startup

In Seed Capital Fundraising, You Gotta Choose Your Pizza

early stage funding seed capital

Seed capital and ownership

A common mistake entrepreneurs make, especially in the startup’s early stage, is to worry too much about valuation and dilution. The business, after all, is their “baby” and they can’t give away too much too soon – every share is worth fighting for! Well, guess what, the business is almost as much of a baby to those who are willing to back you up so early. Overvaluing the company from the get-go generates problems on several fronts.

Seed capital must be priced with care

First, very often the early investors are “3Fs” (friends, family and fools) or an angel who is only within one or two degrees of separation. Selling an overpriced product, even if you didn’t do it with bad intentions, may leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouths; especially if an institutional investor comes in a year later and values the company at half the first round. It’s hard to explain that to your uncle.

Also, overpricing makes it more difficult to raise new rounds. It sends the wrong message to more sophisticated investors. The impression is that you either don’t know how to value a company, purposely overpriced it, or the company simply lost some of its value. Neither is a good story to tell when you are sitting across the table from a VC.

Obviously, at the same time it isn’t good for anyone that the first couple of investors grab more than say 30-40% of the company. The entrepreneur needs to remain motivated, ideally also vesting some of the equity (more about that in a future post). But getting obsessed with dilution is bad for your startup. The more deep-pockets have their skin in the game the better and greater the chances the business will grow for everyone. After all, which would you prefer: 90% of a pizza or 10% of Pizza Hut?

See also Not All Angel Investors Are From HeavenImage: generalstorecafenj.com

Have you raised seed capital with 3Fs or angel investors? Leave us a comment!

Time to Start a Business – or Not

new venture new business startup

What to ask yourself before starting a company

Before launching a startup, an entrepreneur must ask him or herself the following question: Can I support myself for the next 18-24 months? This is specially important if you’re in your late twenties or early thirties.

It doesn’t matter where support comes from. It could be your parents, your own savings, your partner’s job, or a liquid asset you’re willing to sell at some point. It could even come from your first investor, such as an angel, although very rarely outside investors are willing to pay you a (decent) salary, especially in the early days of a startup. The important thing to remember is that it will take longer than you think before your company is making money to pay you, or an institutional investor joins in with a paycheck.

Don’t expect short-term returns when starting a company

Drawn into the excitement of launching their ventures, entrepreneurs usually underestimate the sacrifices to come. Optimists by nature, they assume that something great is going to happen within a year: a successful pilot or beta launch, an investor, even a first client. Not gonna happen. Success stories about entrepreneurs who dropped out of college or left a job to support themselves on credit card debts are very sexy but incredibly rare. They do however get all the media attention. You won’t read a piece on TechCrunch about the entrepreneur who ran out of steam, shut down his company, broke up with his girlfriend in the process, and had to go back to his parents house.

The concept of time is very different for bootstrapping entrepreneurs and… well, the rest of the world! While you’re bleeding and resources are drying up, potential investors and clients will tell you comfortably: “Come back in six months or when you have more clients”. It’s a brutal catch-22 and it will drive you crazy unless you can’t support yourself and get into real world’s time.

If you’re in the early twenties or otherwise can afford it, screw it, take all risks! Starting a company – successfully or not – will be a great school anyways. If that’s not you, by all means, do also go ahead and pursue your dreams. But make sure you first do some planning on the personal front, soldier.

See also MBA For Entrepreneurs Can Still MatterImage: fotolia.com

Have you ever launched a new venture? How did you support yourself? leave us a comment!

Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Prosperity

entrepreneurship innovation prosperity economic growth

Entrepreneurship and economic development

What is the common ground between the economic prosperity of the Netherlands in the XVII-XVIII centuries, nineteenth century England, twentieth century U.S. and, more recently, countries such as South Korea, Singapore and Israel? Although the question could be answered from different angles, fundamentally it can be inferred: in their own time, these countries promoted economic systems where resources were efficiently channeled to the most competent entrepreneurs and endeavors.

Canadian economist Reuven Brenner summed it up perfectly: “Prosperity is the result of matching talent with capital and holding both sides accountable”. The “capital” can come from one or more sources: capital markets, government, savings or inheritance. The “talent” may be fostered internally – through education, incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship, development of a risk-taking culture – and/or imported, with the opening of borders to skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants. Finally, “accountability” is constructed through solid institutions (political, economic, regulatory, legal, social) that promote a stable business environment, where contracts are honored and a long-term perspective is installed.

Back in time, on entrepreneurship and prosperity

In the XVII-XVIII centuries, the Netherlands had the most developed capital market in the world. It operated the forefront of financial instruments, both debt and equity, which enabled people and companies with good business ideas to grow their ventures. Therefore, at a time when most societies were divided essentially into castes – with royalty, nobility and aristocracy keeping their wealth generation after generation – the Dutch popularized the access to capital and implemented a socioeconomic system that was (by the time’s standards) more democratic and meritocratic. Moreover, in addition to having effective institutions, it opened its doors to immigrants from diverse backgrounds, welcoming for example Spanish Jews and French Huguenots, who brought innovations from their countries and who, by definition, were mostly entrepreneurs (what is more enterprising than venturing oneself into a new country?)

A century later, England became the engine of the Industrial Revolution within the same logic: capital-talent-institutions. Innovations, both technological (e.g., steam engines) and of process (e.g., revolutionary management techniques) were only possible due to an economic system where risk was properly rewarded and the process of trial and error was stimulated. In the second half of the twentieth century, the United States, in turn, established itself as the major economic superpower based on: capital (Wall Street, Silicon Valley and its angel investors and VC/PE funds, R&D subsidies); talent (Americans and immigrants educated in universities such as Stanford, Harvard and MIT); and institutional climate (pro-business laws, efficient legal system, overall social fabric etc.)

Immigration was especially important in the U.S. As proof, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, including giants such as Intel, Google, eBay, Apple and GE. Furthermore, ¾ of patents developed in American universities had the participation of immigrants. It is no wonder that immigration reform is constantly brought up within the debate for promoting American competitiveness and sustained economic growth.

Recently, the most successful cases of economic development were the Asian Tigers. The political, economic and institutional reforms that occurred in these countries, combined with investment in education and the development of capital markets, enabled a flurry of investments and skilled immigration, driving the growth and development of these countries. Another interesting case is Israel, a nation created just over half a century ago, in the middle of the desert, and that thrives due to skilled immigration and education, dynamic access to capital (private and public), a culture conducive to risk taking, and solid institutions.

Traditionally, the quest for prosperity has been driven by top-down policies, often based on unrealistic economic models. Looking at economies through the lenses of “capital-talent-accountability” gives us a clearer view of the issues at hand, from the bottom up. It provides better grounds for understanding the underlying factors that build an economy and allows for more factual and entrepreneurship-friendly policy making.

Andre Averbug is an entrepreneur and economist.

See also An Idea Is Just That – Not Yet An InnovationImage: source unknown (anyone?)

What’s your opinion about the link between entrepreneurship and prosperity? Leave us a comment!