Una alternativa llamada Equity Crowdfunding

Si te suenan familiares los siguientes términos: acciones, deuda, notas convertibles, SAFE, es porque perteneces a ese pequeño grupo denominado “inversores ángeles” o al mundo de las startups, emprendedores y “venture capitals”.

Pero todo cambia, y a partir de ahora estos son términos que todos deberían conocer ya que no hay barreras para acceder a este tipo de inversión como tampoco es necesario contar con el status de inversor acreditado.

Para el lado de los emprendedores, el crowdfunding les ofrece otra alternativa para captar capital saliendo de los actores tradicionales y dirigirse a la “multitud” para su próxima ronda. Pueden vender acciones a sus fans, sus usuarios, sus clientes y crear una mayor lealtad dentro de su red preexistente.

Pero lo más importante es que ahora los consumidores, clientes, usuarios y público en general tienen acceso a un nuevo tipo de inversiones, es decir dejan de estar reservadas para los “inversores acreditados”.

Pero hoy me gustaría hacer foco en la siguiente pregunta: ¿Afecta el crowdfunding a los actores tradicionales del mundo emprendedor?, actores que durante mucho tiempo han sido los mayores inversores de startups.

3 puntos que cambia el crowdfunding o financiación colectiva:

Democratizar el acceso al capital.

Tradicionalmente, los emprendedores y startups recaudan capital recurriendo a los actores tradicionales del mundo del financiamiento emprendedor (Fondos de inversión o VC, aceleradoras, incubadoras, company builders, etc.), pero el número de startups que reciben inversiones es increíblemente bajo.

En Argentina se invirtieron:

En el 2018 U$S 84.000.000.- en 19 deals.
En el 2019 U$S 290.000.000.- en 29 deals.

A pesar del notable aumento de 2018 a 2019 hay que aclarar que en este caso el ranking estuvo liderado por los U$S 150.000.000.- recibidos por Ualá, dejando U$S 140.000.000.- para otras 28 compañías.

La mayoría de las empresas que reciben capital suelen estar ubicadas en AMBA.

¿Por qué?

Es simple: el ecosistema está mejor equipado para las nuevas empresas. Además, muchos gestores de fondos están presentes en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires y alrededores, y ahí es donde sus redes de networking son más profundas. El resto del país se queda fuera, lo que significa que una gran parte geográfica no cuenta con fondos suficientes.

Igualar las oportunidades de financiamiento.

Tiene mucho sentido que los fondos de inversión sean exigentes con respecto a las startups o emprendedores que eligen financiar y acompañar. Esto se debe a las tasas de mortalidad de este tipo de compañías. Justamente el rol de los inversores es encontrar las compañías (esperando encontrar “unicornios”) que cubran las inversiones fallidas y permita generar beneficios.

Sin embargo, en los mercados más desarrollados, como el de USA, existen estadísticas preocupantes sobre las decisiones que se toman.

El 89% de los inversores son hombres.
Menos del 5% de todas las inversiones del Venture Capital son recibidas por mujeres.

Todo esto a pesar de que los equipos de emprendedores y ejecutivos mixtos generan mejores múltiplos y más altos en adquisiciones o IPO, que los equipos ejecutivos y fundadores de “todos hombres blancos” (3.3x vs. 2.5x y 3.3x vs. 2x respectivamente).

Al comparar estas cifras con los datos de Indiegogo de 2016 podemos observar que las mujeres ocuparon el 44% de los puestos de liderazgo en las empresas que crecieron en su plataforma.

En cuanto al Equity Crowdfunding las fundadoras representaron el 22% de los proyectos presentados, y la diferencia de capital recaudado entre fundadores masculinos y femeninos es solo del 3% a favor de los hombres.

Si bien no es 50-50 hay que tener en cuenta que las mujeres que inician compañías en USA representan solo el 16% de las empresas.

Estas nuevas alternativas de financiamiento están ayudando a diversificar el ecosistema de startups y equiparar las oportunidades para todos los emprendedores.

IPO/M&A – ¿Sigue siendo el objetivo final?

Es lógico pensar que cuando un VC invierte en una startup sólo persiga uno de estos objetivos:

Oferta Pública Inicial
M&A – Fusiones o Adquisiciones

Con alguna de estas opciones los inversores pueden alcanzar su EXIT, es decir la venta de su participación en la compañía, y así obtener beneficios. Sin embargo, el crowdfunding está introduciendo una nueva opción, la negociación de valores en mercados secundarios públicos.

Esto significa que el éxito de una inversión ya no depende de una Oferta Pública Inicial, una fusión o una adquisición, porque el inversor puede vender sus acciones inmediatamente si así lo desea.

En 2019 en USA, solo 165 empresas realizaron una oferta pública inicial y hubo poco menos de 16.000 acuerdos de fusiones y adquisiciones.

Cuando nos detenemos a revisar estos números al sur del continente nos encontramos con únicamente 7 IPOs, 5 en Brasil y 2 en Chile y un poco más de 1.100 acuerdos de fusiones y adquisiciones.

También se vuelve más distante la posibilidad de una oferta pública inicial si se considera que el número de empresas que cotizan en bolsa está disminuyendo.

En Estados Unidos el número de empresas listadas pasó de superar los 5.000 en 1980 a 4.300 en 2018.
En Argentina de superar los 300 en 1975 a menos de 100 en 2019.

Ser una empresa pública es un proceso costoso y extremadamente burocrático.

Ahora existe una nueva opción para todos los inversores y emprendedores, que ayuda a eliminar barreras geográficas, sesgos de los inversores y tiene la posibilidad de acortar los plazos para realizar las tomas de ganancias.

Con esto no creo que los actores tradicionales tengan que cambiar y/o desaparecer y que únicamente se utilicen mecanismos como el Equity Crowdfunding, al contrario creo que son complementarios.

Todos estos actores brindan un valor inmenso a las compañías en etapas tempranas, y muchas compañías exitosas que hoy conocemos y usamos a diario no existirían sin su apoyo.

Con el Equity Crowdfunding en escena tanto emprendedores como inversores tienen una nueva herramienta a disposición y los actores tradicionales de la industria dispondrán de una herramienta complementaria para que las compañías que apoyan obtengan más financiamiento.

Como resultado, más emprendedores tienen acceso a obtener capital y nuevos inversores tienen acceso a nuevas oportunidades de inversión. Con el crowdfunding, sus costos más bajos y mayor liquidez, más empresas reciben financiamiento, más inversores participan de las mismas e inevitablemente existirá un crecimiento y desarrollo económico para el país.

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.

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.

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.

ICOs Surpassed Early Stage Venture Capital Funding

New startups that raised funds through Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) have now surpassed the early stage VC Funding for internet firms.

But before diving into it, it is important to know what ICOs are.

What is Initial Coin Offerings?

This is another way of raising cash.

Cryptocurrency and blockchain startup companies raise capital through ICOs by selling tokens of investors in exchange for equity funds. It is somewhat the same as Initial Public Offering in which stocks are issued in exchange for equity. Just like crowdfunding, ICOs provide a way to get funds from users by enabling them to have a share of the business. They get digital currency in exchange for the money they invest in the business.

Rising Popularity of ICOs and VC Funding

ICOs have gained massive popularity in the last few months among blockchain and cryptocurrency startups. In April this year, the total capital raised via these offerings was around $100 million and in May, the amount went up to about $250 million. The month of June turned out to be the biggest surprise when the total funding exceeded $550 million. According to Goldman Sachs, it was the first time that it performed better than seed and angel venture capital funding. Early stage and angel venture capital funding was less than $300 million in June.

In July, the offerings were a little more than $300 million, whereas, early stage and angel funding was just a bit higher than $200 million.

Popularity Among the Celebrities

ICOs have become so popular that even the celebrities, including Paris Hilton and Floyd Mayweather, have started jumping on board. In fact, Paris has been involved in it for over a year now and also met the COO of Ethereum last year.

Total Value of ICOs in 2017

The total value raised by 92 ICOs in 2017 is $1.25 billion. This is a really good number, given the recent boom of such offerings in the VC sector. There are so many firms that have used these offerings to raise money. For example, Tezos managed to get the capital of over $200 million by creating a new blockchain, whereas, another firm, Bancor secured $153 million via ICO.

Criticism and Scrutiny from Regulators

Despite the boom, this phenomenon has been under severe criticism and scrutiny from regulators and other authorities. For example, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) released a statement in which it was mentioned that these offerings are exposed to money laundering and other terrorist financing risks, because the nature of these transactions remains anonymous. Another concern raised by the MAS was the collection of large amounts of capital in such a short time frame, which makes ICO vulnerable to high-level risk.

On the other hand, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) said in July this year that the security law of the U.S. will be applicable to this cryptocurrency. The experts are also showing concern over its legitimacy. They have highlighted that the sale of a cryptographic token makes the investor entitled to a certain share of profit in the firm, which can be considered as a violation of financial rules and regulations. The People’s Bank of China and a lot of other government departments have released a joint statement that people and firms that have raised money through ICO should also make arrangements to return that capital.

Firms Facing Increasing Risk of Getting Hacked

Despite all the boom and criticism, the risk of ICOs cannot be ruled out. A clear example of this is CoinDash that initiated an ICO, but ended up getting hacked in July. As a result, all of its funds got stolen. Although, it has gained popularity in the past few months, yet, the risks cannot be ruled out entirely.

Future of ICOs

The Chief Information Officer of UBS, Oliver Bussman, raised his concern and said that strict regulations and measures, as applied to IPO businesses, are required in ICO to safeguard the interest of investors. However, he is quite confident about this new mode of raising funds and expressed that such offerings will continue to happen in future. He said that as a new business model that is benefiting the blockchain technology, ICO will continue to sustain by combining hybrid equity ownership/currency and crowd funding.

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.

Evolution of the Venture Capital Sector

Venture capital (VC) industry is highly volatile. It is constantly evolving and has undergone massive changes in the past ten years due to the growth of the software sector. The shift toward the IT industry will continue to persist until one of the two situations occur:

Either the software market starts experiencing saturation as a result of huge inflow of money in the industry or
There is a manifestation of a new industry that shows higher profits, hence catching the attention of investors.

There are some analysts in the financial sector who are also anticipating another bubble bust that will be similar to the dotcom bubble in the 90s.

Rise and Fall in the VC Sector During the Past 5 Years

In 2015, VC investment around the globe experienced a growth of 19 percent. The total funding was between $128.5 billion and $130 billion, which has been the highest in the last 5 years. However, the investment continued to grow in the U.S. from $58.8 billion in 2015 to $69.1 billion in 2016.

As far as the rise of unicorn companies on a global level is concerned, it gradually declined after 2015 when the total number of startups that reached unicorn status were 71. The number reduced to 40 in 2016. On the other hand, a decline was also observed in seed funding as it dropped by 25 percent and touched the lowest point since 2012. The late and early stage investments also went down by 14 percent and 5 percent respectively.

Opportunities for VC Investors

Although, a large number of high profile investors pursue seed stage deals, they usually have sufficient funds to invest in the most attractive startup companies, which has subsequently strengthened Series A and Series B rounds.

Moreover, seed stage investments performed really well in 2014 and 2015, indicating the fact that investors who made those investments will be continuing in 2017. It will give rise to a great opportunity for investors who are seeking to make an investment at a later stage.

The momentum in the IPO will also increase, because the public sector tends to grow when valuations in the private sector are higher. It is quite likely that the IPO market backed by VC investors will outperform in 2017 as compared to 2016. For example, it has been reported that Snap Inc. is expected to offer its share at about $20 billion. If the offer materializes, it will be one of the largest VC backed IPO deal. In addition to that, Spotify, Pinterest, Dropbox and Uber are some of the names creating buzz in the IPO sector.

Rising Trends and Acquisitions

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have grabbed a lot of attention between 2015 and 2016, and they are likely to secure more investment in 2017 as well. There were more than 300 businesses that managed to raise early and seed stage funding in 2016, yet, approximately dozen secure funds at a later stage.

Moreover, a number of healthy acquisitions have also taken place recently. The examples include the acquisition of Movidius by Intel for $350 million and acquisition of virtual assistant developer Viv by Samsung.

Economics and Investors’ Behavior

There is a major role play of economics when it comes to VC investments. Since economics follow a cyclical pattern, it is highly likely that history will not be repeated nor will the unpredictable happen. Also, economics involves study of human behavior that contains an element of irrationality. This element enables us to anticipate the shifts in behavior of VC investors only to an extent of its repetition and history, but it cannot be predicted with full certainty.

VC investments change with the passage of time. As the inflow of funds increases in the software sector, it gives rise to increasing competition in the market, which eventually reduce the overall returns as several firms compete to maintain a customer base. It might also cause a shift in venture capitalist behavior in times to come if other sectors seem more viable.

All in all, the justification of a VC investors’ behavior can be summed up by saying that venture capitalists tend to go in a direction where the money flows.

Startups Worthy of Investment … or not

It seems like those days are long gone when venture capitalists used SPRAY and PRAY strategy in the hope that one of the startups in the entire portfolio would make it big.

In other words, it is about time that startup companies show their ability that they are worthy of the venture capital (VC) funds.

Decline in the Number of VC Funded Companies

The PitchBook released the first quarter of the 2017 issue in collaboration with the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). The statistics presented in that report were based on the thorough analysis of VC activity in the United States. According to that report, $16.5 billion was raised by 1800 companies alone. PitchBook and NVCA also observed that even though the amount of investment in the Q1 of 2017 was a bit higher than the capital invested in the fourth quarter of 2016, the number of startups has dramatically decreased to its lowest level since the fourth quarter of 2011.

VC Investors and Entrepreneurs Exercising Caution

It looks like the VC sector is facing a gradual decline after experiencing effervescent days of glory back in 2015.

John Gabbert, the CEO of PitchBook, said that during the past few years, the VC activity managed to attain intensified growth in the United States and now it seems to be coming back to earth. He further added that it feels like startup founders and investors have started following a more disciplined approach to investing the funds and taking reasonable caution by adopting measures, such as due diligence. These activities are carried out to secure fair deals on both sides so that each party gets something good out of it.

Ernst & Young, a London based auditing firm, reported that companies in the United States raised about 41.3 billion dollars in 2,802 VC deals in the third quarter of 2016. The San Franciso Bay area represented a total of 916 deals having a value of 16.9 billion dollars.

Jeffrey Grabow, the leader of VC in the U.S. based Ernst & Young, said that VC funding has slowed down and there are various reasons for the declining trend. The prominent reason, however, is the fact that investors want the market to absorb the already distributed capital in the market. Momentum capital has reached a later stage of VC funding and injected capital in almost every that was available in the market. Therefore, it is about time to see how it all turns out.

Comparison of the Number of Exits

In spite of the huge funding to a limited number of IT companies, a lot of companies fueled by $9.05 billion worth of venture capital took an exit in the first quarter of 2017. This exceeds the combined value of the IT companies’ exits in 2006, 2008 and 2009. The situation is relatively close to how it was back in 2007. If the same trend and immensity of initial public offerings and acquisitions follow, 2017 will either reach the same figure of 2014, i.e., 39.74 billion dollars, or might exceed it. Only time can tell what is to come next, but it continues to happen at the same pace, it would probably exceed the value of 2014.

IT firms around the world continue to leave behind all other kinds of businesses that are funded by venture capital. According to the NVCA and PitchBook report, Initial Public Offering of Snap and acquisition of AppDynamics by Cisco has been ranked among the top 10 biggest exits of their types during the past 10 years.

Investments in VC Activity

California has left behind all other states in the United States in terms of the number and value of VC investments. A total of 560 investments was made in 556 companies, which were worth 8.3 billion dollars. As far as the number of investments was concerned, New York was ranked second with a total of 218 investments. Whereas, Massachusetts was in the second position in terms of investment value as it was slightly higher than 2 billion dollars. Although, there may be a rising trend in the remote work among startup companies, yet, the concentration of venture capital is still high in the Silicon Valley.