Archive for category Capitalization
Talking money for money with a potential investor
Posted by Steve in Capitalization, Exit Plan on March 1, 2010
Money for money? An investor is going to put money (or something else in your company) and then get money (or something else out). People start throwing around fancy terms like stock, warrants, debentures, etc. Okay, maybe some of those terms are not that fancy, but I like to keep it simple.
What can the investor give you?
What can you give the investor in return?
It boils down to this:
1. What and when do they pay in?
-cash
-effort
-stock in something else
-preferred pricing
-goods & services from another company free or at preferential pricing
2. What do they get for it?
- stock
- sell at IPO
- sell earlier
- when do they get the stock
- can they sell the stock back to the company
- can they buy more stock (warrants)
- preferred pricing on product
- cash out
- other rights
As a reminder, it boils down to these basics. Before you get too fancy, find out what they can provide and what they want! They means investor.
Staging can save money
Posted by Steve in Capitalization, Strategy on October 29, 2009
Two days ago I introduced the idea of creatively reducing costs to lower or avoid the amount of funding needed for investors and to offset a higher sales ramp-up. Yesterday I discussed the idea of finding alternative solutions to just spending money. Today we look at the idea of staging.
Joe wants to start a web design shop. His idea is to have four salespeople, two project managers, and ten developers in house. The project managers would also use contract labor for the overflow. To do this he needs an office (furniture, computers, and a break room) for seventeen people. Quick calculations show that he needs about 150 sq feet per person, and at the current rate of $12/sq ft per year in his area he would need $30,600 per year (or $2550 per month). Furthermore, he would need $1,140,000 in sales in the first year if everyone was to make an average salary of $60,000 (keep in mind we have to take into account payroll taxes). Assuming utilities and miscellaneous come to another $20,000, the total in the first year is $1,220,000.00. This is a burn rate of $102,000 per month.
If Joe lands a large project, he could fund the entire company for a year or two. Otherwise, he would need to come up with sales at this level. Four salespeople would have to do about $25,500 per month in sales. This is actually feasible, considering that once a sales pipeline is started, the sales people could do that. The reality is that most new web shops cannot get this fast up to speed.
Instead, Joe might stage it. First, he needs sales, project management, and production. He can do sales and project management himself and find someone else to work with to do production. Once he lands the first project, he brings on the programmer. As he lands more projects he brings on more programmers and eventually moves into office space. Maybe he uses an executive suite until such time it makes sense to get his own office space. An executive suite is more expensive per square foot but the overall cost is lower and he would get assistance with answering phones, etc.
If Joe focuses entirely on sales and assuming he is a decent salesperson (which he is), he figures he could do about $200,000 in the first year (ramping up to $25,000 per month in four months, and then doing about that much). With that amount he should hire a salesperson, and a programmer. He could do the project management as well as lead generation. Furthermore, Joe invests his own money into himself and instead of taking $60,000 takes only $30,000 in the first year. This leaves $33,000 for other expenses (remember payroll taxes). An executive suite setup may cost $1000 per month, which leaves another $21,000 for other expenses. This is definitely doable and Joe may be able to fund the entire company himself for the first year without having to worry about loans or investors.
The staging comes to play as Joe lands bigger jobs and more work. Every $100,000 he plans on adding one salesperson and half a project manager. When enough work is going out the door to warrant hiring a full time programmer they hire someone. As they grow they stage each expansion until the point they have 16 employees and the ability to support to the sales and production of $1,220,000 per year.
Had Joe not staged it and hired everyone at once, but each salesperson only brought in $200,000 then that would result in a shortfall of $420,000 in the first year. If Joe does not have that money he goes out of business within 8 months.
This is also known as bootstrapping. As you grow you expand, and you start at a point that is sustainable. By staging his growth, Joe saves $420,000 in the first year and saves his company.
Reducing costs in creative ways
Posted by Steve in Capitalization on October 28, 2009
Reducing costs.
Sounds simple and everyone uses it as a buzzword. Here are a few ways startups can reduce costs:
- Instead of buying new equipment buy used. One startup was planning on spending $3495 on a new vinyl printer/cutter. They found one on Craigslist for $700 and it included a number of rolls of vinyl at no extra cost.
- Instead of both founders quitting their jobs have them work part-time and take no or little salary. It will take up more of their time, and it will make tough decisions between working the second job and “spare time” but that is the tough choices that need to be made.
- Instead of renting or buying a large facility, look for something smaller, or part of someone else’s space that you can rent from them. You get a more affordable space and exposure to their clientele. They get money for space they are not using.
- Providing space to a customer that provides you services in exchange. Cash is not exchanged but both companies get something of value.
The central idea is to reduce costs by finding alternative solutions that deliver the same thing: used vs. new, resources paid in ways other than cash, reducing the quality without compromising expectations, and by trading instead of cash.
Big Plans Can be TOO BIG
Posted by Steve in Capitalization on October 27, 2009
Most startups have big plans on providing fabulous products and services. They will be in glorious facilities, many employees using the latest equipment, and creating the best products/services. A business will either need a lot of funding or a lot of sales from the onset to support these operating costs.
The harsh reality is that most businesses will not get either of these. Funding on the scale that most startups want usually only goes to companies with existing sales, existing relationships, or founders with track records of raising money and making money. I have done a number of proformas for startups and it always comes down to this: how do you do reduce your need on super funding and super initial sales?
For example, a company may have an initial burn rate of $60,000 per month. Their sales in month one is zero and they have no existing contracts. They expect to eventually do $100,000 in sales per month (this is a small business). They are not going to do that right away. If they are lucky it will ramp up within the first year.
So in 12 months they make $650,000 and spend $720,000 which leaves a shortfall of $70,000. Not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but say they only have $25,000. What do they do? They may be able to find investors for the $45,000.00; but what if their sales projections are off, and they only do half that amount? Then they are off by $375,000 (still include their $25,000).
I always look at the following things that they can directly control: reducing costs, stage buying things, and stage expansion.
State of Venture Capital 10-12-2009
Posted by Steve in Capitalization, Miscellaneous on October 12, 2009
Bottom line, it has been a dismal quarter for venture capital firms raising money. Total of 17 firms raised 1.557 Billion dollars with three firms raising 65% of that. Visit this link, an article by Jay Yarow at the Silicon Alley Insider to get the details along with a quarter by quarter chart of the last two years.
Yarow writes, “It’s an 81% drop from a year ago, and a second quarter of declines.”
What does this mean?
1. It will be harder to get money from venture capital firms since they are having a harder time raising money. Smaller supply means smaller opportunity.
2. Firms looking for capital will have to fight harder and focus more on the points of my model rather than just wing it.
3. Firms already with funding from venture capital firms will be more likely than firms with out venture capital funding for getting more funding. VCs rather bet on what they know than the unknown. However, this does not mean the money will be easy for these already funded firms.
4. Firms will have to find alternative routes to getting funding; or will have to focus more on organic growth (sales) than anything else to get larger. With this economy it is going to be even harder.
This blog is about how investors qualify entrepreneurs and how entrepreneurs can attract investors. However, if you think about it, if the firm is good enough for investors it may not need them. Ultimately, you can use the information herein to figure out how you can avoid using investors, or put yourself in a better position to manage that relationship successfully.
The microseed accelerator model
Posted by Steve in Capitalization, Execution on September 14, 2009
A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to interview the founder of a new venture in Dallas, a microseed accelerator. This is a relatively new business model for venture capitalists.
Originally, there were incubators, which were venues that provide office space and a variety of business office and infrastructure back office services to startups. The idea was that by providing these specialized needs to startups they could focus the startup on what they do best, create and sell a product. The result would be rapid growth.
The biggest weakness of incubators was that while they treated all startups the same and did not provide them much in training, mentoring, and/or coaching. Also, the startups themselves did not necessarily recognize they needed anything other than a place and support. The reality is that startups have a different mix of skill sets and experience levels. Some need more help than others in their core competency: creating and selling a product.
In comes the accelerator. Accelerators took the incubator idea one step further. Accelerators would also provide two key elements: some funding and a lot of coaching/mentoring to the startups. The startups joining would take the money and be receptive to the idea of being coached.
More recently, the microseed accelerator is emerging. These companies or portfolio management firms differentiate themselves by invest a small amount of money, focus on idea/prototype stages, focus on specific niches, and provide very customized support to a small team. Some of them, such as the one I interviewed, have a program that puts the startup through a “boot camp”. The boot camp helps them complete out the rationalization of their business plan: make it even more focused on what customers need (not just want) and put them in touch with prospective customers. Rather than “hope and pray” as the earlier incubators, they stack the odds in their favor by fostering growth and success proactively.
To read more about check out the article at www.firstascentventures.com titled: New Venture Capital Models – The Rise of Business Accelerator Seed Funds (Part 1) – 01/13/2009. Check in later this week to learn more about one starting in Dallas: Tech Wildcatters.
Angel Investors vs. Venture Capitalists
Posted by Steve in Capitalization, Introduction, Valuation on March 31, 2009
I was asked, “What is the difference between Angels and VCs?”
Angel and venture capitalist investors differ in size of investment and business structure. However, they both use similar criteria for qualifying a company.
Angel investors typically invest up to one million dollars individually, or eight million dollars as a group. Obviously, this could be more, but above eight million, you typically end up talking to VCs. Angels use their own money (or family funds) and do not have a charter of rules to follow. Angels are only answerable to themselves (and of course, their family).
Venture capitalists invest from about two million dollars to as high as two hundred million dollars, depending on the size of the fund they raise. They manage funds composed of investments from individuals, companies, and other managed funds (i.e. Fireman’s Fund). The largest fund to date is by Oak Investment at $2.56 billion dollars. VCs have a charter of rules they must follow, and are answerable to these investors.
Both angels and VCs have a targeted amount they invest. Startups should target angels and entry level VCs (or startup VCs) because the size of the investment would be typically under eight million dollars.