Las controvertidas valuaciones de startups

Luego de varios años de trabajar junto a emprendedores e inversores de capital de riesgo (fondos de VC, inversores ángeles, aceleradoras, etc.) y, ante una creciente presencia de capital emprendedor en la región en los últimos 5 años, detectamos que la valuación de las startups se presenta como un problema cada vez más frecuente a la hora de avanzar con operaciones de inversión.

En el siguiente artículo intentaremos describir, de manera sintética, las principales razones que contribuyen a esta problemática con el objetivo de allanar el camino hacia una propuesta superadora con respecto a los mecanismos de valuación de compañías en etapa temprana.

Evidentemente, valuar este tipo de compañías requiere no solamente considerar elementos “duros” u objetivos, sino también elementos “blandos” o “subjetivos”, con lo cual definitivamente es un tema controvertido y no existe un método único y correcto para llevar a cabo una valuación acertada. No abordaremos las distintas propuestas o mecanismos de valuación en profundidad, ya que ello será abordado en detalle en próximos artículos que podrán encontrar en este mismo sitio.

La problemática planteada gira en torno al momento en el que un emprendedor ya transitó la etapa inicial del levantamiento de fondos con las 3F (“friends, family and fools” o “amigos, familia y tontos”) y pasa al siguiente paso: presentar su proyecto frente a inversores ángeles, aceleradoras o incubadoras, o incluso algún fondo VC de etapa temprana.

Es esta etapa donde muchas veces la valuación propuesta por el emprendedor impacta en las expectativas y voluntades del inversor. En algunos casos, los inversores no presentan objeciones, quedan enamorados del proyecto y avanzan con su inversión ante cualquier valuación propuesta, ya que su objetivo quizás sea simplemente iniciarse en el mundo del venture capital rápidamente y plasmar una operación para involucrarse activamente en el ecosistema inversor.

En muchos otros casos, gran parte de los inversores ángeles, con disponibilidad de capital y, en general, con mucha experiencia profesional, cuestionan duramente las valuaciones propuestas. Esto ocurre, a tal punto que muchas de las presentaciones que inicialmente lograron captar la atención de un inversor terminan frustrando una negociación. Asimismo, probablemente ocurra que muchos de los nuevos interesados en invertir en esta industria -todavía incipiente en Argentina- salgan espantados por considerar que es un casino sin lógica alguna al momento de valorizar sus activos.

 

Una lógica distinta

Uno de los problemas principales reside en la falta de cultura o educación específica sobre capital emprendedor en los nuevos inversores del ecosistema. Las compañías de etapa temprana no deben ser valuadas con los mismos métodos ni herramientas tradicionales que se utilizan para compañías en etapas más avanzadas. El problema es que muchos de los inversores ángeles (y otros inversores institucionales) generalmente pretenden valuar a las startups no solo con esas herramientas y métodos, sino con la misma lógica y dinámica con que lo venían haciendo con otro tipo de negocios y compañías en su experiencia previa.

Esta situación se acentúa aún más en Argentina. En primer lugar, porque la cultura predominante es la de preservar el capital más que la de arriesgarlo, y donde la confianza sigue siendo un factor determinante a la hora de decidir dónde invertir. En segundo lugar, y sumado a lo anterior, porque si bien han existido algunos casos de éxito, aún no se puede afirmar que el modelo de negocio de inversión de capital de riesgo haya sido validado en Argentina, al menos a nivel institucional. Esto significa un factor de riesgo adicional para todo aquel inversor que esté dando sus primeros pasos en este ecosistema.

 

El método VC

Otra de las razones que influyen en la problemática mencionada, es el método de valuación del venture capital, el cual se pretende aplicar directamente al igual que se utiliza en un ecosistema inversor y emprendedor como el de USA, mucho más desarrollado y con realidades muy diferentes a la del nuestro.

Este método técnico parte del precio de venta de la compañía, teniendo en cuenta elementos principales como la facturación proyectada, los múltiplos comparables en la industria y el retorno que se busca obtener por esta inversión. Puede resultar muy eficiente siempre que se tengan en cuenta las particularidades del mercado y la economía en la que se está trabajando. Sin embargo, este mecanismo trae asociados riesgos muy significativos si se lo intenta aplicar directamente, sin considerar las circunstancias coyunturales que afectan el potencial desarrollo y avance del proyecto.

Además, generalmente las proyecciones que llevan a la valuación propuesta traen aparejadas una serie innumerable de hipótesis y se suponen datos difíciles de predecir con exactitud. Suele ocurrir que los inversores y emprendedores pasen largas horas discutiendo sobre hipótesis que, al final de cuentas, son apreciaciones con una altísima carga subjetiva.

En muchas ocasiones, los emprendedores manifiestan ante los inversores que ellos han validado su valuación con el citado método, y que dicha valoración ha sido avalada por alguna institución educativa o inversor de renombre. Si bien el método mencionado es técnicamente correcto y no podemos criticar el mencionado aval, vale aclarar que en nuestra opinión, sólo debe considerarse como un indicio o parámetro de la posible valuación.

 

Las valuaciones aceptadas en los últimos años

Desde hace aproximadamente ocho años se vienen concretando distintas operaciones de inversión de venture capital, y los jugadores más importantes que han impulsado este camino desde su incipiente comienzo en Argentina, son los que definitivamente marcaron el camino y las prácticas de la industria.

En ese camino donde transitan aciertos y errores las herramientas y mecanismos de trabajo se volvieron más eficientes. A modo de ejemplo, vale mencionar los instrumentos de inversión que evolucionaron desde la nota convertible, pasando por el SAFE y el KISS en sus distintas versiones.

Con respecto a las valuaciones a nivel local, los actores intervinientes en las primeras etapas tomaban como parámetro valuaciones que oscilaban entre USD 1.500.000.- y USD 2.500.000.- para aplicar al tope de valuación en las notas convertibles. Consideramos que esto es demasiado elevado si se lo intenta aplicar genéricamente a todas las compañías de etapa temprana que buscan capital semilla. A lo largo del aprendizaje de estos últimos años, algunos de estos jugadores han aplicado muchos cambios, y estos valores ya no son el estándar que utilizan para este tipo de compañías.

Con las citadas valuaciones (USD 1.500.000.- y USD 2.500.000.-), los inversores pioneros en las primeras etapas del venture capital en Argentina marcaron el estándar de la práctica en la industria y generaron que otros nuevos jugadores las tomasen como parámetro para aplicar a la mayoría de los casos, lo cual aun sigue siendo siendo una referencia para algunos de estos jugadores actualmente.

Esto conlleva el riesgo de que no solamente se genere una desmotivación y desencanto de nuevos inversores, sino que también impide la posibilidad de que las compañías consigan inversión en futuras rondas para crecimiento por no lograr justificar sus valuaciones que, naturalmente, deben ser sustancialmente más elevadas en la próxima fase de fundraising.

 

Definir la valuación comenzando por el cap table proyectado

A fin de fijar una valuación, muchos emprendedores comienzan proyectando las futuras rondas de financiamiento que deberían llevar a cabo, cómo se diluyen en cada una de estas rondas y consecuentemente, cómo quedará distribuido el capital de la compañía en el tiempo. Este análisis permite al equipo emprendedor entender como quedarán sus participaciones a futuro, fijando un porcentaje mínimo del capital con el que están dispuestos a quedarse, entendiendo que en ningún caso deberían quedar diluidos a un porcentaje menor a ese que fijaron.

Si bien este es un proceso muy recomendable y sano para los emprendedores, no debe ser tomado como unico metodo para fijar la valuación. Debe funcionar como ejercicio para que los fundadores planifiquen inteligentemente su estrategia de financiamiento en el mediano plazo, entendiendo las implicancias económicas, financieras y legales que ello acarrea, ya que sino, pueden desencadenarse una serie de consecuencias no deseadas como ceder más equity de lo que es necesario, levantar rondas de financiamiento a valuaciones fuera de los parámetros recomendables (ya sea muy alta o muy baja), o incluso perder la posibilidad de levantar capital en futuras rondas. Pero en ningún caso es recomendable caer en el simplismo de utilizar este análisis como único criterio de valuación, ya que es probable que el potencial inversor perciba que el emprendedor solamente está mirando sus propios intereses personales por sobre los de la compañía o quienes se asociaron a ella.

 

Conclusión y propuesta

Como mencionamos al principio, la valuación de una compañía en etapa temprana está definitivamente compuesta por elementos de muy distinta índole. Cada uno de estos elementos debería jugar como criterio de evaluación al cual el evaluador le asigna un valor ponderado y que, sumado al resto de los criterios, conforman un paquete de criterios que conducen a la valuación más acertada.

Qué criterios seleccionar y qué valor ponderado asignarle a cada uno de ellos será una tarea exclusiva del evaluador.

Tal y como dice Reid Hoffman, co-fundador de LinkedIn y actual partner de Greylock, encontrar el precio correcto para un acuerdo es solo parte del desafío de invertir.

Si analizo una cartera de 100 startups, probablemente 90 esten sobrevaluadas, y 10 esten subvaluadas. Y ese es el desafío para ser un inversor ángel o capitalista de riesgo profesional: tener la capacidad de discernir entre esas compañías.

De todas maneras, consideramos que existe la necesidad y es conveniente comenzar a fijar parámetros de valuación que representen un estándar a respetar por la mayoría de los jugadores relevantes en la industria. Dentro de la subjetividad que siempre conlleva una valuación -y esto aplica a todo tipo de industria, sea private equity, mercado de capitales, etc.- sostenemos que es posible desarrollar un esquema que, cuanto menos permita encasillar a las compañías en ciertas franjas de valuación en base a ciertos criterios que deben ser analizados al momento de evaluar y valuar una compañía.

Creemos que son los actores principales del venture capital en Argentina los que tienen la responsabilidad de llevar a cabo esta tarea diligentemente y, sobre todo, aquellos que intervienen en las etapas de financiamiento más temprano (aceleradoras, incubadoras e inversores ángeles), ya que son los que sientan los primeros términos sobre los que después deberán basarse y negociar los actores que intervienen en etapas posteriores del ciclo de financiamiento.

Lo propuesto aportaría valor a la industria de capital emprendedor, en primer lugar porque garantiza más previsibilidad y seguridad a los nuevos jugadores no acostumbrados al capital emprendedor, impulsando el ingreso de aún más inversores; en segundo lugar porque garantiza valuaciones más sanas y acorde al estadio real de su proyecto, sembrando mayores posibilidades de que los proyectos consigan concretar sus rondas de financiamiento a valuaciones más justas en las etapas subsiguientes de financiamiento.

En futuros capítulos ahondaremos en distintos elementos y aspectos que servirán como posibles criterios e indicios de valuación de startups.

Descifrando el Venture Capital en Argentina

La historia (corta) del capital emprendedor (Capital de Riesgo, VC o Venture Capital) en América Latina es reciente y ha mostrado una evolución notable desde fines de los años 90 y principios de la década de 2000, en plena “Burbuja puntocom”.

 

En esta época los primeros referentes de Argentina daban sus primeros pasos en el mundo del Venture Capital.

  • En su momento, ElSitio.com llegó  a tener mayor valor de mercado que el grupo Pérez Companc (en aquellos días era la mayor compañía que cotizaba en la bolsa local).

 

  • Patagon, fundada por Wenceslao Casares y Constancio Larguía en 1997, había logrado capitalizar la empresa en tres oportunidades a lo largo de 2 años:
    • Primera ronda por un monto de USD 1.000.000.
    • Segunda ronda, por USD 8.000.000.
    • Última ronda, por USD 53.000.000.

Luego de esta serie de rondas de inversión, en marzo de 2000 el 75% de la compañía fue vendida al Banco Santander Central Hispano por USD 528 millones.

 

  • Fuego Inc., fundada por Félix Racca, logró obtener USD 10 millones en 1998 (luego de recorrer 120 fondos de venture capitals en EEUU y no obtener inversión alguna), para luego ser adquirida por BEA Systems Inc. (posteriormente adquirida por Oracle) en 2006 por USD 100 millones.

 

En la primera etapa de la actividad emprendedora, las ONG y el Gobierno han jugado un papel importante en la promoción del espíritu emprendedor y de la innovación.

 

Teniendo en cuenta que las economías de los países integrantes de América Latina  se encuentran en desarrollo, estos países y sus emprendedores están en modo de exploración con respecto a cómo crear, financiar y desarrollar empresas de alto potencial a nivel mundial.

 

El espíritu emprendedor logró una gran evolución en la región (la gran ventaja en Argentina es el gran recurso de emprendedores reconocidos a nivel mundial) y hay una falta de inversores institucionales dispuestos a invertir en capital de riesgo debido a que es una industria aún desconocida, lo que deja a los los fondos y sus administradores con opciones limitadas para recaudar dinero. Por lo tanto, al existir pocos actores en el ecosistema inversor, la recaudación de fondos por parte de los emprendedores se vuelve más compleja.

 

A pesar de estas complicaciones, varias iniciativas privadas (además de las impulsadas por el propio Gobierno) vieron la luz en Argentina, ocupando lugares a lo largo de todo el ciclo emprendedor y de inversión.

 

A continuación algunas iniciativas:

 

Gobierno

Fondo Semilla – Ministerio de Producción: A través de una red de incubadoras asisten aquellos emprendedores con una idea, un emprendimiento productivo o un proyecto con impacto social, ambiental y/o con perspectiva de género, a acceder a préstamos de hasta $ 250.000.-

IncuBAte – Dirección General de Emprendedores / Buenos Aires Ciudad: Ofrece acompañamiento personalizado, asistencia financiera ($ 150.000.- Equity Free) y la posibilidad de acceder a un espacio de trabajo para impulsar su emprendimiento. El programa de incubación está abierto a emprendedores nacionales e internacionales con ideas de alto impacto y aquellos que están listos para marcar la diferencia.

Fondo Fiduciario Para el Desarrollo de Capital Emprendedor (FONDCE): En el marco de la Ley N° 27.349 de Apoyo al Capital Emprendedor, cuyo objeto es apoyar la actividad emprendedora en el país, así como la generación de capital emprendedor, se ha dispuesto la creación de un Fondo Fiduciario para el Desarrollo de Capital Emprendedor (el FONDCE). El FONDCE tendrá por objeto “financiar emprendimientos e instituciones de capital emprendedor registrados como tales, en las formas y condiciones que establezca la reglamentación”. Dicho financiamiento se lleva a cabo a través del Fondo Aceleración y el Fondo Expansión, junto con aceleradoras y fondos, respectivamente. El Fondo Semilla también esta gestionado por el FONDCE.

 

Asociaciones

ARCAP – La Asociación Argentina de Capital Privado, Emprendedor y Semilla es una asociación sin fines de lucro que tiene el objetivo de promover el desarrollo de la Industria de Capital Privado en Argentina.

ASEA – La Asociación de Emprendedores de Argentina es una organización sin fines de lucro, formada por emprendedores y para emprendedores. Su misión principal es lograr que Argentina sea un mejor lugar para emprender, que resulte más ágil y sencillo llevar adelante proyectos y nuevos negocios.

Endeavor  –  Organización global que promueve emprendedores de alto impacto en más de 25 países en el mundo.

EMPREAR – ONG sin fines de lucro que promueve el desarrollo de los emprendedores de alto impacto desde su fase más temprana. Trabajando desde la detección, entrenamiento y acompañamiento a través de programas de formación, vinculación tecnológica y gestión de oportunidades para que logren construir organizaciones más innovadoras.

 

Incubadoras & Aceleradoras

CITES –  Incubadora del Grupo Sancor Seguros. Invierten en fintech, salud, biotecnología y agtech. Ofrece una inversión de hasta USD 500.000, sumado a la oportunidad de trabajar desde sus oficinas en la Provincia de Santa Fe, República Argentina.

Xpand Ventures – Aceleradora del Grupo Clarín. Invierten entre USD 50.000.- a USD 250.000.- para startups de agtech, fintech, e-commerce y media.

Eklos – Aceleradora de AB InBev. Está enfocada en la industria de consumo masivo. Ofrece inversión, oficinas y mentoría.

Glocal – Primer aceleradora latinoamericana dedicada exclusivamente a agtech que invierte entre USD 25.000.- y USD 50.000.- en el sector agroindustrial.

Wayra – Aceleradora del Grupo Telefónica. Ofrece financiamiento de hasta USD 50.000.-, espacio de trabajo, acceso a una red global de partners, mentores y expertos, más la oportunidad de trabajar con los negocios de Telefónica en el mundo.

Imagine Lab – Ofrece inversión hasta USD 100.000.-, coaching y mentoría con expertos, talleres y capacitaciones constantes para los emprendedores, un espacio de co-working. Su estrategia diferencial está basado en proponer soluciones innovadoras con sus startups junto a pequeñas y medianas empresas y corporaciones.

GridExponential –  Aceleradora de base científica.

 

Company Builders

Quasar Ventures – Construye empresas desde cero: seleccionando el equipo, la industria e invirtiendo capital. Solo realiza este proceso con 2 o 3 compañías por año.

Overboost – Como parte de su proceso, el equipo de Overboost se involucra en la vida cotidiana del proyecto; ofrecen networking para los fundadores con clientes potenciales y realizan pruebas de producto.

Incutex – Con sede en Córdoba, invierten hasta USD 100.000.- en un máximo de 3 startups por año en Argentina.

 

 

Inversores Ángeles

Club de Business Angels del IAE – El Club de Business Angels, pionero en la Argentina, está orientado a fomentar una conciencia inversora en aquellos individuos que sean capaces de aportar SMART CAPITAL (capital + conocimientos + experiencia). Antiguos Alumnos del IAE y del Centro de Entrepreneurship del IAE, buscan alentar el nacimiento de nuevos empresarios, empresas e inversores

EMPREAR Business Angels – EBA lleva más de 5 años vinculando emprendedores de alto potencial con inversores ángeles. Organiza eventos en el cual los miembros del club tienen la posibilidad de analizar 3 nuevas Startups.

Cygnus Angel Club – Cygnus Angel Club está formado por una amplia red de inversores y mentores con un sentido colaborativo.

 

Venture Capital

Kaszek Ventures – Se enfoca en compañías tecnológicas latinoamericanas de alto impacto, con especial foco en compañías de tecnología de alto impacto en Brasil. Además de capital, ofrecen también mentoría, networking, desarrollo del producto, creación de equipos y una gran cantidad de recursos para los emprendedores. Kaszek ha apoyado el crecimiento de 43 empresas en la región del Cono Sur. Su tercer fondo alcanzó los $ 200 millones.

NXTP Labs – El fondo VC de fase inicial más activo en América Latina, con operaciones en Argentina, Chile, Colombia, México y Uruguay. Han invertido en más de 174 empresas en los últimos cinco años. También ofrece programas especiales para empresas de agtech y fintech en América Latina.

CAP Ventures –  Fondo de USD $ 16M que compra participaciones minoritarias en empresas medianas con alto potencial de crecimiento en Argentina.

Patagonia Ventures –  Fondo de inversión privado con sede en Buenos Aires enfocado en negocios de Internet de alto potencial en Latinoamérica. Cuenta en su historial con 8 Exits en 21 inversiones.

Jaguar Ventures – Fondo VC de etapas tempranas centrada en empresas latinoamericanas basadas en Internet. Trabajan mano a mano con los emprendedores ayudándolos a resolver problemas operacionales mientras elaboran la visión a largo plazo de la compañía.

Cygnus Ventures  – Draper Cygnus –  Luego de trabajar en 2 fondos en etapas tempranas y aceleración se sumaron a la Draper Venture Network para lanzar el Draper Cygnus VC Fund para invertir en Series A en Startups argentinas.

Pymar Fund – Fondo VC creado por la Fundación Empresa y Crecimiento (FEC) de España con foco en compañías argentinas que sirven al mercado latinoamericano y global.

South Ventures –  Fondo VC completamente en línea con foco en compañías con crecimiento exponencial en Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, USA y España, con fundadores provenientes de Google, Harvard y MIT. Realizo co-inversiones con fondos como Sequoia, Google Ventures y Goldman Sachs.

Alaya Capital Partners – Fondo VC con el objetivo de promover, consolidar e incrementar el valor de las empresas tecnológicas en América Latina. Se encuentran asociados con Sausalito Ventures.

54 Ventures – Fondo VC enfocado en Startups de alto potencial en América Latina.

Mountain Nazca –  Fondo VC con operaciones en San Francisco, Ciudad de México, Bogotá, Buenos Aires y Santiago. Nació a partir de la unión de Nazca Ventures con Mountain Partners.

 

Si bien todos estos jugadores previamente mencionados han contribuido a desarrollar el ecosistema emprendedor muy activamente y han llevado a cabo inversiones en muchas oportunidades, actualmente nos encontramos frente al problema de existen muchas empresas “sobrevaluadas”,  un problema de suma importancia para los actores actuales del ecosistema emprendedor y para los que se quieren involucrar en la industria.

 

Este tema de suma importancia lo analizaremos en nuestro siguiente artículo, donde expondremos las problemáticas asociadas a las sobrevaluaciones, los métodos utilizados hoy en día y los cambios que se tendrían que generar para que el ecosistema siga avanzando y creciendo.

Increasing Interest of VCs in ICOs

Despite the growing concerns of regulators over the ICOs, venture capitalists (VCs) have shown increasing interest in these offerings. However, what they are more interested in is the equity stakes rather than the proceeds from coin sales. Moreover, the growth of security tokens is expected as regulators intervene.

According to the statistics by CoinDesk, the funding has increased dramatically in the blockchain based firms, and startups have managed to raise about $434 million in just 3 months since December. Although, the token industry in the United States is under the scrutiny of the Security and Exchange Commission, piqued interest by VCs is an indication that digital currency business will experience growth.

Frank Meehan, the partner in SparksLab Group, said that if a firm gets an initial coin offering, the value of his equity will increase; this is exactly what it is all about. He also added that they have invested in 6 blockchain companies. In fact, the blockchain fund of 100 million dollars that was launched at the end of 2017 is a part of the Group.

 

Betting on Blockchain Companies

As discussed, investors have increasingly funded the blockchain startups during the past three months. CoinDesk data releaved that token sales have surged and startups raised funds of over $3 billion via ICOs during the first 2 months of 2018. It is more than 50 percent of what they raised in 2017.

According to the statistics by TokenData, last year 46 percent of the token startups either suffered from failure after the offering or could not complete funding. It further revealed that so far in 2018, a total of 50 startups have failed out of 340. There is no surprise as to why the failure rate is so high. After all, it is just a white paper and many of the products they are offering are not even functional – the technology has not even been tested on a mass scale.

 

VCs Are Cautious About Investing Too Much Too Soon

Therefore, some investors would wait for these firms to mature, while waiting for the decision regulatory authorities might take in future. Investors are looking for established companies, which means startups should raise money to fund their marketing and developing activities.

A managing director of Insight Venture Partners, Lonne Jaffe, acknowledged it by saying that it is a good time for them to be cautious, as they won’t be missing out on anything big. He furthered it by saying that they will start investing once firms begin to scale up; they have also been communicating with their portfolio firms about how they can serve the startups and use blockchain technology. He also revealed that they have a total of $18 billion in raised-capital for over 300 firms, which also includes Twitter Inc.

 

Pressure from the Regulators?

Although, there is a well-established regime by the regulatory authorities, the regulations for initial coin offerings are still evolving. The Treasury Department in the United States issued a letter on March 6, in which, it was stated that issue tokens will be considered as money transmitters; they will be required to follow the know-your-customer and bank secrecy guidelines.

Jay Clayton, the Chairman of SEC said that every offering he has come across is a security, even if token startups believe they are not. In fact, last month in March, Google, Facebook, and Twitter joined hands to ban advertisements for coin sales and ICOs. Also, the leading digital currency, Bitcoin, reduced in value by 8.7 percent.

Investors are interested to purchase security tokens with some kind of security attached in the form of equity or other assets as it will serve as a cushion in case there is some kind of regulatory shock in the future.

The co-founder of Securitize.io, Jamie Finn, has revealed that they plan to raise billions and have more than 100 startups in the pipeline. They provide a platform to issue tokens that have some sort of backing, such as company revenue or equity.

Currently, there is hardly any exchange that trades security tokens. An SEC-registered broker-dealer, Templum LLC, has been offering this service. It is an alternative trading system.

Besides, compared to a conventional startup equity that remains tied up for years, tokens backed by equity are traded more easily. Finn also added that after the end of lockdown, a person can even sell the equity-backed tokens. Moreover, one can easily purchase and sell them online. Similarly, family offices can directly invest in these securities rather than investing via funds.

Too Much Capital or Less Capital, that is the Question

There are so many entrepreneurs and founders who believe that injecting more capital means more success, but this is simply not true. The race to raising more capital leads to greed, which doesn’t end well if you don’t have a direction.

On the other hand, if your focus is to get less capital, not only does it make you rich as an entrepreneur, but it also enables your business to grow. The most prominent example of this case is of Zappos and Wayfair.

 

Importance of Being Capital Efficient

Everyone in the VC world  is aware of the success experienced by Zappos. They secured investment from some of the best venture capitalists in the market and made it big with an unorthodox approach. The company was later sold to Amazon in a deal between $850 million and $1.2 billion, wherein, the founder secured $214 to $367 million.

An even better example of e-commerce success was laid out by Wayfair. It was a brainchild of Steve Conine and Niraj Shah. Instead of raising external capital, they bootstrapped their idea and turned it into a successful business. They purchased a large number of SEO friendly URLs, generated huge traffic, and optimized against Google’s algorithms. It started generating money right from the beginning and despite many offers from venture capitalists, they refused all offers until they reached $500 million revenue.

In 2014, Wayfair went for its initial public offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange. In fact, each of its partners made as much as all the shareholders of Zappos made. The secret to their success was a capital efficient business. They only raised money from the outside when their firm had become valuable.

The co-founder of Wayfair made 10 times more than the founder of Zappos.

 

Limit Raising Capital in the Beginning

Although, some might associate the Wayfair’s success to the size of the furniture market, yet, shoe market is basically a better fit given low shipping cost, repetitive customers, etc.

There is no doubt that industry dynamics also contributes to the company’s success, but Wayfair made it big by employing an effective capital strategy. They did not raise any capital at the beginning, nor did they ask for it to speed up the early growth despite having offers from venture capitalists.

The only time they went for external capital was when they wanted to expand on a massive scale. They did not hesitate to take a huge amount of money and gathered three times higher than what Zappos did. However, they went for it only when the business had established its name, had minimum dilution, and could generate huge profits.

 

Why Should You Secure Money Later rather than Sooner?

This is one of the most important question. From the two scenarios above, it is obvious that Wayfair made much more money as compared to Zappos. Tony Hsieh, the founder of Zappos, said that he sold the company to Amazon due to the pressure imposed by its shareholders. Despite making a lot of money, giving in to the financial decisions made years ago was quite frustrating. Hsieh might have made it as big as Wayfair did, if he had more control over the decisionmaking process.

At the time of the IPO, Wayfair founders owned over 50 percent of the business and had managed to raise capital on their own terms with very little dilution. This enabled them to exercise more control over the financial decisions, which is also reflected in the success.

 

Overcapitalization Leads to Limited Optionality

When it comes to taking a financial decision, overcapitalized businesses usually end up with two choices:

  • Take millions of dollars in investment and fail
  • Make money for venture capitalists or go bankrupt and fire your entire team

But Wayfair, on the other hand, made a lot of money due to the lean financing strategies of their founders. It also enabled them to retain their right of Optionality. This gave them a choice to sell on the basis of their risk appetite or business performance, and not based on their capital structure. Just because you have become a multi-million dollar startup, doesn’t mean you should not raise money down the line.

 

It is important to understand that raising too much capital has its downsides. Therefore, efficient decision making should be employed to be able to spend your money wisely.

Venture Capital Deals in 2017

2017 turned out to be quite a success for startups as they managed to receive over 67 billion dollars in venture capital funding, broking the previous record of 2015 by 5 percent.

Although, there has been substantial funding in Silicon Valley during the past few years, the overall investment has reduced since 2015. There has been a decline of 12 percent and it’s partially because of Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. as these companies secured the maximum funding in 2017. Snap Inc. got a funding of 1.8 billion dollars, whereas Uber secured 3.5 billion dollars in 2016, and the value of capital received in 2017 decreased. Another reason was the fact that some of the major deals happened elsewhere last year.

 

The Value of Deal Based on Metropolitan Statistical Area

If you look at the trend based on metropolitan areas, San Francisco was in the lead, but as discussed, the overall value has declined since 2015. Similarly, the investment in Boston and Los Angeles has also decreased; it was 6.2 billion dollars and 4.9 billion dollars for Boston and Los Angeles in 2015, but in 2017, the amount reduced to 5.9 billion and 3.9 billion respectively.

On the other hand, the funding in New York, San Jose, Washington D.C., and Chicago increased. In 2015, Chicago secured 0.9 billion dollar investment, which eventually increased to about 1.5 billion dollars in 2017. Washington experienced a mild increased from $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion and San Jose increased from 6.5 billion dollars to 6.9 billion dollars. The investment in New York however, almost doubled since 2015. It was 7.8 billion dollars in 2015, but in 2017, the overall value increased to 13.3 billion dollars.

On the other hand, the funding value also increased in Miami, Philadelphia, Provo, Indianapolis, Charlotte, and Minneapolis. The biggest reason for the sharp increase in the funding value in New York was the massive infusion of money in WeWork Companies Inc. The company got a capital of about 6 billion dollars in 2017, which eventually led to the sudden increase in the overall funding.

 

2017 Top 10 Deals

After WeWork, the second biggest deal in 2017 was Lyft in San Francisco, the company secured 2 billion dollars in funding. Other deals in San Francisco that made their way to the Top 10 included Uber with $1.25 billion, GRAIL with $0.9 billion, and SoFi with $0.5 billion.

Beside that, Admiral Permian Resources in Midland secured 0.6 billion dollars, Magic Leap in Miami got a capital of 502 million dollars, Outcome Health got 500 million, and SpaceX got 450 million dollars. Another company in New York that made its way to the Top 10 was Compass that secured a capital of 0.55 billion dollars.

All in all, startups in many regions of the U.S. managed to get funding as compared to 2015. In 2017, around 141 metropolitan areas got capital in a total of 48 states, whereas, it was 119 areas of 43 states back in 2015.

 

Size of Deals

The value of investment received by companies also increased over the years. Although, the total number of deals has declined since 2015, the overall deal value increased by 3 billion dollars. If you look at the average size of a deal, it was 25.5 million dollars in 2017. This has been the highest so far in history. The average size in 2015 was 21.5 million dollars.

The average size of a seed stage investment was also high, i.e., 13.8 million dollars in 2017. It was $11.9 million in 2015. The early stage deals represented almost 33 percent of the total venture capital volume. The value of late-stage deals, however, has declined since 2013.

 

Number of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)

The number of IPOs deals around the world was the highest since 2007, but there were only a few IPOs in the United States that were backed by the VCs. There were only 28 companies that went public in 2017, which was quite low as compared to 2015.

Moreover, some of the biggest companies couldn’t perform well in 2017; the 3 largest IPOs showed negative returns. Snap Inc. , the second biggest IPO, showed very poor returns.

To summarize, the VC environment has experienced ups and downs over the years, but the overall trends have been declining with the passage of time.

The Unicorn Movies — Biggest ROIs vs Biggest Winners

There are lot of players involved in the film industry such as film production companies, film studios, animation, screenwriting, distribution; and of course actors, directors, and other film crew personnel.

All of them make a global industry that shows projections for the coming years from about USD 38 Bn. in 2016 to USD 50 bn. in 2020.

But when it comes to thinking about the earnings of the industry, all of us think about the best sellers or the box office grosses or what its also known as The Billion-Dollar Film Club.

And of course we will find in that list the following top 5:

  1. Avatar — Worldwide Gross: USD 2,787,965,087
  2. Titanic — Worldwide Gross: USD 2,187,463,944
  3. Star Wars: The Force Awakens — Worldwide Gross: USD 2,068,223,624
  4. Jurassic World — Worldwide Gross: USD 1,671,713,208
  5. The Avengers — Worldwide Gross: USD 1,518,812,988

But when we check the ROI of these movies, we can see that Avatar had a total production budget of $ 425.000.000.- which means a 556% ROI. A huge return for the investors and everyone who bet on the James Cameron project.

 

When it comes to the most profitable movies, based on Return on Investment (ROI), none of the previous list made it to the following one.

If we think of them as an asset class, film would appear to be uncorrelated to the other types of investments and somewhat recession resistant as people still go to the movies.

As any other investment, diversification is a key part. Invest in a portfolio of films, rather than a single production. Through diversification comes a more proper balance of risk and return.

The film industry only confirms the great quote by George Soros:

Money is made by discounting the obvious and betting on the unexpected.

2017’s Industry Recap and 2018 Hottest Industries for Venture Capital

According to KPMG´s Venture Capital market report, it experienced the highest amount of investment in the U.S. in 2017. The total amount of investment in this sector was over $84 billion last year. Although, the deal value increased from $21.24 billion in the third quarter to $23.75 billion in the fourth quarter, the overall deal volume experienced decline as it fell from a total of 1997 to 1778 deals. The reason for the decline was growing interest of investors in smaller companies with profitable prospects instead of placing bigger bets on large companies.

 

Sneak-peak at 2017

The investors in the United States were mainly focused on late-stage deals during 2017. This eventually lead to the decrease in deals with other funding levels. Seed and angel deals were the ones that got affected the most as they suffered a decline from 50 percent in 2016 to 47 percent in 2017.

Biotech and healthcare were two sectors that stood out among the rest, especially during the fourth quarter when a number of large deals were successfully completed. Healthcare sector was also at the top in terms of exits, which triggered an increased activity overall.

The late-stage deals hit $250 million in the last quarter of 2017, which was very high as compared to $135 million a year before that. Companies that raised funds of over billion dollars were Cancer-screening biotech Grail Technology that raised $1.2 billion and Ride-hailing company Lyft that managed to get $1.5 billion.

 

Expected Trend in 2018

The trend seems quite optimistic as it will build momentum, especially via strong exit markets in Mergers and Acquisition and Initial Public Offering (IPO) for companies backed by venture capital.

At this time, it isn’t sure whether 2018 will have a record number of IPOs as experienced in 2015 or not, but this year will definitely have an increasing number of IPO activities. The co-lead partner of KPMG VC practice, Conor Moore, was of the opinion that as more firms are deciding to remain private in the long run, the secondary market is sure to experience more growth.

Following are some of the prominent sectors investors are likely to invest their money in:

 

Blockchain Technology

Instead of investing directly in the cryptocurrency, investors are inclined to invest in underlying blockchain technology. The reason is simple; the prices of digital currencies have skyrocketed. Investors are trying to find creative ways to make profitable investments.

A partner in Canvas Ventures, Rebecca Lynn, is looking for firms that use blockchain to build their infrastructure, especially the ones that store health records and track trademarked and copyrighted licensing rights and content.

 

Artificial Intelligence Businesses

Investors are searching for tangible business ideas. For example, David Pakman, a partner in Venrock, is in search of startups that will be using Artificial Intelligence so as to assist companies in making decisions that were previously taken by the people; it includes preparing manufacturing instructions for machines, sales planning, and the hiring process.

 

Pop-up Stores

With the rapidly increasing concept of driver-less cars, startup companies are in for a treat. Venture capital firms, such as the Fifth Wall are offering a short-term lease for pop-up stores, including parking lots. Some startups that can benefit from this are Katerra (a construction company), Kasita.com (the firm that makes modular housing units), and Factory OS (a company that makes modular buildings).

 

Voice-centric Devices

These devices have taken the market by storm. This has encouraged startup companies to seek new opportunities to use voice, including advertising. It has been predicted by WIRED that new firms with creative solutions are expected to do really well in 2018, which makes it an attractive sector for venture capitalists.

 

Subscription-based Products

In the last few years, VC firms were drawn to digital media startup companies, such as Vox media, BuzzFeed, Mashable, Mic, and many more. However, some of these companies have undergone layoffs in recent times. This has eventually made the investors move on to subscription-based products, such as Patreon. In September last year, this company raised around 60 million dollars.

Another example is Medium, which raised over 130 million dollars from VC firms. This company has shifted to a subscription-based model just recently.

Will 2018 Mark the End of Initial Public Offerings?

2017 turned out to be a great year for technology-based IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) that were backed by venture capital.

So many names in a corporate world went public last year, including SendGrid, StitchFix, BlueApron, Cloudera, and Yext. In fact, one of the most successful IPOs in the last few years was Snapchat. In 2018, there are some potential firms that are likely to go public, which is great because the Dow and S&P 500 are at the record high.

 

Beginning of the End for IPOs?

However, dark clouds have started to form on a distant horizon regarding IPOs. Spotify will probably go for direct listing and bypass the bank underwriting to go public. On the other hand, blockchain technology is booming and has attracted many retail investors, especially the ones who are skeptical about the IPOs and the corruption in this sector. Similarly, SoftBank Vision Fund is also trying to raise as much private capital as possible to provide protection to firms from the devastating effect of vulture funds.

There is an increasing awareness that current IPO sector is a hub of corruption, wherein, only those people are benefiting from the firms growth cycle who know the ‘right people’. The retail investors, however, are on the losing end as they are getting sufficient returns. This growing awareness is not going to subside, especially when there is a constant increase viability of other options.

 

Robust Technology – An Alternative to Conventional IPO

The fall of IPOs has been predicted so many times in the past, but it hasn’t happened yet. Ten or so years back when Google went for a Dutch-style IPO, so many people anticipated that it could a soon-to-be-ending road for banks who want to run a roadshow for investors. Similarly, a few years ago, when the pipeline of initial offerings dried up, the same hype was created.

Despite all the noise, the IPO has continued to provide good business. Although, firms will continue to go public by trading shares or securities, they are undergoing certain changes. For example, conventional ways of big banks to charge a huge fee is going to be replaced by more effective alternatives. So many bankers have already begun to lose their jobs after the introduction of technology. Goldman Sachs has already built an application that manages the IPO process. These steps are being taken to enhance the efficiency of operations.

There are only a few who have anticipated that IPOs will get a support of ethereum tokens and the Dutch East India company. However, no one can deny the fact that IPOs are growing weaker day by day, and they won’t survive in the long run if drastic measures are not taken.

 

Spotify’s Direct Listing

The company has managed to secure around 70 million paying subscribers, but at the same time, its chief content officer has resigned. In addition to that, the company is also dealing with some lawsuits filed by the music labels, which can be very damaging in the future.

Despite all the ups and downs, the news has come to light that Spotify is planning to go public via the direct listing. By undergoing direct listing, the company will not issue any new shares nor will it raise any capital through the process. For IPOs, this arrangement can be very devastating as financial institutions like Goldman Sachs will become deprived of underwriting fees, whereas, institutional investors will lose an opportunity to buy IPO shares at a huge discount like they did in the past.

Although, a direct listing of Spotify will be a little bumpy, it doesn’t mean that the process will end in disaster. The rise of digital trading based on algorithms will help Spotify stabilize the price after analyzing the market. The process will be executed as fast as it does for other initial offerings.

 

Increasing Trend of ICOs

Another disruptive disaster expected to happen is the rising trend of ICOs. Initial coin offerings or ICOs are being considered as a replacement for VCs. The rush of initial coin offerings among startup companies has placed a big question mark on the existence of IPOs. ICO model might not be applicable to every company, but being a competitive threat to IPO, they do not necessarily have to apply to every firm.

All in all, IPO is facing back to back attacks; a direct public offering will dramatically reduce the fees involved in conventional IPO, whereas, ICO will be an effective tool for potential financial growth. These disruptive tools are definitely going to rule out the need to go public so as to achieve financial strength, which would eventually impact the long-term sustenance of IPOs.

Venture Capital Sector Facing Challenges in the Era of Cryptocurrency

In the past couple of years, cryptocurrency has experienced a sudden boom and is now making news in every sector. In the beginning, when bitcoin was in its initial stages, everybody was talking about Venture Capital (VC) and how it is going to benefit the small businesses.

So many venture capitalists made money by investing in innovative ideas that eventually materialized into unicorns. Instead of investing in the digital currency like bitcoins, investors preferred to invest in the companies, such as Coinbase or 21.co.

 

Bitcoin Price at All Times High

Some of these firms performed better than the other. For example, Coinbase ended up being in the first place in the app store of Apple last December as a result of hype over bitcoin. On the other hand, 21 kept changing its names and business plans. Back when Coinbase got its first round of funding from VCs, its price was about $110. However, recently, it has managed to reach $19,000.

An investment associate in the Digital Currency Group, Travis Scher, was of the opinion that had investors invested in the cryptocurrency instead of investing in digital currency firms, they would’ve gotten much higher returns by now.

 

VCs and the Increasing Trend of ICOs

This isn’t easy to grasp as it complicates the core idea of VCs.

The conventional way of making an investment was to find out the rising trend in technology, identify the targets that were in line with those trends and were in a better position to make it big, and then taking a profitable exit as soon as those companies were either sold out or went public.

But it won’t be an effective strategy for digital currencies like bitcoin. In fact, as more and more cryptocurrencies have entered the market, it has become even more confusing and complex. The community of dreamers, and entrepreneurs have been raising money via ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings), wherein, they create their own digital currencies, sell them for money and trade them in the open market.

When it comes to venture capital firms, they offer the investors an unrestricted access to private companies that are not publicly listed. Therefore, the question is, where will these venture capital companies go, if ICOs become a strong medium for people to get a bit of hot technology.

 

Venture Capitalists and their New Tactics

Venture capitalists have been devising new tactics to deal with the frenzy of cryptocurrency. Instead of seeking a stake in the digital currency firm, they have started purchasing the rights to acquire tokens ahead of initial coin offerings via legal contracts. In addition to that, they are improvising conventional equity deals, offering guarantees to investors in terms of getting tokens if a startup company goes for ICO in the future.

Some investors have also invested directly in bitcoin for years. The founder of VC firm Social Capital, Chamath Palihapitiya, said that he, along with his partners, invested in 5 percent of the bitcoin in circulation and still hold a reasonable stake in the currency.

 

Increasing Risks Faced by Investors in the Digital Currency Market

Although, the cryptocurrency market is rapidly growing, yet, it is not without risk. In fact, so many investors have suffered from hacking attacks and have also been threatened physically.

Threats are very real and harmful, because bitcoin will be lost forever if somebody steals it.

 

Cryptocurrency Hedge Funds and Futures Tokens

So many VC firms, including Sequoia Capital, Union Square Venture, and Andreessen Horowitz have made an investment in digital currency hedge funds in order to benefit from the boom without worrying about managing these currencies. They earn profits by trading dabble, litecoin, ethereum, and bitcoin in the ICOs market.

Some of the big names in the world of VC, including Bain Capital Venture, Union Square Ventures, and Sequoia Capital, have entered the deals to acquire digital tokens. For that, they are using legal agreements called “Simple Agreements for Future Tokens” also known as SAFT. Andreessen Horowitz is also taking steps to include provisions in standard contracts for investments in order to properly address ICOs.

According to a research website, in 2017, startup companies made about $3.6 billion in ICOs. This, however, is nothing in comparison to the $52.6 billion earned by VCs from around the world, as stated in the report by CB Insights and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Despite that, investors are inclined toward ICOs as it enables them to make millions in short span of time as compared to VC investments, which take years before you can reap the return.

National Currencies last breath?

The world of digital currency has gained massive popularity in the past couple of years.

Bitcoin has moved over $19,000, whereas, Ethereum is increasing in value every day and its price has crossed over $700. The continuing boom of cryptocurrencies might eventually lead to the next big step, i.e., the end of cash currencies.

Yes, you heard it right. Even the director and founder of Bitt, Gabriel Abed, is of the opinion that cash has been in the market for too long, and all the currencies will eventually be digitized.

 

Rise of the New Economic Age

All the cryptocurrencies, including Ether and Bitcoin, are basically issued by private organizations, groups, and individuals, they mine it through cryptographic protocols  and more and more countries are gradually heading in that direction.

  • Russia has recently announced its plans for a national digital currency called Crypto-Ruble.
  • China and Kyrgyzstan are following the lead.
  • In Japan, over 200,000 stores have been accepting bitcoin as a legal tender and some of the big banks are planning to create their own version of these cryptocurrencies.

In a highly innovative environment, efforts are being made to circulate digital currency in various economies. The Federal Reserve in the United States however, has no such plans of nationalizing the cryptocurrency.

 

Crypto-Ruble – A New Start for Better Russian Economy?

Putin is very strict about following law and order and despite the advantages of having a national digital currency, it has gray areas when it comes to its legal status. This is why he is a little skeptical about cryptocurrencies. Therefore, the aim of Russian official crypto-policy is to eliminate the chances of illegal transactions such as, human-trafficking, terrorism financing, and  money laundering, while at the same time using this technology to modernize the internal capital management of Russia. This is the main strategy behind crypto-ruble.

The crypto-ruble will serve as a connection between the real world and the crypto-world, which would enable the efficient tracking of capital flow in the Russian economy. Those who won’t be able to provide a paper trail of ownership will have to pay tax on crypto-ruble at the capital gain rates. It will encourage the development of low-cost crypto-payment systems, which allows the exchange of rubles for goods only in digital currencies where ownership can be tracked.

 

China Taking a Step to Cryptocurrency Implementation

People’s Bank of China has already created a prototype of a digital currency that may be circulating in the market in times to come, alongside Yuan. The country is testing possible scenarios in a simulated environment and running dummy transactions using digital currency with a few commercial banks in China.

 

Making Quantitative Easing Easier with National Cryptocurrency

The rise of new economic age with cryptocurrency as a national currency will make quantitative easing much easier. Quantitative easing is an economic concept, whereby the central bank purchases predefined amount of financial assets and government bonds to give a boost to the economy. By having a national cryptocurrency, it will be easier to execute the concept of quantitative easing.

 

Why is National Digital Currency a Better Idea?

Abed further added that nationalizing the digital currency is a better option as it is more transparent, immutable, and efficient. In fact, there have been talks between the Central Bank of Jamaica and Bitt to enable testing this technology. At the same time, the company has been running the active pilot programs in other Caribbean countries.

Jamaica is encouraging the FinTech startups by enabling them to operate in the country. The main reason behind these efforts is to foster innovation. A representative of the Caribbean Development Bank said that they do not want to be in a situation where regulatory authorities have a strong and dominant hand initially. He further said that the Caribbean can be used as a virtual space to test the new technology in a secure environment. These efforts will eventually enable them to take bigger steps in the future.