, Serial COO / CTO (30)
  69. Pito Salas, Founder BlogBridge; former CTO eRoom (23)
  70. Doug Levin, Entrepreneur / former CEO at Black Duck Software (21)
  71. John Nesheim, Engineer & veteran of Silicon Valley (20)
  72. Mitch Kapor, Founder Lotus (20) 
  73. Various Entrepreneurs, Founder Institute (20) 
  74. Jeff Bennett, Experiences as an enterpreneur with social media and eCommerce (18)
  75. Mick Hagen, Founder @ Zinch (16) 
  76. Aaron Cohen, Serial entrepreneur (15)
  77. Apolinaras Sinkevicius, Startup ops guy (14)
  78. Steve Woda, Founder buySAFE (11) 
  79. Jules Pieri, CEO at Daily Grommet (10)
  80. David Hauser, Co-founder ReturnPath; CEO Grasshopper (10)
  81. Leon Ho, Founder Stepcase blogger @ lifehack (10)
  82. Alan Isfan, Co-founder / CEO at FaveQuest (8)
  83. Tom Keller, Founder & former CEO of Intense Debate (6)
  84. Laurent Feral-Pierssens, Founder / CEO Silentale (6)
  85. Jon Gillespie-Brown, Serial entrepreneur (6)
  86. Alan Meckler, CEO WebMediaBrands (4)
  87. Edward Daciuk, Investing, entrepreneurship, music, reading & life (3)
  88. Jay Jamison, Serial entrepreneur (3) 

May 14, 2009

"What's Next in Tech" Event in Boston

Boston Globe tech columnist Scott Kirsner is organizing an event here in Boston next month where the theme will be technology innovation in New England.  

A few weeks ago when I was talking with Scott about the event he asked what I thought was "next in technology."  I think one of the biggest new opportunities is going to be a new class of companies that are now viable investments because of improvements in capital efficiency over the past few years.  Until relatively recently, the capital requirements of technology businesses were quite large.  You would have to spend millions of dollars hiring software developers, renting real estate, buying hardware, etc. just to build a product which you could then start selling (and in reality test whether there was a market at all).  Rarely did you get it right the first time so you would have to repeat the cycle until you had a complete solution the market wanted.

An entire entrepreneurial ecosystem was built up around this model including venture capitalists who would fund the big investments provided there was a big market, entrepreneurs who would start the companies and seasoned executives who would take over once the business outgrew the founders.
S-curves

The "old" model is represented in the blue curve above: lots of money in and (hopefully) lots of money out.  What's happened (#1 in the chart) is that improvements in capital efficiency have "bent the curve" so that less money is required to get to positive cash flow.  In some cases dramatically less money is required.  What this means for entrepreneurs and investors is that you can now pursue opportunities that have smaller potential outcomes (#2 in the chart) and get the same (or better) return on investment.

What has caused this improvement in capital efficiency?

Many folks, including me, have written about the trends that are driving down costs. Some of the big ones are open source, cloud computing and virtual office infrastructure.  In some cases costs today are 1/10 that of even 5 years ago.  AWS is a great example.  The virtual office tools today are so impressive that you can source talent globally and simultaneously improve productivity while cutting costs--unthinkable 10 years ago.

It is important to remember that this doesn't mean the big market opportunities meriting large investments have gone away.  I fully expect the market for big ideas to continue to grow.  Rather, what it means is that there is a *new* opportunity to invest in companies pursuing smaller opportunities but the manner in which you pursue them (as an entrepreneur or investor) needs to change.  On the investment side, it means putting in less money, being more on-par with management in terms of rights and preferences, having less control.  The investment won't work if you spend $80K on legal fees preparing investment documents that include things like registration rights and all those other terms that will never get used.  As an entrepreneur it means bootstrap, bootstrap, bootstrap.  Spend nickels like they were manhole covers.  In some ways it reminds me of that Michael Lewis book Money Ball and how the Oakland A's found ways to win with a small payroll.

Anyway, so that's my crack at "what's next in tech."  What do you think Scott?  And, oh, by the way, come to the event on June 25.

May 01, 2009

More on the "VC Math Problem"

Fred Wilson started this thread with a couple of great posts on why the VC industry is having problems scaling.  The real interesting part of Fred's post is the volume and quality of comments.  I've never seen such a focused (in time or topic) discussion that creates value.  The bottom line take away (for me) is that VC is capacity limited by the value of exits (M&A plus IPOs).  I'm a visual person so here's how I see it:

Vc_math_problem
Entrepreneurs start companies and the founders ("F" in my chart) invest capital which they grow with sweat equity and then limited partners ("LPs") invest capital via VCs which in turn grows the pie to the eventual "exit" (which comes in the form of M&A or IPOs).  In order to increase "A" or "B" you necessarily have to increase "C."  

According to Fred's posts, the "math problem" in VC is that LPs have been investing capital in VC funds at the clip of about $25 billion per year for the past decade (excluding 1999 and 2000 which were strange years).  But based on a bunch of different estimates of the "exit" market, it would seem to be that only justifies an investment by VC of about $10-15 billion annually...thus the "math problem."

Over on TheFunded, there's a thread which attempts to make the argument that VCs are bad "stock pickers" and that, in fact, the market could be 2X its current capacity if they were funding more companies.  I've taken some heat over there for being skeptical of that claim.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong....but show me the data!

April 26, 2009

2009 Startup Executive Compensation Survey Opens

I've mentioned this survey several times before, but this time I bring news of the 2009 survey opening to participants.  This year the survey covers five countries (China, India, Israel, UK and US) in two industries (technology and life sciences).  If you are CEO or CFO of a startup company in any of these countries/industries then I encourage you to participate in the survey.  It doesn't cost anything to participate (other than the 30-60 minutes it takes to complete the survey) and the benefit is that you get the full results once they are published.

In years past, the results were published in a PDF and a hardcopy book, but starting in 2009 the results will be published online via a password protected, members-only site (so participating is really the only way you can get the results).  I think the 2009 data will be very interesting as it will reflect the effects of the overall economy as well as provide global comparisons.  Don't miss the opportunity to get the 2009 data...take the survey now!

If you haven't seen the results of this survey before, I'm including both of last year's unabridged reports results below.  It's actually pretty simple, yet since the data is otherwise so hard to find it's pretty powerful.  Basically the survey collects salary, cash bonus and equity information for the top executives in private companies (mostly venture- and preventure-backed companies).  The survey also collects information about the background of the executives and of the company (like location, size, funding, industry, etc.).  The report is then able to give ranges of compensation based on these attributes.  

First, there is the 2008 report for the technology industry focused on the following positions:

Technology

  • CEO
  • President / COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Head of Engineering
  • Head of Sales
  • Head of Marketing
  • Head of Business Development
  • Head of HR
  • Head of Professional Services
  • Board of Directors


And here is the full 2008 report for the life sciences industry focused on the following positions:

Life Sciences

  • CEO
  • President / COO
  • CFO
  • Chief Scientific Officer / Head of R&D
  • Chief Business Officer / Head of Biz Dev
  • Head of Clinical Research
  • Head of Regulatory Affairs
  • Head of Manufacturing
  • Head of Sales (& Marketing)
  • Head of Marketing
  • CTO
  • Head of Engineering
  • Head of HR
  • Board of Directors



There are some things that immediately jump out of the data.  One is that company founders have a significant discount in terms of cash compensation (but obviously a premium in equity).  Another point is that the equivalent role in a technology company is compensated at a lower level than in life sciences.  
So if you are a startup CEO of CFO (whether you have venture backing or not) please take the time to go complete the survey and you'll get the 2009 results for free.  And also you can do a friend a favor and forward this post to them so they can fill out the survey as well.

April 22, 2009

Law Firm Wilson Sonsini Now Preparing Term Sheets For Free

No, this isn't a recessionary move to give away unbilled lawyer time nor is it some sort of shift to being a pro-bono only firm.  Today, Wilson Sonsini announced the launch of a "term sheet generator."  It's basically a web tool that creates draft preferred financing term sheets for startups.  I got a preview of it a couple of weeks ago and my review is that it is really impressive!

The way the tool works is that you answer a bunch of questions (north of 100) and then when you are complete it gives you a perfectly formatted Word file term sheet.  Most of the questions are structured as "select from" several options often with an optional to "write your own."  The beauty of having the option to select from "standard" options is that WSGR has included some market data, e.g. what percent of term sheets in up rounds in 2008 included this term.  Last year, I spent a lot of time attempting to reverse engineer this data based on a small personal sample size.  Obviously, WSGR has a much larger sample size and the fact that they make it public (in aggregate) is impressive.

The Term Sheet Generator originated as an internal tool for WSGR attorneys to rapidly generate draft term sheets which they would polish up and then deliver to their clients.  Not surprisingly, WSGR Partner Yokum Taku, who I've previously written about, is the key co-conspirator behind making this tool public.  I exchanged email with Yokum about this tool and I wanted to excerpt a few take aways from that conversation:

  • Apparently this is the first of many online document generator tools that WSGR intends to make publicly available on the web.  There are three categories (startup, equity financing and bridge loans) so we can expect more to come.
     
  • I would have thought that internally there would have been a debate about giving away for free what they used to charge for, but Yokum insists this did not come up.
     
  • The biggest challenge in building this tool is that each branch in the question tree is associated with unique verbiage.  Building that must have been crazy.

So I think this is a brilliant step toward "open source law" which I've been advocating for a while.  I am certain there will be hundreds (ne thousands) of lawyers who will use the WSGR Term Sheet Generator to create draft term sheets for use with their clients.  In fact, I bet Google Analytics will quickly show Yokum and his colleagues at WSGR that his real userbase for this tool will be other attorneys both at firms and inhouse.  What this tool really wants to evolve to is having an open, wiki-style back end where practitioners can change and comment on the myriad of options and verbiage which would keep the tool evergreen based on the best crowdsourced legal opinions.

In the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of watermarking of term sheets created by the tool that would allow WSGR to offer discounted legal fees if they created the draft term sheet using the tool.  It would certainly reduce WSGR's time/costs as they would know the underlying terms

April 20, 2009

There is Too Much Venture Capital...Not Too Little

Over the weekend I saw a report from the NVCA about the amount of money US venture funds had invested in the first quarter which Adeo at TheFunded summarized well.  The bottom line is that VC funds invested a total of $3 billion in startups which is the lowest amount since at least 1998 and significantly lower than after the dot-com crash.  The knee jerk reaction would be to conclude that the credit crunch has made its way to the private equity asset class and they are simply investing less because they have fewer funds available.

But I'm not so sure that is the case.  According to TechCrunch, the amount of capital that VC and private equity firms have raised over the past few quarters exceeds that invested.

Net_vc_money
I plotted the two sets of data which are basically the amount of money that goes *in* and comes *out* of VC.  The green bar is the quarterly net of the two, i.e. it shows whether money is accumulating in funds or not and the purple line is the cumulative net flow.

What you see is that aside from Q4 of last year, money has been accumulating in venture funds for the past 2 years; to the tune of about $6 billion dollars.  If these data are correct, then it would mean that the problem is not having enough capital to invest, but rather not having enough companies to invest in.

So what would cause this kind of imbalance, i.e. an excess of capital relative to companies to invest in?  The first thing to check is are there fewer companies.  I couldn't get great data, but at the macro level the answer is no (the US Census Bureau shows 370,000 more companies in 2006 than in 2000).  My hypothesis is that, while there are more companies seeking funding, their are actually fewer companies in total that meet the VC's investment criteria, specifically the companies need less money than the VCs want/need to invest.  What is driving this is three things:
  1. Open source.
  2. Cloud computing. 
  3. Virtual office infrastructure. 
These three forces have dramatically cut costs over the past few years and in turn hugely improved capital efficiency.  No longer do companies have to hire armies of programmers and buy buildings full of hardware to launch a business.  And the virtual office powered by Skype, Basecamp, Gmail, WebEx, et al is at least as efficient in terms of productivity as a traditional office but at a fraction of the cost.  The bottom line is that companies no longer need millions of dollars for real estate, hardware and employees which they would have needed even just a few years ago and this in turn takes them out of the VC's consideration set.

How ironic is that the one thing (capital efficiency) that VCs promote above all else is the thing that threatens their business model?

So this could explain why VCs have been accumulating capital over the past couple of years.  They basically have fewer companies that meet their investment criteria (which, by the way, means there is a huge, growing class of companies that need an alternate form of funding).  Now, I know someone is going to post a comment saying that the VC funding numbers are over estimates because they do not factor in failures to meet capital calls.  That could be true.  I've heard the anecdotes too, although it's a recent phenomenon which wouldn't explain the net funding imbalance 2 years ago.  And until I see the numbers I'm not sure how to plot a story on the chart above...

April 17, 2009

For Entrepreneurs "Financial Exit" is a Dangerous Misnomer

Riverboat I've always hated the term "exit" when used to describe the sale of a startup.  Entrepreneurs don't use it that much, although I've noticed recently it's become more popular.  The term originates from the venture investor community and is used to describe when the investor sells their ownership stake in a portfolio company, i.e. the point at which you can measure whether you have made or lost money.

The problem is that the company being sold, the employees, customers, suppliers and the new buyer all remain and have certainly not "exited." 

I've always liked that line in the movie Deep Impact where the old astronaut played by Robert Duvall says something like, "On the old Mississippi, riverboat captains could not know the whole route of the ever-changing mighty Mississippi so they would come aboard to navigate their stretch and then hand off to the next captain." 

That's how I think "exits" should be described...as "hand offs."  Entrepreneurs (and investors for that matter) are just custodians of a company during their time and their objective should be to hand off the firm to the next captain in the best shape possible and poised for further growth and success. 

Viewed this way, you have a platform for many repeat successes and not a transactional pump-and-dump scheme.

March 16, 2009

Global Nuances of Startup Compensation

I mentioned in a previous post how I'm an adviser to the folks behind the annual survey of startup executive compensation and how this year the survey is expanding to include China, India, Israel and the UK.  So for the past few weeks I've been talking to venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, CEOs and other industry participants in these countries and learning a ton about the local startup ecosystems.

World_currency One thing that has surprised me is how prevalent the "American" model of entrepreneurship and venture capital is in these countries.  The notion of entrepreneurs starting companies and having substantial ownership then hiring employees who also have ownership in the company and then raising capital from outside investors is universal.  Of course, when it comes to compensation there are always things unique to the local business culture.  Some of the more interesting things I've learned include:

  1. Salaries in Israel are described monthly.  So instead of saying $120K per year, you'd say $10K per month (in Sheqels, of course).  And it's not always clear whether it is gross or net of taxes (you have to ask).
     
  2. In India and China there is no preferred stock.  This one really surprised me but apparently in India and China VCs don't get a different class of stock with special rights and privileges.  However, apparently it is not unusual for investors to demand side letters that confer much of the rights customary in a typical US preferred security, effectively creating a "synthetic preferred stock."  I wonder if these have been tested in any courts...anyone had personal insight into that?

  3. In India and the UK there seem to be two types of startups. There are the "Old School" type with a Managing Director and having limited equity ownership by management and employees and the "American style" startup run by a CEO and with compensation schemes that would be recognizable here in the US.  I'm still a little hazy on how to tell one type from the other.  Anyone have any color on this?
It will be really interesting to see how compensation compares across countries.  That's not what the survey is intended to do, but we should be able to compare a few things (like equity ownership).  I'm not aware of any comparable study like this in the US (let alone globally) so I suspect we'll learn a lot from the results.  The CompStudy survey will open up sometime next month at http://www.compstudy.com/ and will include surveys for China, India, Israel, UK and US each in IT and life sciences.  If you are interested in participating (or promoting) the survey please comment here or send me a private email.

March 08, 2009

The Collapse of the VC Ecosystem & What It Will Look Like Post Recovery

The venture capital ecosystem is in the midst of an historic collapse.  I say ecosystem as opposed to industry because it is not just the VC funds themselves that are imploding, instead the collapse includes entrepreneurs and startups that were funded by VCs, angel investors, service providers like lawyers, bankers and accountants as well as limited partner investors in VC funds.  It doesn't get talked about much because the structure of funds is such that their fall is in slow motion and because all the major players are private companies.  There are no press releases when a fund goes out of business or when partners leave.

Nomansland Like in most things, all VC funds are not affected equally. There are three types of venture investing (early stage, "growth" stage and later stage.  Early stage means the first real investors in a startup when the team could be as small as 5-10 people.  Growth stage investors are usually the Series B or C investors who come in when the product is in the market but there is little or no revenue and the team is probably in the 20-something range with the goal to ramp it up to 40-50 employees with the new money, build out a sales team, etc. Later stage investors typically put money into a company once it has crossed the chasm with at least one product and achieved a $10 million+ revenue run rate.

So in the current collapse, the later stage investors will fare the best, or should I say least worst.  Their portfolio firms will be able to cut back on headcount and other spending and additional capital from investors will allow the companies to survive for the 2-5 years it will take the market to begin to recover.  Later stage funds will end up owning more of their portfolio companies via down rounds and ultimately should see ok returns.

The early stage investors are going to take a huge hit since many of their portfolio companies will be capital starved and will be forced out of business or into fire sales.  But some will be saved.  Many of these early stage companies still have the founder as CEO and they will retrench and "go back to their bootstrap roots."  It's painful, but they will cut headcount back to 5-10 employees (if they haven't already) and they will survive off existing capital ultimately generating a decent return for investors (compared to the benchmark).

Which leaves us with the "growth" stage investors, a.k.a. "Series B" funds.  These VCs will see an almost total wipeout of their portfolios.  The problem is that the portfolio companies of these funds are burning too much cash and they are not yet a real business with any revenue to speak of, certainly not of any scale approaching breakeven.  The problem is compounded by the fact that many of the founding CEOs have been replaced with "professional" CEOs who do not have the DNA or interest in retrenching to 5-10 people and live to fight another day.  All of the Series B investments made in the past couple of years were based on a belief that the market for the companies products would mature over the coming couple of years and that's just not going to happen.

In retrospect, I'm not sure that "Series B" investing is a real business anyway.  To me it's a sort of no man's land between the two trenches of early stage investing and later stage just before exits.  It reminds me of how real estate mortgages were securitized and the guys in the middle were thinking they created value (when in reality they just eliminated responsibility).  Early stage investing is complicated, hard work.  You need to identify "winning" entrepreneurs and big potential markets that don't exist yet.  The later stage guys needs to have relationships and expertise around selling companies.  But the folks in the middle don't really do anything other than fire founding CEOs and add capital.  The "Series B" guys will argue that they have expertise in building sales teams but in reality they often push this too soon and end up creating really inefficient companies that are trying to sell a product/service before it's mature enough.

So the "Series B" investors are going to be pretty much wiped out in this current collapse and I actually don't see them coming back afterward in a way that is recognizable today.  I think the first funds to come back after the collapse are going to be the early stage funds.  These were the first to stop investing last summer and like the economy generally it's a FIFO system (the first group into recession is likely to be the first to come out).  What will happen is that there is going to be a build up of really talented entrepreneurs running underfunded, but great companies and this "over supply" will attract new "Series A" investors. 

The later stage guys may see a pickup about the same time as the Series A guys but I suspect it will take longer (like the recovery after the 2000 crash).  The turning point will come when large corporations that buy these later stage companies have cleaned up their own balance sheets and are again looking for growth opportunities.

So what to do?  Well, it depends what part of the VC ecosystem you are in.  If you're an entrepreneur you should consider a really early stage company (or start one yourself) or you should consider joining a later stage $10-20MM revenue business that has potential, but at all cost avoid the $2MM revenue Series B startup!  If you're a VC yourself, I'd make sure I wasn't stuck in no man's land and I suppose that advice goes for all the other service providers.

UPDATE 1: A few people have asked me if I have any data on an impending collapse of the VC ecosystem or if this is all anecdotal.  As I mentioned earlier, these are all private companies so data is hard to come by.  What I can tell you is that total private equity assets under management was reported as $2.5 trillion as late as last month.  That figure includes $1 trillion of un-invested funds (a.k.a. "dry powder") and $1.5 trillion of unrealized returns.  As everyone knows, what is being reported as dry powder isn't real as many of those LP commitments would not survive a capital call (and thus capital calls aren't being made).  Also, the $1.5 trillion of unrealized returns is by and large the valuation based on the price paid or the most recent round.  And since all assets are down 50% globally in the past year, and there is no reason to believe that VC is any different, that implies that the industry just lost about $750 billion but accounting rules do not require them to declare that yet.  That seems like a collapse to me.

March 04, 2009

Startup Executive Compensation Study Going Global

Compstudy For several years now you've heard me rave about the annual survey of executive compensation at venture backed startups done by J. Robert Scott, Ernst & Young, WilmerHale and HBS Professor Noam Wasserman.  Well, I guess all that raving has gotten me a role in advising the backers of the survey on the next generation of the survey: CompStudy 2.0.

If you aren't familiar with it, the survey asks about 300 questions of around 1,000 startup companies.  The questions focus on cash and equity compensation for executives (about 20 titles covered) and board members and then it looks at a bunch of attributes of the executives and the company.  For example, founder vs non-founder status (big difference in comp), geographic location, headcount, funding, revenue, etc.  The end result is that whether you are a hiring manager, investor or candidate the survey is a valuable tool to understand and negotiating compensation.

There are a lot of really exciting things about the upgraded study that I can't yet talk about (more on that later), but one of them is that the survey is going global.  For the past 9 years, the study has covered the US only in two sectors (IT and life sciences).  But in 2009, the survey is going to be expanded to China, India, Israel and the United Kingdom.

So I'd love a little help from my readers here.  As part of tailoring the survey for each new country I'd like to be able to speak with several investors, CEOs and CFOs (or other folks knowledgeable about executive compensation) in each of China, India, Israel and the United Kingdom.  I checked Google Analytics and there are quite a few visitors from these countries (okay, not so many from China...yet) so please comment here or reach out to me (fn@altgate.com) if you can help.

If you can help me out by answering a bunch of questions and helping tailor the survey I'll make sure that you get access to the survey results in exchange, not to mention being eternally grateful.

February 18, 2009

Scientists Find Positive Correlation Between Wealth & Rudeness

Rude If you are one of the 10,000 members of TheFunded (a private network of entrepreneurs who discuss various things, but mostly aspects of raising venture capital) you will quickly see that, oh, about 1/3 of the conversation is entrepreneurs ranting about how they were treated rudely by some VC.

I always thought that was sour grapes on the part of us entrepreneurs and then today I saw this Bloomberg article.

The article describes research by Stanford scientists who did a study and found that there is a positive correlation between wealth and rudeness.  The hypothesis to explain this behavior is Darwinian.  Basically wealthy people want to show that they have no reliance on others and the preferred way of doing that is to be rude.

If this is true, then it explains a lot.  Since VCs are, on average, wealthier than entrepreneurs seeking their money then it follows that they are systematically rude.

Classic!

February 04, 2009

TheFunded Coming To Boston

MIT_Media_Lab Put this event in your calendar.

On Tuesday, March 10 at 7pm TheFunded is hosting its first event in Boston.  Over 150 CEOs will be in attendance at the MIT Media Lab for talks on business strategy, fundraising and more.  It will be a great opportunity to meet and connect with Boston's finest entrepreneurs.  And if that's not enough, the venue will include some of the most exciting projects at the MIT Media Lab such as the "stackable electric car" and Nexi, the lifelike robot.

Attendance is restricted to startup CEOs and/or company founders only.  TheFunded founder, Adeo Ressi, will be on hand to share his view of the startup world which is incredibly well informed (there are over 10,000 members of TheFunded now.

Click here to register for the event.  Or if you have any questions, feel free to comment here or email me at fn@altgate.com.

Lijit Search

Get Altgate by Email

About Altgate Authors





Recent Comments

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter



    © 2005-2009 Furqan Nazeeri. Some Rights Reserved.