La breve (o no tan) historia del Equity Crowdfunding

Y en esta parte de la historia es cuando tenemos que volver a pensar todo nuevamente, y puede que tengamos que corregir algunas cosas que les conté en el post anterior.

Tal y como les había mencionado previamente, el “último” en aparecer, allá por el 2010 fue el Equity Crowdfunding.

Recuerdo que al principio del posteo previo les dije que el concepto de financiamiento colectivo comenzaba hace unos 300 años aproximadamente y en aquel listado, el concepto de equity crowdfunding o financiamiento colectivo de compañías con la venta de acciones, se encuentra último en la lista.

Pero si repasamos la historia no sería del todo así.

Si vamos a los casos concretos y a la esencia de la actividad en sí, cualquier compañía que atravesó un proceso de IPO u Oferta Pública Inicial, básicamente también accionó para llevar participaciones de la empresa (acciones) al público en general, al igual que hacen las plataformas de financiamiento colectivo modernas, gracias a la tecnología.

Para hablar de estos primeros casos nos tenemos que remontar a la época de la República Romana, donde existió la primera forma de empresa que emitía acciones públicas. Al igual que las sociedades anónimas modernas se dividían en acciones o partes. Existe evidencia de que estas acciones se vendieron a inversores públicos y se negociaron en una especie de mercado extrabursátil en el Foro Romano.

Mucho tiempo después, en 1602 se produjo la primera oferta pública inicial moderna cuando la Compañía Holandesa de las Indias Orientales ofreció acciones de la empresa al público para recaudar capital. La Compañía Holandesa de las Indias Orientales (VOC) se convirtió en la primera empresa en la historia en emitir bonos y acciones para el público en general.

En otras palabras, la VOC fue oficialmente la primera empresa que cotiza en bolsa.

Y recién en 1783 existió la primera oferta pública en Estados Unidos, el Banco de Norte América.

Y entonces …

¿Cuál es el motivo por el que ahora hablamos de Oferta Pública Inicial y de Equity Crowdfunding?

El proceso es realmente similar, y muchos podrán decir que la principal diferencia es que las acciones que se obtienen a través de las campañas de crowdfunding no cotizan en una bolsa o mercado como si las que se obtienen a través de un IPO u Oferta Pública Inicial.

Y este punto podría haber sido válido durante los primeros años y con los primeros sitios de Equity Crowdfunding, pero esa barrera fue prácticamente eliminada por el avance de la tecnología y ya hay varios casos de sitios que cuentan con un mercado secundario que brinda liquidez a los inversores de las campañas de financiamiento colectivo.

Pero hoy en día la principal diferencia yace en las regulaciones que imponen las diferentes comisiones de valores de cada país.

Todos los reguladores comenzaron a controlar las Ofertas Públicas Iniciales y convirtieron, lo que alguna vez fue una alternativa para compañías que exploraban el mundo, o mejor dicho, emprendedores que buscaban cambiar el mundo y la forma de hacer negocios, en una alternativa costosa y pensada únicamente para empresas muy grandes que ya pueden afrontar estos costos y procesos.

Beneficios de las Ofertas Públicas Iniciales:

Permitir un acceso más barato al capital
Incrementar la exposición, el prestigio y la imagen pública
Facilitar adquisiciones (potencialmente a cambio de acciones)
Creación de múltiples oportunidades de financiación: acciones, deuda convertible, préstamos bancarios más económicos, etc.

Desventajas:

Costos legales, contables y de marketing significativos, muchos de los cuales están en curso
Requisito de divulgar información financiera y comercial
Se requiere tiempo, esfuerzo y atención significativos de la gerencia
Riesgo de que no se obtenga la financiación necesaria
Difusión pública de información que pueda ser de utilidad para competidores, proveedores y clientes.

Para el equity crowdfunding existen las mismas ventajas y desventajas, pero hay una que la vuelve una alternativa real y a considerar para todos los emprendedores y empresas que quieren continuar creciendo y encuentran en el capital un factor limitante:

No existen los costos legales, contables y honorarios de todas las partes involucradas para realizar el costoso proceso de IPO u Oferta Pública Inicial.

Y acá es el punto donde quiénes más conocen sobre el mercado de valores y su funcionamiento me dirán que las plataformas tampoco cumplen y pasan todo el proceso, con todas las partes y actores que intervienen en un proceso de IPO.

Esto es completamente verdadero. Es verdad que faltarían varios de los intermediarios que existen en este largo y costoso proceso, pero hoy contamos con la ventaja que la tecnología los vuelve rápidamente prescindibles y se puede lograr el objetivo de obtener el financiamiento necesario gracias a esto.

Hoy la tecnología nos brinda la posibilidad de disminuir los pasos y procesos burocráticos existentes para asistir a los emprendedores en la búsqueda de capital y financiamiento. Como así también la tecnología les brinda una nueva opción a los inversores de ser parte de estas oportunidades y acompañar a personas con la iniciativa para buscar cambiar industrias, mercados, y por qué no, el mundo.

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.

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.

Venture Capital Ecosystem – Now

The current Venture Capital ecosystem has begun to revive and experienced growth in the last two-quarters. Let’s take a look at the situation of the venture capital ecosystem to evaluate the liquidity and investment position in the market.

Overview

In the first and second quarter of 2017, VC sector continued to grow despite the rolling financial market in China, Euro crisis, UK’s exit from the EU, controversial election in the U.S. and obstructed technology IPO market. Although, new uncertainties have surfaced, investors have learned to adapt and adjust. Whereas, the profits made in the first quarter further increased in the second quarter.

Funding Activity at a Global Level

The number of deals around the world has also increased. Equity funding rounds in the second quarter of this year increased by 5.7% as compared to the first quarter, adding about 300 rounds. This change took place as a result of angel investment and seed stage investment.

If you compare it with the second quarter of 2016, the overall growth in the funding rounds was about 8.8%, which came about as a result of early stage firms.

Dollar Volume

According to a report by CrunchBase, the overall investment increased by 16% in dollar terms, which is an increase of about $6.6 billion in the deployed capital. There was a fair distribution of gain. Late stage startups, early stage startups, startups at the seed stage and angels received about 20% funding in the current quarter as compared to the previous one. The only thing that faced a downturn was a technology growth rounds.

However, the global VC market is not yet restored. In the second quarter of last year, the total investment amount was $51.5 billion, but this year it was $47,8 billion, i.e., 7.2% less than the previous year. On the other hand, technology and seed sector experienced growth by 10.75% and 16.5% respectively.

Leading Investors

In a CrunchBase report, a total of 3200 VC rounds was analyzed during the second quarter of this year. During the first quarter, it was Tencent Holdings, Sequoia Capital and Accel Partners that secured the first position, wherein, each had a total of 9 rounds. In the current quarter, however, Tencent led 11 rounds, whereas, Sequoia and Accel led 14 and 20 rounds respectively.

In this quarter, some newcomers were also in the leading position, including Samsara, Grammarly, and General Catalyst. SoftBank also formed part of this list in the second quarter of 2017 along with True Ventures. Some firms dropped down from a leading position, while other newcomers made it to the top.

Technology Growth

Growth capital in the technology sector is also known as a growth equity in the business. Technology growth rounds have been defined as private equity rounds in the CrunchBase report. In these rounds, some VC investors from the previous rounds also participated as a continuation.

The dollar and deal volume also increased in this quarter compared with a volume of the same period last year. The overall increase was about 32%. The increase in dollar volume was of $160 million. Although, the deals in the current quarter were two times more than the deals in the previous quarter, the total value of funds was 45% less than the last quarter. This downfall represents the decline in round sizes over time.

Initial Public Offerings

The second quarter of 2017 experienced a small increase in the technology initial public offerings (IPOs), both in the United States and the Europe. This toned down the speculative noise that IPO window was closed for everyone except the big firms.

No significant regulatory filings or announcements were made in the third quarter of this year. Redfin, a real estate brokerage, filed documents with the Security and Exchange Commission, showing its interest to raise $100 million. And so far, it has managed to raise over $167 million from investors like Tiger Global Management, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and others.

Although, the global VC market experienced a severe decline at the end of last year, the second quarter of 2017 was relatively better. Growth was observed in the dollar and deal volume for two-quarters back to back. Rounds are also experiencing growth; some venture capitalists doubled the bet on their investing activities. If the upward trend continues, the third quarter will bring the market back to normal after full recovery.