Feeds:
Posts
Comments
Apr 10, 2013, 12:03pm PDT

Foundation’s Paul Holland: Smaller fund, smaller fundings right for times

Foundation Capital Partner Paul Holland says the firm’s latest fund is smaller than the previous ones by design, a reaction to how little startups need these days to get off the ground.

Senior Technology Reporter- Silicon Valley Business Journal

A lot has happened in the year that Foundation Capital started raising money for its seventh fund, according to Partner Paul Holland.

Instead of what had been reportedly planned as a half billion fund, the Menlo Park firm on Tuesday closed a $282 million pool to invest from.

“Startups don’t need as much money now, thanks to the cloud and other factors,” Holland told me. “Startups are using about 40 percent less capital, on average, so we don’t need as much capital to invest.”

He said the smaller fund size was a conscious reaction to the changing startup environment.

“We raised our last fund, which was $750 million in 2008, when we thought we would be doing more cleantech and later-stage deals,” he said. “It took us five years to invest, which is frankly too long. We wanted to have a fund that we thought we could finish investing in three years.”

The new fund will be targeting about 60 percent of its cash at IT startups, about 30 percent to 35 percent at consumer startups and up to 10 percent in cleantech.

“We do about two-thirds of our investments in seed or Series A rounds but we will invest in later rounds when we find something that suits us,” Holland said.

There will be right of the firm’s 13 partners investing from the fund, including new partner Anamitra Banerji, who developed Twitter’s ad platform as one of the micro-blogging company’s earliest employees.

“We have a heritage of partners who stay around for quite a while after they have finished actively investing,” Holland said. “They stay involved with the firm and with the companies they have invested in.”

General Partner Rich Redelfs is the only partner who has newly stepped back from investing, he said.

Despite working with a smaller fund, Holland said he is more excited about the startups he sees now than he was 10 years ago.

“There is a real tailwind behind early stage investing right now,” he said. “The difference between now and 10 years ago is night and day. It’s a lot easier to create returns on small amounts of money now than ever in my experience.”

Click here to subscribe to TechFlash Silicon Valley, the daily email newsletter about startups, venture and angel investors.

Cromwell Schubarth is the Senior Technology Reporter at the Business Journal. His phone number is 408.299.1823.

Apr 9, 2013, 11:03am PDT

VC, angel solar focus shifts as funding hits 5-year low

Solar funding by venture and angel investors hit a five-year low in the first quarter of this year.

Senior Technology Reporter- Silicon Valley Business Journal

Investments in the solar industry hit a five-year low in the first quarter, according to a new report, as venture funding focus shifts towards startups that do solar financing and installation.

CB Insights said there were just 18 investments in the first three months of the year that gave out $269 million. That contrasts dramatically with the nearly $3 billion in funding in almost 50 deals that came in the second quarter of 2011, just before the infamous shutdown of Fremont-based Solyndra.

Monday’s $37 million funding of Clean Power Finance is the type of activity that is more common these days. The San Francisco-based company’s revenue rose 325 percent in 2012, mostly from transaction fees earned through its online financing marketplace.

That’s because American consumers are still buying and installing solar power in growing numbers. The materials aren’t likely to be domestic, although the financing and installers are.

In another solar financing development this week, California officials told Oakland-based Mosaic that it can crowdfund $100 million worth of solar projects. The company lets state residents invest as little as $25 in projects and get paid back with interest from the revenue those projects generate.

CB Insights reports that despite the overall slowdown in solar deals, there are still early stage deals coming into the pipeline. It said that almost 45 percent of solar investments in the last year have been seed/angel and Series A fundings.

Click here to subscribe to TechFlash Silicon Valley, the daily email newsletter about startups, venture and angel investors.

Cromwell Schubarth is the Senior Technology Reporter at the Business Journal. His phone number is 408.299.1823.

Related links:

San Francisco, Venture capital, Startups, Solar energy

Industries:

Technology

Disruptions: The Logic (or Lack of It) in Appraising Start-Ups

By NICK BILTON
Otis Chandler and his wife, Elizabeth Khuri Chandler, the founders of Goodreads, a social media site that recently sold for a reported $150 million.Annie Tritt for The New York Times Otis Chandler and his wife, Elizabeth Khuri Chandler, the founders of Goodreads, a social media site that recently sold for a reported $150 million.

I have a vision of how suitors decide how much to offer for a start-up they want to buy. Several executives go into a conference room. Each scribbles a number on a piece of paper and places it in a hat. Then the chief executive pulls out a number, and there it is.

It might sound like a stretch, but given the seemingly random and sometimes nonsensical amounts for which start-ups with no revenue, or no users, or even no product are bought, I might not be far off.

But let’s say there is a logical way to value a company. During Bubble 1.0 there seemed to be — at least sometimes. Tech start-ups were valued by the number of eyeballs they attracted. When Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo for $5.9 billion in stock in April 1999, it was estimated that the company paid $10,000 per user.

Today, when eyeballs mean much less, how do start-ups with no revenue come up with a valuation? Well, it depends on a buyer’s reason for wanting the company.

One of the growing forms of acquisitions is an acqui-hire, in which a company is bought for its talent.

“If the company has no revenue and no users, then it comes down to the price of each engineer, which on average ranges between $750,000 to $1.5 million per person,” said Sam Hamadeh, chief executive of PrivCo, a firm that follows privately held companies, who noted that such acquisitions were up 91 percent from a year ago. “Facebook certainly pioneered and popularized this phenomenon as it made acquisitions to essentially snuff out competition.”

An investor report released by PrivCo in late March found that 12 of the acquisitions by Facebook last year were of this type. Often Facebook integrated the engineers and then shut the newly purchased company. The report also found that Twitter had acquired eight companies to get their engineering talent. Yahoo, Google, Apple, LinkedIn and Airbnb have also done transactions just for engineers.

Given Mr. Hamadeh’s estimate, we can begin to guess at a start-up’s value if it’s clearly an acqui-hire. If a company has 10 employees, no revenue and no users, it could be worth about $15 million. Throw in the cost of some office equipment, shutting down the technology and paying back investors, and it’s valued at $30 million.

Chris Dixon, a general partner at the venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, said in an interview that although some of the recent start-up acquisition prices might seem high, many are amortized over four years, which makes some deals seem more rational. “If you’re paying $1 million per engineer in an acqui-hire, that’s split up over four years and ends up equaling the salary of other engineers in the Valley,” he said.

But some of these transactions have people scratching their heads — like that of Summly, a news-reading app built by a 17-year-old with two employees, which Yahoo bought for a reported $30 million last month. As Emin Gün Sirer, an associate professor at Cornell, noted, Summly didn’t use any unique technology and has only a couple of employees.

When a company has users and it is a straight-up product acquisition, the numbers can be more difficult to figure out. Amazon recently purchased Goodreads, a social media site built around sharing books, for a sum said to be $150 million. Mailbox, which had not properly begun, sold for $100 million last month to DropBox. And, of course, there is Instagram, which was bought for $1 billion.

Thomas R. Eisenmann, a professor at the Harvard Business School, said that when companies weren’t being acquired just for their talent — like Goodreads and Instagram — three possible calculations were used to determine a valuation. The first requires exploring how much time and effort it would take to build the product from scratch and attract new users. The second is potential cash flow.

The third is “in the realm of, ‘What number do we need to put on the table to convince the management and investors to part with their dream?’ ” he said. “Often, they end up somewhere in the magic middle.”

Of course, all of this math starts to fall apart when a start-up receives an exorbitant amount of press and exposure on social networks. Then suitors become irrational, making the price people are willing to pay seem as if it were plucked out of a hat.

E-mail: bilton@nytimes.com

Unknown

Four of Cupcake Digital’s children’s apps were recently named Parent’s Choice Award winners.

The Parents’ Choice Foundation is the nation’s oldest nonprofit guide to quality children’s media and toys. Parents’ Choice Award Seals are  internationally recognized and respected icons of quality. The Foundation’s product evaluation process addresses: developmentally appropriate content and challenges; design and function; educational value; long-term play value; and benefits to a child’s social and emotional growth and well being.

The four apps that received the Parent’s Choice Classic, Fun Stuff Award are “Wubbzy’s Pirate Treasure,” “Wubbzy’s Space Adventure,” “Wubbzy’s The Night Before Christmas” and “Wubbzy’s Train Adventure”. Each of these apps was produced in 2012 for children around the world to interact with one of children’s favorite television characters, Wubbzy.

Cupcake Digital has been lauded as one of the top app companies, winning awards like the AppySmart’s Editor’s Favorite for Wubbzy’s Fire Engine and Wubbzy’s Night Before Christmas, and garnering dozens of favorable reviews around the Internet, including iPad Kids, Jellybeans Tunes, Appolicious, Rock-A-Bye Parents, AOL Tech, Wired and many more.

Cupcake Digital’s apps blend entertainment with learning moments in fun stories about Wubbzy and his friends. Recent Wubbzy apps include games and activities designed help prepare preschoolers to meet the Common Core State Standards required for kindergarten and first grade. Each Wubbzy app comes packed with extras, from the much-lauded “Grown-Up’s Corner” that encourages discussion about the story between an adult and child to bonus music videos and coloring pages.

We take great pride in being awarded the 2013 Parent’s Choice Class, Fun Stuff Award!

Read more about the award here. 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Your Business CAN Avoid The Series A Crunch – Here’s How

Jim Andelman, my Partner at Rincon Venture Partners, aptly describes the genesis of the Series A crunch, stating that: “Over the next 12-to-18 months, a lot of good companies that have been Seed financed are going to have a tough time raising a Series A from a new outside lead. This is due to a fundamental disconnect between the increased activity of high-volume seed investors (that fill out lots of Seed rounds) and the relatively small number of Series A investors, who only make 1 or 2 investments, per partner, per year.”

Turtle Eggs And Startups

I was in a board meeting recently at Connexity when Dave Gross, the company’s Co-Founder and CEO, made an insightful observation regarding the shortage of Series A funds. He joked that it is akin to turtles hatching on a beach and running in mass toward the ocean. Thousands of turtles are hatched, but only a fraction evades the grasp of predatory birds and reach the safety of the water.

Once in the water, another significant percentage of the baby turtles is quickly devoured by hungry sea creatures. The nasty and brutish  deaths of the unfortunate turtles are disquieting , but the process ensures that  the survivors are (on average) strong, healthy and able to capitalize on the ecosystem’s resources.

There is a similar Darwinian aspect to venture capital investing. Companies that exhibit the greatest prospects are those that attract the necessary capital to survive. Non-performing companies (unless they are artificially propped up by a Washington bureaucrat with tax dollars) are usually unable to garner adequate financing. Their demise, albeit painful in the short term, frees the employees (and in some cases the underlying technology) to pursue more productive opportunities.

There are no villains in the current Series A drama. The rapid growth of seed investments is the natural result of a number of industry trends, which continue to drive down the cost of launching and operating a web-based business. Some seed investors execute over one hundred investments per year, each in the $25k to $200k range. Paul Singh, a partner at the seed stage firm 500-Startups, effectively articulates the market forces driving this investment strategy in his Money Ball presentation.

The other primary factor contributing to the Series A shortfall is the concentration of venture capital funds in the hands of a shrinking number of large firms. This has been driven by venture partners’ desire for larger and larger fees (which are a function of the amount of capital they manage) and institutional investors’ allocation of funds to a handful of VC firms with long (but not necessarily stellar) legacies. This is the “no one ever got fired for buying IBM” approach to investing.

Due to their size, these legacy funds must invest relatively large amounts of capital in each of their deployments, which ill-equips them for participation in most Series A rounds. This flow of funds to large, mediocre VC firms has been widely discussed, usually under the heading, “Is Venture Capital Broken?”

According to Jim Andelman, “These market dynamics combine to leave good companies unfunded, even when they do not need ‘much’ more capital to achieve a good exit. If a venture does not have a reasonably high-perceived chance of a $250 million exit, most Series A investors are passing.  The crunch is especially acute outside of Silicon Valley, as the Bay Area VCs focus on their home market, and the relatively fewer Series A investors in other markets can thus afford to be especially picky.”

Avoiding The Series A Crunch

Many of the unlucky baby turtles are healthy and speedy but still fail to reach the relative safety of the ocean. Similarly, companies with a viable value prop and promising future are finding it challenging to raise  adequate capital. Fortunately, there is a key difference between startups and baby turtles: entrepreneurs can make their own luck.

To this end, some of the tactics entrepreneurs can execute to avoid becoming a victim of the Series A crunch, include:

Take more money at the Seed stage – Although the incremental dilution will be painful, it is prudent to accept 30% – 50% more capital in your Seed round than you would historically, as it will give you a longer runway in which to create value in advance of seeking Series A funds.

Court Seed Investors with a demonstrated history of participating in a post-Seed rounds – As noted in Extracting More Than Cash From Your Angel Investors, there are a variety of parameters you should use to identify and target potential seed investors. Given the current paucity of Series A funds, the depth of an investor’s pockets should be given special prioritization.

Be realistic about your Series A valuation – Although it may seem counterintuitive, the lack of equilibrium between Seed and Series A investors is causing valuation inflation. Per Mr. Andelman, “The Series A investors are now paying more for businesses they think will have outlier exits.” These high-profile deals, which are covered extensively in the tech press and pursued by numerous investors, contribute to unrealistic expectations among rank and file entrepreneurs regarding a reasonable Series A market-rate.

If your company is not perceived to have the potential of a huge exit, do not expect a major uptick from your Seed valuation. If you are forced to accept a lower value, consider reducing the dilutive impact by raising a mix of equity and debt, as described more fully below.

Consider venture debt – If your business has a predictable, reliable cash stream and you have a high degree of confidence that you can reach sustaining profitability, it might be prudent to supplement a smaller Series A raise with debt. With current interest rates in the low-single digits, the cost of such capital has never been cheaper. Expect such debt to include a modest equity kicker component, in the form of warrant coverage. In addition, be on alert for camouflaged fees.

Customer dollars – Sophisticated entrepreneurs understand that the ideal source of capital is from customers’ wallets. Not only does revenue validate a startup’s value proposition, it results in zero dilution. The sooner you generate customer revenue and internalize paying customers’ feedback, the shorter your path to self-sustainability.

If you follow these tips, you are not guaranteed to avoid the Series A crunch, but you will undoubtedly increase your odds of adequately funding your startup, through its Series A round and beyond.

Follow my startup-oriented Twitter feed here: @johngreathouse. I promise I will never tweet about double rainbows or that killer burrito I just ate. You can also check out my hands-on startup advice blog HERE.