Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Avatar of Matt Dusig

The Mistakes Investors Make Before They Write the Check

Posted on: February 22, 2013
inShare12

The start-up market is flooded with entrepreneurs claiming to be the next Facebook or Instagram. However, in reality, three out of four start-ups will fail. Investors need to know whether or not they are wisely hedging their bets—and how to do so.

“As investors, we are forced to make decisions on incomplete sets of information,” says Bo Peabody, co-founder and Managing General Partner of Village Ventures. “Macros trends, internal hunches, market forecasts and individual consumer opinions are some of the pieces that make up the partial picture.”

Investors should have a complete understanding of their markets before pulling out their checkbooks to invest in start-ups or back entrepreneurs. Here are five mistakes investors too often make before making the deal:

Out of Touch with Consumer Demand: As an investor, you should always ask yourself: does the product or service actually solve a key pain point for the target customers? If they build it, will anyone come? A quick survey of target consumers can help to verify if there is actually a need for the product or service offered by the company. This also identifies other unforeseen pain points that could be detrimental to a start-up.

Limited Understanding of the Competitive Landscape: Who do consumers think of when asked about a given industry or type of service? What companies or products do they rely on? If the product or service looks to ‘solve a problem’ for consumers, how are they solving that problem today? Often times, gathering deeper insights of target customers can help identify the real competitors to a given business – not just who the start-up perceives.

Failing to Validate the Marketing/Sales Plan: In today’s market, products and services are consumed through different vehicles such as online, mobile, and in-store. Start-ups often fail to accurately predict how consumers want to shop for or purchase a product or service. For example, many consumers are only willing to purchase certain types of items AFTER they have actually seen it in person, such as big screen TVs and shoes. Knowing how consumers prefer to shop for or purchase certain products is a good indication if the business owners have properly thought through their marketing and sales strategy.

Not Measuring Brand Loyalty: Some business plans rely on the idea of ‘stealing’ customers away from existing brands or products. Customer loyalty can be a stronger force than many entrepreneurs realize, but it’s a force that can be readily measured with proper consumer research. Look for proof that there is a strong understanding and plan of action by start-ups of how they can actually win over loyal customers.

Failing to Validate Their Own Research: If business owners or entrepreneurs are presenting research (their own or someone else’s) as a part of their prospectus, investors should take the time to validate or invalidate that research. In particular, extreme claims should always be double-checked. For example, if a start-up claims that 95% of new mothers want their new bio-degradable diapers, it’s worth double-checking this data to support the claim.

“Real-time consumer data delivers a more complete picture on which to base investment decisions,” says Peabody. “We are able to instantly validate some of our hypotheses.”

Matt Dusig is co-founder and CEO of uSamp, a driver of online market research and survey respondents used to obtain important consumer and business insights. Opinions expressed here are entirely his own.

Article from NYTimes.

With Andrew Mason’s forced resignation from Groupon on Thursday, the career of one of the most unusual corporate chieftains has ended.

And what an eclectic journey it has been for the onetime darling of Silicon Valley, which ascended with blinding speed, then crashed just as quickly.

Though Mr. Mason’s departure from the four-year-old company he founded had been speculated about for some time — certainly in light of Groupon’s poor financial performance since its initial public offering — the exit was finalized only on Thursday morning, according to people briefed on the matter.

It was little surprise, coming after yet another disappointing quarter, in which the company missed analyst estimates and posted revenue guidance that also fell short of expectations. The company’s stock slid 24.3 percent on Thursday, to $4.53.

That valued Groupon at just $3 billion — after the company went public in late 2011 at a $12.7 billion valuation.

After meeting Thursday morning, Groupon’s board requested that Mr. Mason resign. He agreed.

Mr. Mason will be replaced on an interim basis by an “office of the chief executive” formed Thursday morning, made up of Eric Lefkofsky, Groupon’s chairman and co-founder, and Ted Leonsis, the board’s vice chairman.

Mr. Mason will still have some presence at the company: He currently owns about 7 percent of Groupon’s stock, and controls a much larger percentage of its voting power.

Mr. Lefkofsky bid Mr. Mason farewell in a fairly standard corporate statement: “On behalf of the entire Groupon board, I want to thank Andrew for his leadership, his creativity and his deep loyalty to Groupon. As a founder, Andrew helped invent the daily deals space, leading Groupon to become one of the fastest growing companies in history.”

In typical fashion, Mr. Mason described the circumstances a bit more trenchantly. Here’s an excerpt from a letter he sent to company employees on Thursday, which he posted online “since it will leak anyway”:

After four and a half intense and wonderful years as C.E.O. of Groupon, I’ve decided that I’d like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding – I was fired today.

He also references “Battletoads,” a cult video game for the Nintendo Entertainment System that a small minority of DealBook remembers as being sometimes absurdly difficult.

A Pittsburgh native who graduated from Northwestern University with a degree in music, Mr. Mason rarely ever seemed like the corporate type. He originally created Groupon as part of a bigger Web venture, focusing on daily deals as the most commercially viable part of that start-up.

Even then, he was known for his quirky humor. Three years ago, Mr. Mason made a video for a fictional “Monkey for a Week” lending service.

As Groupon grew, Mr. Mason’s peculiar demeanor sense of humor continued to garner attention. His grooming came up at least once, as Silicon Valley denizens pondered whether he’d hit a tanning salon before appearing at a TechCrunch conference in 2010 with a prominent bronze glow.

And in 2011, Mr. Mason had an unusual way of not responding to a question by All Things D’s Kara Swisher that he didn’t want to answer: with a “death stare.”

Groupon's I.P.O. roadshow video presentation.Groupon’s I.P.O. roadshow video presentation.

By that fall, as the daily deals giant was preparing to go public, Mr. Mason took on a more professional cast. In a video to prospective investors, the Groupon chief executive looked a bit more professional, complete with slicked-back hair and a dark suit and tie.

It was a persona he settled into post-I.P.O., usually delivering sober financial information in his public appearances.

But other parts of the run-up to Groupon’s I.P.O. in late 2011 were hardly laughing matters. The company took fire for introducing controversial accounting measures in its prospectus, which critics contended masked losses and unfairly diminished a need to spend heavily on marketing.

The Securities and Exchange Commission queried the company over its financial information in a series of letters that were eventually made public.

In August of 2011, Groupon announced that it was dropping the metric.

Two months later, the company revised its prospectus again to further clarify additional financial reporting measures, as well as to include an internal e-mail from Mr. Mason that was subsequently leaked to the press.

Even after going public, Groupon still ran into the occasional issue. It restated quarterly results last year after disclosing a “material weakness” in its internal accounting controls.

For all those troubles, Mr. Mason accepted responsibility.

“From controversial metrics in our S1 to our material weakness to two quarters of missing our own expectations and a stock price that’s hovering around one quarter of our listing price, the events of the last year and a half speak for themselves. As CEO, I am accountable,” he wrote in his letter…

Read more here.

Gerbsman Partners has been involved with numerous national and international equity sponsors, senior/junior lenders, investment banks and equipment lessors in the restructuring or termination of various Balance Sheet issues for their technology, life science, medical device, solar and cleantech portfolio companies.
These companies were not necessarily in Crisis, had CASH (in some cases significant CASH) and/or investor groups that were about to provide additional funding. In order stabilize their go forward plan and maximize CASH resources for future growth, there was a specific need to address the Balance Sheet and Contingent Liability issues as soon as possible.

Some of the areas in which Gerbsman Partners has assisted these companies have been in the termination, restructuring and/or reduction of:

Prohibitive executory real estate leases, computer and hardware related leases and senior/sub-debt obligations – Gerbsman Partners was the “Innovator” in creating strategies to terminate or restructure prohibitive real estate leases, computer and hardware related leases and senior and sub-debt obligations. To date, Gerbsman Partners has terminated or restructured over $810 million of such obligations. These were a mixture of both public and private companies, and allowed the restructured company to return to a path of financial viability.

Accounts/Trade payable obligations – Companies in a crisis, turnaround or restructuring situation typically have accounts and trade payable obligations that become prohibitive for the viability of the company on a go forward basis. Gerbsman Partners has successfully negotiated mutually beneficial restructurings that allowed all parties to maximize enterprise value based on the reality and practicality of the situation.
Software and technology related licenses – As per the above, software and technology related licenses need to be restructured/terminated in order for additional capital to be invested in restructured companies. Gerbsman Partners has a significant track record in this area.

About Gerbsman Partners

Gerbsman Partners focuses on maximizing enterprise value for stakeholders and shareholders in under-performing, under-capitalized and under-valued companies and their Intellectual Property. Since 2001, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in maximizing value for 76 Technology, Life Science and Medical Device companies and their Intellectual Property,, through its proprietary “Date Certain M&A Process” and has restructured/terminated over $810 million of real estate executory contracts and equipment lease/sub-debt obligations. Since inception, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in over $2.3 billion of financings, restructurings and M&A transactions.
Gerbsman Partners has offices and strategic alliances in Boston, New York, Washington, DC, San Francisco, Orange County, Europe and Israel. For additional information please visit www.gerbsmanpartners.com.

Aydin Senkut taps early Google days for success at Felicis Ventures

Aydin Senkut

Enlarge

Aydin Senkut founded Felicis Ventures in 2005 after leaving Google, where he was employee No. 30 and its first product manager.

Senior Technology Reporter- Silicon Valley Business Journal

Aydin Senkut is proud that the boutique venture firm he founded in 2005 was recently named the second most successful VC of 2012, behind only Intel Capital.

But his years as an early Google executive (he was employee No. 30) show through in his striving to find what he calls truly iconic companies for Felicis Ventures.

Senkut was Google’s first product manager and later ran strategic partner development in Asia for the Mountain View search giant.

Felicis’ biggest score came last year when Cisco Systems paid $1.2 billion for Meraki, the software-controlled networking company that Senkut backed early on.

Among other notable companies backed by Felicis have been Angry Birds’ developer Rovio, personal finance site Mint.com (bought by Intuit in 2009), Chomp (bought by Apple last year) and Karma (scooped up by Facebook just before its 2012 IPO).

Senkut talked with me last week about his investment philosophy and how he has applied what he learned at Google in a conversation that I have excerpted below.

Congratulations on being named the second most successful VC firm of 2012, behind only Intel Capital.

Thank you. We are really proud of the fact that we had a lot of exits. But we personally define success by how we have helped in our founders’ successes. We are proud that we could be part of that and that we could contribute to it. Sometimes it’s funding, sometimes its strategy, sometimes there is other stuff we do for them. It makes us really happy.

I think there are a lot of metrics to measure venture capital success, how many investments a company makes and all of that. But at the end of the day, you know, let’s be very concrete.

Article from Fenwick and West Venture Capital Survey, by:

Barry Kramer
Michael Patrick

Background
We analyzed the terms of venture financings for 116 companies headquartered in Silicon Valley that reported raising
money in the fourth quarter of 2012.
Overview of Fenwick & West Results

  • Up rounds exceeded down rounds in 4Q12, 71% to 8%, with 21% of rounds flat.  This was an
  • improvement over 3Q12, when 61% of rounds were up, 17% were down and 22% flat, and was evidence
  • that those companies that are getting funded are receiving strong valuations.
  • The Fenwick & West Venture Capital Barometer™ showed an average price increase of 85% in 4Q12, a
  • slight increase from 78% in 3Q12.  Series B rounds continued to be the strongest rounds.
  • The median price increase of financings in 4Q12 was 41%, an increase over 23% in 3Q12.  There were four financings (three software, one hardware) that were up over 400% in 4Q12.
  • The results by industry are set forth below.  In general software, and to a lesser extent internet/ digital media, continued to be the strongest industries, with hardware solid and life science showing significant improvement, and cleantech lagging significantly.
  • The percentage of Series A rounds declined significantly, to 12% of all deals.
  • Further evidence of the strong valuation environment for those companies that are successful at raising
  • money is that the use of senior and multiple liquidation preferences have both declined significantly over the past year.

Overview of Other Industry Data

In 2012, we generally saw a weaker venture environment than 2011, especially during the last half of the year.
Venture investing and acquisitions of venture backed companies both declined compared to 2011, and while
IPOs and fundraising were both up, this was primarily a result of a strong first half of the year.  Some other
trends were:

  • Venture fundraising continues to trail venture investing, although the gap closed fairly significantly in
  • 2012.
  • The amount of money raised by venture funds continues to be concentrated in a relatively small number
  • of large funds.
  • Enterprise facing IT businesses appear to have attracted increased interest in 2012, while consumer
  • facing IT businesses (e.g., internet/digital media) appear to be a bit less attractive.
  • Cleantech and to a lesser extent life science continue to be weak, although they appear to be attracting
  • more corporate interest.trends in terms of venture financings in silicon valley—fourth quarter 2012 2
  • Accelerators and seed financings continue to be strong, but Series A (post seed) financings were often
    difficult to obtain.

Although venture capitalists believe that liquidity events will improve in 2013, they believe that
obtaining venture financing will be more difficult than in 2012, and that venture fundraising will
continue to be concentrated in fewer funds.

With Nasdaq up 16% in 2012 and continuing to increase in 2013, providing public companies more valuable
“currency” to make acquisitions, and with many corporations holding substantial cash reserves and public
company investors appearing to be more amenable to taking risk, there is good reason to believe that liquidity
options for venture backed companies will improve in 2013.

Venture Capital Investment.

Dow Jones VentureSource (“VentureSource”) reported that venture capitalists (including corporation
affiliated venture groups) invested $6.6 billion in 733 deals in the U.S. in 4Q12, a 4.6% decrease in dollars
and a 10.6% decrease in deals from the $6.9 billion invested in 820 deals in 3Q12 (as reported in October
2012).  For all of 2012 venture capitalists invested $29.7 billion in 3363 deals, a 9% decrease in dollars but
a 5% increase in deals compared to 2011, when venture capitalists invested $32.6 billion in 3209 deals (as
reported in January 2012).  In 4Q12 51% of U.S. venture investment went to companies based in California.
The PWC/NVCA MoneyTree™ Report based on data from Thomson Reuters (the “MoneyTree Report”)
reported similar results.  Venture investment in 4Q12 decreased 2% in dollars from 3Q12, with investment
of $6.4 billion in 968 deals compared to investment of $6.5 billion in 890 deals in 3Q12 (as reported in
October 2012).  For all of 2012 venture capitalists invested $26.5 billion in 3698 deals, a 7% decrease in
dollars from 2011, when $28.4 billion was invested in 3673 deals (as reported in January 2012).

The MoneyTree Report also reported that the strongest industry segment was software, where investment
increased by 10% in 2012 over 2011.  Life science was weak, with biotech investing down 15% and medical
device investing down 13%, and with life science first time financings at their lowest level since 1995.
Cleantech was down 28% and even internet investing was down 5% when compared to 2011, although
2012 was the second best year for internet investing since 2001.
Despite the weakness in life science generally, digital health investing is strong, with Rock Health reporting
a 45% increase from 2011 to 2012.

IPO Activity.

Dow Jones reported that 8 U.S. venture-backed companies went public in 4Q12 and raised $1.2 billion, a
decrease from the 10 IPOs in 3Q12, but an increase from the $0.8 billion raised in the 3Q12 IPOs.  In all of
2012, 50 U.S. venture-backed companies went public, a 10% increase from the 45 IPOs in 2011, thanks to a
strong first half of 2012.  The 2012 IPOs raised a total of $11.2 billion, the most since 2000, primarily due to
the $6.6 billion Facebook IPO, compared to $5.4 billion raised in 2011 IPOs.

Thomson/NVCA reported similar results for 4Q12 and 2012.  Five of the eight 4Q12 IPOs were in the IT
sector, and seven of the eight were based in the U.S., with the eighth from China.trends in terms of venture financings in silicon valley—fourth quarter 2012 3

Merger & Acquisition Activity.

Dow Jones reported that acquisitions (including buyouts) of U.S. venture-backed companies in 4Q12 totaled
$9.3 billion in 113 transactions, a 28% decline in dollars but a 14% increase in deals from the $13 billion
paid in 99 transactions in 3Q12 (as reported in October 2012).  For all of 2012 there were 433 acquisitions
for $40.3 billion, a 9% decrease in transactions and a 16% decrease in dollars from the 477 acquisitions for
$47.8 billion in 2011 (as reported in January 2012).

Thomson Reuters and the NVCA (“Thomson/NVCA”) reported 95 venture-backed acquisitions in 4Q12, a
1% decrease from the 96 reported in 3Q12, and 435 acquisitions in all of 2012, a 1% increase from the 429
reported in 2011 (as reported in January 2011).

Venture Capital Fundraising.

Dow Jones reported that 154 U.S. venture capital funds raised $20.3 billion in 2012, a 14% increase in funds
and a 25% increase in dollars from the 135 funds that raised $16.2 billion in 2011 (as reported in January
2012).  Eleven funds accounted for $11.3 billion of the $20.3 billion raised.  (Russ Garland, Venture Wire,
January 7, 2013)

Thomson/NVCA reported that 42 U.S. venture funds raised $3.3 billion in 4Q12, a 20% decrease in funds
and a 34% decrease in dollars from the 53 funds that raised $5.0 billion in 3Q12 (as reported in October
2012).  For all of 2012, 182 funds raised $20.6 billion, an 8% increase in funds and a 13% increase in
dollars from the 169 funds that raised $18.2 billion in 2011 (as reported in January 2012).
The number of members of the NVCA has declined from 470 in 2008 to 401 currently, a likely indication of
the shrinking number of venture firms.  (Russ Garland, VentureWire, January 28, 2013)

Corporate Investing.

As investments and fundraising by venture capitalists has had difficulties, corporate venture investing has
fared better.  According to the MoneyTree Report, the percentage of financings that included a corporate
investor increased to 15.2% in 2012, the third straight year of increase and the highest percentage since
the 2008 recession.

Notably, corporate investors tended to focus more on the industries that are currently least favored by
venture capitalists, participating in 20.5% of cleantech financings and 19.5% of biotech financings.
And corporate investors did not limit themselves to traditional venture investments.  For example, GE
(Healthymagination), Nike and Samsung have each announced the creation of, or other significant
involvement in, a start up accelerator, Rock Health has reported that Merck is a leading funder of digital
health startups and GlaxoSmithKline and Monsanto have each taken actions to increase their focus on
venture capital.

Angels and Accelerators.

There continues to be concern that the angel/accelerator environment has become frothy.  CB Insights
reported 1749 seed financing rounds in 2012, compared with just 472 in 2009, while Series A rounds grew
much more slowly, from 418 in 2009 to 692 in 2012, indicating that there will likely be a lot of seed funded trends in terms of venture financings in silicon valley—fourth quarter 2012 4 companies that won’t obtain Series A investment.  While this is not necessarily bad, as there is value to
making small bets on a lot of high risk opportunities, at some point the odds get too high.
Notably, Y Combinator announced in 4Q12 that the amount of money loaned to each of its companies
would be reduced from $150,000 to $80,000, and that the size of its class would also be reduced.  And
Polaris Venture Partners has indicated that it is significantly scaling back its “Dogpatch Labs” incubator.
However we do not see a trend yet here, as accelerators like TechStars and 500 Startups are not reducing
their size.  (Lizette Chapman, VentureWire, December 20, 2012).

Venture Capital Returns.

Cambridge Associates reported that the value of its venture capital index increased by 0.64% in 3Q12
(4Q12 information has not been publicly released) compared to a 6.17% increase for Nasdaq.  The venture
capital index substantially lagged Nasdaq for the 12-month period ended September 30, 2012, 7.69% to
29%, and for the ten-year period 6.07% to 10.27%.  The Cambridge Associates venture index is net of fees,
expenses and carried interest.  These type of results are, of course, a significant part of the reason why
venture fundraising has been difficult.

Venture Capital Sentiment.

The Silicon Valley Venture Capitalists Confidence Index® by Professor Mark Cannice at the University of
San Francisco reported that the confidence level of Silicon Valley venture capitalists was 3.63 on a 5 point
scale in 4Q12, a slight increase from the 3.53 reported for 3Q12.