During the past decade, the size of seed rounds has remained stagnant and number of deals have decreased. To the untrained eye, it seems that there is more competition for seed dollars. Below the surface, however, startups are recycling founders experience. The reason why the number of deals has decreased is that teams are better prepared, are more financially savvy, have access to better-priced support, waste less time and resources, are using other forms of funding PRIOR to seed rounds, and are pivoting or deciding to get out earlier -at the pre-seed stage. (Founders will jump into exploring new opportunities).
Founding teams are recycled
2. More firms seeking seed rounds already have sales, expression of interests, and some form of market validation as a result of the circular economy of entrepreneurial mind and action. Firms that seek seed rounds are more advanced than 10 years ago. Founders are using other ways to get funded (as they should! Because seed funding is very expensive!), AND they are also recycling the experience of founding, co-founding, advising, and/or being early employees in previous firms. This is creating a circular economy of entrepreneurial experience. Not just serial entrepreneurs but a large pool of people who have experienced startup development (failed, successful, and everything in between, in so many roles!).
Supplier of funds are recycled
3. More investors are getting into each round, and seed rounds have become more collaborative. More and more small funds, angels and angel groups are co-investing. That means more eyes are evaluating deals (GOOD) but also BAD deals are getting through because the impact of each deal in the overall portfolio is lower, and the FOMO (fear of missing out) can get that signature! Think Theranos (ouch).
TIP: Nobody talks about the herd mentality and there will be some lessons to learn going forward. Because of the cycling and recycling nature of funding, early investors are able to scan deals early, with lower amounts, and, if they want to play in future rounds, they need to get in early and with others: pay to play.
Founders and funders’ recycling is also changing the exits:
4. Exits are being recycled too! Companies are being acquired, taken public, broken into pieces, resold, privatized, re-public’ed, and there are many emerging opportunities for exit. This is actually an area ripe for disruption. Welcome to the world of recycling exits.
And the funding process has become more interesting and complex.
5. As both entrepreneurs and funders become more comfortable navigating many options of funding startups or grownups, new funding options are emerging: there is better knowledge about crowdfunding, cryptocurrencies, hybrids (safes/convertible notes), and SFI-types (can we call this special funding instruments?). Capital suppliers are borrowing mechanisms from SPV, SPE, and SVI. I can’t wait to see what new options sprout of this.
All of these recycling and repurposing has an impact on ROI and capital markets
6. Cycles are longer: It takes longer to climb a larger mountain, especially if, along the way, there have been some quasi-exits, pivots, more and larger rounds. This is having an impact on the way we negotiate funding going INTO the firm, because there is light at the end of the tunnel, but the tunnel is getting much longer. Combine this with the uncertainty of how investors get OUT. Again, this is an area ripe for disruption and I can’t wait to see new options emerging. With longer cycles, the return on investment decreases, so firms are pushed into finding new and disruptive ways to excite investors and NEW investors who supposedly are more risk-averse and adventurous, but in reality are reckless.
Longer roads need more resources,
But the supply of capital does not exist in a vacuum
7. Public markets are shrinking, and investors -especially institutional investors- are navigating through a rollercoaster of political insanity. Mostly derived from the surprising interest in protecting borders than in having healthy global economies, financial and economic illiteracy is permeating the political arena where decisions are reckless and financial managers are focusing on reducing stupid (gasp) risks instead of creating and supporting new wealth.
Overall, a combination of healthy recycling of talent, capital, and technology is fueling the economy despite mistakes made by politics.
For investors the signals are clear: Get in early, support many startups, learn and collaborate.
For entrepreneurs the signals indicate: Use many forms of funding, Jumpstarter use dynamic funding, ask investors for support (not just money), and create dynamic teams.
Oh, and for small business owners that think “small is beautiful”, now, more than ever, my famous quote of 100% of 1 is 1, but 1% of 1000 is more, is more valid than ever. Get in line, ditch the illusion of a “safe” and embrace the “growth” mindset. If we stop growing, we start dying. Small IS beautiful, it is just not sustainable.
For Government and Economic Development Agencies, the puzzle is getting more and more complex… Hang in there!
You have a great idea for a start-up business and you are, probably, short on capital, so raising money is your first concern. You are going to need outside investor groups, Startup event therefore you need to know the difference between angel investors and venture capital firms. Less is known about angel investing as compared to venture capital, due to the privacy of their investments. However, these are the key points to consider in order to make the right choice.
1. Ease of obtaining financing
It commonly takes less time to receive funds from an angel investor, as obtaining venture capital funds is a highly rigorous process. Therefore, your business should meet all the investment criteria before being considered by a venture capital firm. The difficulty with angel investors may arise in case your business requires funding from several investors, as they could demand different terms.
2. Investment Size
The range of venture capital funding is larger than the one of angel investors. Angels act alone or in organized groups and invest their own money. Venture capital firms are corporate entities that pool money from a range of investors. Angels typically provide under $1 million, venture capitalists mostly above $1 million.
3. Stage focus
The focus of angel investors is typically the earlier or the seed stage of your start-up company. Venture capital firms focus on different stages of your business. Vc providers are much less likely to invest at the seed stage and they may provide second round financing after angels. Moreover, their purpose is to take your venture to the initial public offering stage and beyond.
4. Industry focus
Angel investors vary in investment areas and may allocate funds to a range of fields, frequently within their areas of expertise. Venture capital firms generally concentrate on emerging sectors such as technology or innovation.
5. Geographic Focus
Both business investors often prefer to invest within the vicinity of their offices. The purpose is to add management value to your company and to easily monitor all their portfolio companies.
6. Expected returns
Both angels and venture capitalists generally expect a high rate of return for their investments. Stereotypically, a venture capitalist may have higher return expectations than an angel investor.
7. Expected Control
Angel investors and vc firms are similar in that they expect a board position and possibly a consulting role. Both invest in return for an ownership stake in your company and for a certain degree of involvement, but venture capital firms will exercise even more control over your company.
8. Support and Expertise
Angel investors will more than likely provide support and advice to the start-up business. Vc firms generally possess greater expertise, as they prefer to lead ventures through successive funding stages.
9. Risk taking
A venture capitalist prefers to invest in a business that will offer security and a high return on investment. An angel is far more likely to be a risk taker and put money into a venture at the riskier seed stage.
Angel investors are also motivated by the desire to see innovative ideas get off the ground and become successful businesses, whereas venture capitalists are more motivated by profit.
For all of the glamor and allure surrounding the Venture Capital industry, one would expect the investment returns from VC funds to be significantly higher relative to other investment vehicles that are more widely available. However, industry research indicates that over time, venture capital returns have been roughly equal to the stock market in general. Indeed, over half of all venture capital-backed companies fail and roughly the same 50% of all money invested in venture capital funds is lost. This article discusses how a comprehensive IP management strategy could help VC firms lower their risk and increase the return in their respective funds.
According to some conversations I’ve had with people in the VC industry, the statistics above don’t tell the full picture. In addition to half of the venture funded companies that fail, there are those that are described as the “walking dead” – companies that neither go out of business, accelerator nor ever provide the substantial returns needed to satisfy typical VC models. One panelist I saw at a venture conference last year suggested that for their financial model to make sense, they needed at least 1 out of 10 companies to provide a 20x return on their investment. This could be especially troubling for the industry, given the emerging trend towards fewer and lower valued liquidity events.
But what if a venture fund could extract incremental investment returns from their portfolio companies, including the failed companies and from the so-called walking-dead companies? I believe a comprehensive cross-portfolio IP management strategy could provide increased returns to venture investors.
IP Due Diligence to Lower Business Risk
VC’s typically invest in companies at the earliest stages of their respective life cycles. At the point of making the investment decision, the venture capitalist is placing his or her bet on the business idea, the management team; and whether they know it or not, they are also placing a bet on the IP which underpins the business.
It is critical that VC firms perform proper and adequate due diligence in support of their investment decisions. Sorry, but simply having a list of patents and applications is not enough. Investors need to understand whether or not the patents are strong patents, with adequate coverage for the business and the technology in question. The following quote sums it up better than I can:
“In particular, before you invest in a new business idea for a new venture, why wouldn’t you want to know whether you can own the business idea in the long term or whether you have minimal opportunity to innovate freely in relation to that business idea? Or, why wouldn’t you want to know whether another firm has invested $100K or more in patent rights alone in the new business idea that you are investigating?” – from IP Assets Maximizer.
These all-important questions should be answered during the investor’s due diligence. Be warned however, that topographical patent landscape maps or other abstract visualizations do not represent a sufficient level of analysis. They may be an improvement over a simple list (although some might argue that point), but a proper analysis must involve a detailed examination of patent claims in the context of the business and of the technology in question.
IP Portfolio Management to Lower Costs & Increase Margins
Although most of the portfolio companies financed by a given venture fund will be relatively small, and have a relatively small portfolio of patents, it may be worth it for the VC to look across the entire IP portfolio in aggregate.
I did a quick analysis of a couple regional VC firms – with relatively small portfolio’s of companies, these firms had an invested interest in over 300 and 600 patents. By corporate standards, these are sizeable portfolios. I would expect to find even larger portfolios with larger venture firms.
In businesses with portfolios of this magnitude, it is important to understand the portfolio in multiple dimensions. For example, IP professionals, marketers and business leaders want to know what IP assets support which products. Knowledge of these relationships can allow a company to block competitors, lower costs, raise margins and ultimately increase returns to investors. In addition, they will want to categorize their patents by the markets and technology areas they serve, as it helps them understand if their patents align with the business focus.
Bringing this discipline to IP Portfolio management has the added benefit of revealing patents that are not core to the business of the company. With this knowledge in hand, a typical company will seek to lower costs by letting patents expire, or they may seek to sell or out-license their non-core patents, thus creating a new source of revenue.
IP Licensing to Increase Returns
Patents that are not core to the business of the owning company may still be valuable to other companies and other industries. There are some well-known examples of companies who have been able to generate significant revenues from their non-core patents through active licensing programs — Companies like IBM and Qualcomm come to mind. However there are a number of other companies that have generated significant returns by monetizing their non-core IP assets.
In the case of a VC portfolio of companies, each company may only have a small number of non-core patents. But across the portfolio of companies, the venture firm may have rights to a significant number of patents that may be valuable to other companies/industries.
We can extend the concept of monetizing non-core assets of the top companies in the venture portfolio to the “walking-dead” and even the defunct portfolio companies (although with these latter two groups, we may worry less about the distinction between core and non-core patents). In many cases, the business model and the due diligence supporting the original investment in these were probably sound, but the business failed due to execution or market timing issues. In many cases the underlying IP assets may still be fully valid, valuable and available for entry into a focused licensing and monetization program.
If you are looking to private investors for business funding, then you better be ready to answer some serious questions. The following ten questions will always be asked by savvy investors, so make sure you can rattle off these answers on demand.
1. What type of products or services will your company provide? Give them a quick summary of your company and its business model.
2. Why would someone use these products or services? When they ask you this, they are trying to find out if there is an actual need for your services. Is your company providing a solution to a problem? Or alibaba; www.jumpstarter.hk, are you hoping it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist in the first place?
3. How much capital are you looking to raise? They’re really saying, why do you need this much money? Make sure you can back this up with accurate financial forecasts.
4. What kind of return can I expect and when? This is the one question that you can never answer with any certainty. You need to be honest with them right off the bat. If you give figures that are too high and you don’t reach your goals, you will lose credibility. However, aim too low and you won’t attract many investors. It’s a very thin line to walk. A savvy investor will look way beyond just financial figures anyway. They generally will invest in the better overall package rather than a mediocre operation with only high financial projections.
5. How much profit will your company make? This is a relatively easy question to answer, right. Only if you’re an existing company with a steady customer base. Profit = unit price times quantity sold minus expenses. This is very simple math to calculate. It has no fancy formulas in it and is virtually foolproof. That is, only if the figures injected in the formula are true. Most novice entrepreneurs over estimate the units sold portion of this formula and under estimate expenses. The end result is over inflated profits. When these are not met, someone will have some explaining to do. When preparing financial statements, under estimate sales and over estimate expenses. This will give you more accurate profit numbers. It will lead to a lot less headaches later.
6. How much money do you have invested in your venture? This is a question that can be embarrassing to answer if you don’t have any money invested in your own project. Having money at stake in your venture shows that you truly believe that it will be successful. Even if it is only a small amount, having your own money at stake will definitely be a positive factor.
7. Do you have experience in this field? It’s imperative to show that you have experience in the field of your venture. If you can show that you have experience and prior success in your industry, then you will be ahead of most entrepreneurs. Example: If you’ve owned a landscaping company for 20 years, it would not be easy to raise money to start a tech company.
8. What are the long term goals of the company? You need to have a well thought out plan as to where the company will be in 5, 10 and even 15 years. Investors will be looking for companies that will be able to grow to become large, sometimes even nationally known companies. They will not invest in “mom and pop stores”.
9. Who is your competition? When asked this question, you should be able to recognize your current competitors, as well as any competition your company could encounter as it grows larger.
10. How will you compete in the marketplace? You must devise a way to attract customers. This sounds easy, but it can be a daunting task for a start up company to achieve. Your investors will need to know your plans for achieving this goal. If you’re not a marketing genius, it’s not a bad idea to get a third party to help you with this part of your business.
Venture capital is money provided by professionals who invest alongside management in young, rapidly growing companies that have the potential to develop into significant economic contributors. Venture capital is an important source of equity for start-up companies.
Professionally managed venture capital firms generally are private partnerships or closely-held corporations funded by private and public pension funds, endowment funds, foundations, corporations, wealthy individuals, foreign investors, and the venture capitalists themselves.
Venture capitalists generally:
- Finance new and rapidly growing companies;
- Purchase equity securities;
- Assist in the development of new products or services;
- Add value to the company through active participation;
- Take higher risks with the expectation of higher rewards;
- Have a long-term orientation
When considering an investment, venture capitalists carefully screen the technical and business merits of the proposed company. Venture capitalists only invest in a small percentage of the businesses they review and have a long-term perspective. Going forward, they actively work with the company’s management by contributing their experience and business savvy gained from helping other companies with similar growth challenges.
Venture capitalists mitigate the risk of venture investing by developing a portfolio of young companies in a single venture fund. Many times they will co-invest with other professional venture capital firms. In addition, many venture partnership will manage multiple funds simultaneously. For decades, venture capitalists have nurtured the growth of America’s high technology and entrepreneurial communities resulting in significant job creation, economic growth and international competitiveness. Companies such as Digital Equipment Corporation, Apple, Federal Express, Compaq, Sun Microsystems, Intel, Microsoft and Genentech are famous examples of companies that received venture capital early in their development.
Private Equity Investing
Venture capital investing has grown from a small investment pool in the 1960s and early 1970s to a mainstream asset class that is a viable and significant part of the institutional and corporate investment portfolio. Recently, some investors have been referring to venture investing and buyout investing as “private equity investing.” This term can be confusing because some in the investment industry use the term “private equity” to refer only to buyout fund investing.
In any case, an institutional investor will allocate 2% to 3% of their institutional portfolio for investment in alternative assets such as private equity or venture capital as part of their overall asset allocation. Currently, over 50% of investments in venture capital/private equity comes from institutional public and private pension funds, with the balance coming from endowments, foundations, insurance companies, banks, individuals and other entities who seek to diversify their portfolio with this investment class.
What is a Venture Capitalist?
The typical person-on-the-street depiction of a venture capitalist is that of a wealthy financier who wants to fund start-up companies. The perception is that a person who develops a brand new change-the-world invention needs capital; thus, if they can’t get capital from a bank or from their own pockets, they enlist the help of a venture capitalist.
In truth, venture capital and private equity firms are pools of capital, typically organized as a limited partnership, that invests in companies that represent the opportunity for a high rate of return within five to seven years. The venture capitalist may look at several hundred investment opportunities before investing in only a few selected companies with favorable investment opportunities. Far from being simply passive financiers, venture capitalists foster growth in companies through their involvement in the management, strategic marketing and planning of their investee companies. They are entrepreneurs first and financiers second.
Even individuals may be venture capitalists. In the early days of venture capital investment, in the 1950s and 1960s, individual investors were the archetypal venture investor. While this type of individual investment did not totally disappear, the modern venture firm emerged as the dominant venture investment vehicle. However, in the last few years, individuals have again become a potent and increasingly larger part of the early stage start-up venture life cycle. These “angel investors” will mentor a company and provide needed capital and expertise to help develop companies. Angel investors may either be wealthy people with management expertise or retired business men and women who seek the opportunity for first-hand business development.
Venture capitalists may be generalist or specialist investors depending on their investment strategy. Venture capitalists can be generalists, investing in various industry sectors, or various geographic locations, or various stages of a company’s life. Alternatively, they may be specialists in one or two industry sectors, or may seek to invest in only a localized geographic area.
Not all venture capitalists invest in “start-ups.” While venture firms will invest in companies that are in their initial start-up modes, venture capitalists will also invest in companies at various stages of the business life cycle. A venture capitalist may invest before there is a real product or company organized (so called “seed investing”), or may provide capital to start up a company in its first or second stages of development known as “early stage investing.” Also, the venture capitalist may provide needed financing to help a company grow beyond a critical mass to become more successful (“expansion stage financing”).
The venture capitalist may invest in a company throughout the company’s life cycle and therefore some funds focus on later stage investing by providing financing to help the company grow to a critical mass to attract public financing through a stock offering. Alternatively, the venture capitalist may help the company attract a merger or acquisition with another company by providing liquidity and exit for the company’s founders.
At the other end of the spectrum, some venture funds specialize in the acquisition, turnaround or recapitalization of public and private companies that represent favorable investment opportunities.
There are venture funds that will be broadly diversified and will invest in companies in various industry sectors as diverse as semiconductors, software, retailing and restaurants and others that may be specialists in only one technology.
While high technology investment makes up most of the venture investing in the U.S., and the venture industry gets a lot of attention for its high technology investments, venture capitalists also invest in companies such as construction, industrial products, business services, etc. There are several firms that have specialized in retail company investment and others that have a focus in investing only in “socially responsible” start-up endeavors.
Venture firms come in various sizes from small seed specialist firms of only a few million dollars under management to firms with over a billion dollars in invested capital around the world. The common denominator in all of these types of venture investing is that the venture capitalist is not a passive investor, but has an active and vested interest in guiding, leading and growing the companies they have invested in. They seek to add value through their experience in investing in tens and hundreds of companies.
Some venture firms are successful by creating synergies between the various companies they have invested in; for example one company that has a great software product, but does not have adequate distribution technology may be paired with another company or its management in the venture portfolio that has better distribution technology.
Length of Investment
Venture capitalists will help companies grow, but they eventually seek to exit the investment in three to seven years. An early stage investment make take seven to ten years to mature, while a later stage investment many only take a few years, so the appetite for the investment life cycle must be congruent with the limited partnerships’ appetite for liquidity. The venture investment is neither a short term nor a liquid investment, but an investment that must be made with careful diligence and expertise.
Types of Firms
There are several types of venture capital firms, but most mainstream firms invest their capital through funds organized as limited partnerships in which the venture capital firm serves as the general partner. The most common type of venture firm is an independent venture firm that has no affiliations with any other financial institution. These are called “private independent firms”. Venture firms may also be affiliates or subsidiaries of a commercial bank, investment bank or insurance company and make investments on behalf of outside investors or the parent firm’s clients. Still other firms may be subsidiaries of non-financial, industrial corporations making investments on behalf of the parent itself. These latter firms are typically called “direct investors” or “corporate venture investors.”
Other organizations may include government affiliated investment programs that help start up companies either through state, local or federal programs. One common vehicle is the Small Business Investment Company or SBIC program administered by the Small Business Administration, in which a venture capital firm may augment its own funds with federal funds and leverage its investment in qualified investee companies.
While the predominant form of organization is the limited partnership, in recent years the tax code has allowed the formation of either Limited Liability Partnerships, (“LLPs”), or Limited Liability Companies (“LLCs”), as alternative forms of organization. However, the limited partnership is still the predominant organizational form. The advantages and disadvantages of each has to do with liability, taxation issues and management responsibility.
The venture capital firm will organize its partnership as a pooled fund; that is, a fund made up of the general partner and the investors or limited partners. These funds are typically organized as fixed life partnerships, usually having a life of ten years. Each fund is capitalized by commitments of capital from the limited partners. Once the partnership has reached its target size, the partnership is closed to further investment from new investors or even existing investors so the fund has a fixed capital pool from which to make its investments.
Like a mutual fund company, a venture capital firm may have more than one fund in existence. A venture firm may raise another fund a few years after closing the first fund in order to continue to invest in companies and to provide more opportunities for existing and new investors. It is not uncommon to see a successful firm raise six or seven funds consecutively over the span of ten to fifteen years. Each fund is managed separately and has its own investors or limited partners and its own general partner. These funds’ investment strategy may be similar to other funds in the firm. However, the firm may have one fund with a specific focus and another with a different focus and yet another with a broadly diversified portfolio. This depends on the strategy and focus of the venture firm itself.
One form of investing that was popular in the 1980s and is again very popular is corporate venturing. This is usually called “direct investing” in portfolio companies by venture capital programs or subsidiaries of nonfinancial corporations. These investment vehicles seek to find qualified investment opportunities that are congruent with the parent company’s strategic technology or that provide synergy or cost savings.
These corporate venturing programs may be loosely organized programs affiliated with existing business development programs or may be self-contained entities with a strategic charter and mission to make investments congruent with the parent’s strategic mission. There are some venture firms that specialize in advising, consulting and managing a corporation’s venturing program.
The typical distinction between corporate venturing and other types of venture investment vehicles is that corporate venturing is usually performed with corporate strategic objectives in mind while other venture investment vehicles typically have investment return or financial objectives as their primary goal. This may be a generalization as corporate venture programs are not immune to financial considerations, but the distinction can be made.
The other distinction of corporate venture programs is that they usually invest their parent’s capital while other venture investment vehicles invest outside investors’ capital.
Commitments and Fund Raising
The process that venture firms go through in seeking investment commitments from investors is typically called “fund raising.” This should not be confused with the actual investment in investee or “portfolio” companies by the venture capital firms, which is also sometimes called “fund raising” in some circles. The commitments of capital are raised from the investors during the formation of the fund. A venture firm will set out prospecting for investors with a target fund size. It will distribute a prospectus to potential investors and may take from several weeks to several months to raise the requisite capital. The fund will seek commitments of capital from institutional investors, endowments, foundations and individuals who seek to invest part of their portfolio in opportunities with a higher risk factor and commensurate opportunity for higher returns.
Because of the risk, length of investment and illiquidity involved in venture investing, and because the minimum commitment requirements are so high, venture capital fund investing is generally out of reach for the average individual. The venture fund will have from a few to almost 100 limited partners depending on the target size of the fund. Once the firm has raised enough commitments, it will start making investments in portfolio companies.
Making investments in portfolio companies requires the venture firm to start “calling” its limited partners commitments. The firm will collect or “call” the needed investment capital from the limited partner in a series of tranches commonly known as “capital calls”. These capital calls from the limited partners to the venture fund are sometimes called “takedowns” or “paid-in capital.” Some years ago, the venture firm would “call” this capital down in three equal installments over a three year period. More recently, venture firms have synchronized their funding cycles and call their capital on an as-needed basis for investment.
Limited partners make these investments in venture funds knowing that the investment will be long-term. It may take several years before the first investments starts to return proceeds; in many cases the invested capital may be tied up in an investment for seven to ten years. Limited partners understand that this illiquidity must be factored into their investment decision.
Other Types of Funds
Since venture firms are private firms, there is typically no way to exit before the partnership totally matures or expires. In recent years, a new form of venture firm has evolved: so-called “secondary” partnerships that specialize in purchasing the portfolios of investee company investments of an existing venture firm. This type of partnership provides some liquidity for the original investors. These secondary partnerships, expecting a large return, invest in what they consider to be undervalued companies.
Advisors and Fund of Funds
Evaluating which funds to invest in is akin to choosing a good stock manager or mutual fund, except the decision to invest is a long-term commitment. This investment decision takes considerable investment knowledge and time on the part of the limited partner investor. The larger institutions have investments in excess of 100 different venture capital and buyout funds and continually invest in new funds as they are formed.
Some limited partner investors may have neither the resources nor the expertise to manage and invest in many funds and thus, may seek to delegate this decision to an investment advisor or so-called “gatekeeper”. This advisor will pool the assets of its various clients and invest these proceeds as a limited partner into a venture or buyout fund currently raising capital. Alternatively, an investor may invest in a “fund of funds,” which is a partnership organized to invest in other partnerships, thus providing the limited partner investor with added diversification and the ability to invest smaller amounts into a variety of funds.
The investment by venture funds into investee portfolio companies is called “disbursements”. A company will receive capital in one or more rounds of financing. A venture firm may make these disbursements by itself or in many cases will co-invest in a company with other venture firms (“co-investment” or “syndication”). This syndication provides more capital resources for the investee company. Firms co-invest because the company investment is congruent with the investment strategies of various venture firms and each firm will bring some competitive advantage to the investment.
The venture firm will provide capital and management expertise and will usually also take a seat on the board of the company to ensure that the investment has the best chance of being successful. A portfolio company may receive one round, or in many cases, several rounds of venture financing in its life as needed. A venture firm may not invest all of its committed capital, but will reserve some capital for later investment in some of its successful companies with additional capital needs.
Depending on the investment focus and strategy of the venture firm, it will seek to exit the investment in the portfolio company within three to five years of the initial investment. While the initial public offering may be the most glamourous and heralded type of exit for the venture capitalist and owners of the company, most successful exits of venture investments occur through a merger or acquisition of the company by either the original founders or another company. Again, the expertise of the venture firm in successfully exiting its investment will dictate the success of the exit for themselves and the owner of the company.
The initial public offering is the most glamourous and visible type of exit for a venture investment. In recent years technology IPOs have been in the limelight during the IPO boom of the last six years. At public offering, the venture firm is considered an insider and will receive stock in the company, but the firm is regulated and restricted in how that stock can be sold or liquidated for several years. Once this stock is freely tradable, usually after about two years, the venture fund will distribute this stock or cash to its limited partner investor who may then manage the public stock as a regular stock holding or may liquidate it upon receipt. Over the last twenty-five years, almost 3000 companies financed by venture funds have gone public.
Mergers and Acquisitions
Mergers and acquisitions represent the most common type of successful exit for venture investments. In the case of a merger or acquisition, the venture firm will receive stock or cash from the acquiring company and the venture investor will distribute the proceeds from the sale to its limited partners.
Like a mutual fund, each venture fund has a net asset value, or the value of an investor’s holdings in that fund at any given time. However, unlike a mutual fund, this value is not determined through a public market transaction, but through a valuation of the underlying portfolio. Remember, the investment is illiquid and at any point, the partnership may have both private companies and the stock of public companies in its portfolio. These public stocks are usually subject to restrictions for a holding period and are thus subject to a liquidity discount in the portfolio valuation.
Each company is valued at an agreed-upon value between the venture firms when invested in by the venture fund or funds. In subsequent quarters, the venture investor will usually keep this valuation intact until a material event occurs to change the value. Venture investors try to conservatively value their investments using guidelines or standard industry practices and by terms outlined in the prospectus of the fund. The venture investor is usually conservative in the valuation of companies, but it is common to find that early stage funds may have an even more conservative valuation of their companies due to the long lives of their investments when compared to other funds with shorter investment cycles.
As an investment manager, the general partner will typically charge a management fee to cover the costs of managing the committed capital. The management fee will usually be paid quarterly for the life of the fund or it may be tapered or curtailed in the later stages of a fund’s life. This is most often negotiated with investors upon formation of the fund in the terms and conditions of the investment.
“Carried interest” is the term used to denote the profit split of proceeds to the general partner. This is the general partners’ fee for carrying the management responsibility plus all the liability and for providing the needed expertise to successfully manage the investment. There are as many variations of this profit split both in the size and how it is calculated and accrued as there are firms.