Working with Entrepreneurs to
You are here: Home > Blog > Venture Capital

Venture Capital

11/05/12

The Investment Game: how to choose your investors wisely

Tony O’Shaughnessy, founder of ABS, gave us some key points to consider when looking for investors for your company:

“I think the very first thing you need to understand is why you are looking for investment in the first place. It sounds really obvious but you would be amazed by the number of people who think ‘if only we had investment we could do x, y and z.’ Thinking about money problems alone is a very naïve viewpoint. You should really make sure you know exactly why you want the money, what you’re going to do with it, and that what you are going to do with it fits with your strategic direction. This is absolutely key.

You also have to think about what the role you want these investors to play:

  • Do you want them to be equity holders?
  • Do you want them to be proactive?
  • Do you want them to have valuable employment in the business?

The minute that you have investors it will affect the culture of your business and your employees directly. You need to know that it is a great idea because it allows you to build a new product, etc., but also what it means in terms of the way you operate.”

 

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


20/03/12

London Web Summit – an excellent networking event, but “Where’s the Beef?”

Hats off to Mike Butcher: he runs a great event. London Web Summit, held yesterday at The Brewery, this time brought together with Paddy Cosgrave of Dublin Web Summit, drew a wide range of entrepreneurs, investors and ‘glue’ people in a day packed full with panels, interviews, discussions and startup presentations. There was a ‘coding dojo’ for kids. There was even a band, just like on The Tonight Show. The networking was excellent – there was a matching platform for surfing the delegates and booking meetings in advance. In terms of rallying the startup ecosystem, to quote the song, “nobody does it better”…

Content-wise, there was lots on cool new ideas, and, as ever, much focus on getting VC funding and whether there is enough of it, and a session on exits. I couldn’t help feeling though that the bit in the middle – i.e. building and scaling the business – was completely glossed over. Finding out from practitioners the answers to questions like “How are you changing your organisation as it grows?”, “How have you created a scalable model and what did you need to learn before you were ready to scale?” and “How are you structuring your sales and marketing efforts to ensure you deliver your growth milestones?” can only be instructive and thought-provoking to anyone going on the same journey.

There was a fair amount of attention given to hiring the right people, but the implicit assumption is that if you get the right people, then all of this will be taken care of. If exactly the right people exist, then maybe it will be, but in practice, very few people have all the right skills, and even then, there is so much that can be learned.

With Sonali de Rycker of Accel Partners saying that it is normal for up to 8 out of 10 of their investments to fail, the odds of success post-funding are still only 1 in 5, which means that getting funding is only the start of the journey (even with a world-class VC). In this case, why would you not want to devote a huge amount of time to learning about how to navigate the course and mitigate the risk?

Quite possibly it’s not the point of an event like this to look at how to generate and manage growth. Perhaps it’s felt that it wouldn’t make for an interesting discussion – maybe it’s too detailed and too specific. But if not here, then where?

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


24/02/12

Interview with Ascendant: the current trends in UK tech investment

Stuart McKnight is the Managing Director of Ascendant, a technology and media focussed Corporate Finance house that specialises in growth stage companies. Ascendant also has experience in fundraising for buying and selling businesses and technology licensing deals. RIG’s Managing Director, Shields Russell sits on Ascendant’s Advisory Board.

Ascendant has tracked all growth-stage investments in technology companies in the UK and Ireland since 1996. Their definition of technology is broad – covering software, telecoms, Cleantech, semiconductors, and internet/wireless services – but excluding life sciences and most medical devices, as well as Management Buy-Outs and Private Equity deals.

What are the growth-stage investment trends that you look to cover?

“We keep track of five key questions in the growth-stage technology sector in the UK and Ireland: how much money is being invested; who’s writing the cheques; what they’re investing in; the stage of the companies; and whom they’re co-investing with – that’s very important as well.

“2011 was a very interesting year – we saw good growth in the total amount of investment (£786m up from £620m in 2010) and the capital was more concentrated – there were 193 deals greater than £0.5m in 2011 compared to 213 in 2010.

“228 different investors participated in those deals last year. That number 228 is important because if you speak to the many of the London-based VCs and ask them how many different people are investing they typically say 20-25 – or a maximum of about 40 – but nobody imagines that it’s closer to 250.

“There is a geographical locus in terms of where VCs are based but not in terms of what they invest in. Most of the most active VCs in the UK and Ireland are based in London but many look at companies throughout the UK and at deals in Europe too.

“There are also a large number of trade investors looking to invest. In 2011, there were 34 deals in which trade investors participated. So financial VCs are not the only solution.”

How do companies perceive VCs in the UK compared to overseas?

“If I had a pound for every person who came to me saying that they were looking for a US investor, I’d be a very rich man.

“Companies can spend a lot of time looking for a US investors as there is a perception that they are better at Tech investing than the Brits. For a company that’s grown well in the UK the obvious next stop is the US and so picking up a US VC whilst you are there seems like a good idea. Add the belief that there is a big pot of gold waiting for them over there and you get an army of UK companies getting on planes to head for the US.

“Initially many find that there is a lot of interest. It’s easy to get meetings in the US – anyone can line up two weeks of investor meetings of 45 minutes to an hour each. However many US investors see these as a ‘fishing trip’ to see what’s going on in the European market. But it’s much more difficult to get serious, hour-and-a-half meetings where investors are really thinking about you as an investing opportunity.

“Companies and their shareholders have to be really sure that the US is right for them They need to be realistic about the chances of getting US money – only 11 UK tech companies received money from the States last year.

“Europe’s actually been a much more fertile ground, and it’s much more enthusiastic on mobile/internet companies. The VCs in Munich, Paris, and Brussels have been active in the UK, and the Nordic funds have recovered a bit but they’re still not back to the position they were in about a decade ago.”

Which sectors are getting the most interest at the moment?

“There’s been a strong sector bias – the three primary areas of investment were Internet/Wireless services, Cleantech, and Software. We find that in many cases investors tend to hunt in the same packs: they follow the same trends and look for the same ideas. There’s a cohesion about what investors look for at a certain time.

“Cleantech is interesting because it’s still strong but we’re beginning to see it wane. I could go to a Cleantech conference every day of the week but in truth there was a dramatic drop in Cleantech deals last year, even taking a broad definition of Cleantech that includes solar, fuel cells, electric motors, and so on.

“In Q1 last year there were hardly any Cleantech deals – perhaps 2 or 3; Q2 was very busy then Q3 and Q4 were very low. There were only 31 Cleantech deals in total compared to 45 in 2010, which compares to typically 60-70 deals per year in Internet/Wireless services and 45-50 in Software.

“Investors in Cleantech are making bigger gambles on later-stage companies than they were when Cleantech started to become popular and we started tracking it in around 2004/5.

“A lot of these businesses are still effectively early-stage because they are struggling to get meaningful orders from customers or even just getting a customer even though they’ve been going for many years. For most LLP backed VCs, when an investment holding period extends beyond 5 years, the IRR on the investment starts to get difficult. Many funds are starting to realise that in some cases Cleantech can be like semiconductors in needing lots of capital and long holding periods. Hence the rapid reduction in the number of active investors in the sector.

“Cleantech companies are starting to look for other options like funding through the balance sheet investors or ‘green funds,’ and we’ve seen a larger participation from non-standard VC funds like trade funds or family funds that can take a longer-term position.”

The majority of deals last year had more than one investor. Why do firms co-invest?

“Co-investment can be a bit of a magic trick for investors and for companies. Not all investors get the same deal flow – some get a lot of high-quality deals; some get a lot of average deals; and some struggle to find the right opportunities.

“Well-established firms like Index, Balderton, and Accel see a high-quality deal flow, whereas for the others a bit further down the league table it can be a rational business development strategy to build up relationships with other investors and look to co-invest with them.

“It’s in the investors’ interest to network. The relationships between VCs are partly personal and partly corporate. The relationships are primarily personal but there is such a thing as corporate memory – people will remember joint successes and they’ll remember joint failures.

“In the UK around 60% of deals have more than one investor. This is one indicator that the market is in ‘good health.’ Just before the ‘internet bubble’ burst in 2000-1 less than 40% deals were done jointly – reflecting the misplaced sense of confidence VCs had at that time – they were so sure that they had the best deals that they did not want to share and wanted everything for themselves. Fortunately many of those folks are no longer with us.”

What advice would you give to growth-stage companies looking for funding at the moment?

“Before a company speaks to investors, they need to have a significant opportunity, a clear differentiated plan to exploit it, a good team, and realistic expectations in value and the amounts they want to raise.

“For Ascendant to take on a deal, we would need to comfortable on all these points and be certain that we could identify 30-40 potential investors who would actively consider the opportunity. We are happy to give some guidance to companies looking at funding options – it is a tricky market out there. ”

For more information on Ascendant contact Stuart McKnight at smcknight@ascendant.co.uk

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


30/01/12

RIG CEO roundtable finds boards of early stage companies rarely give entrepreneurs the support and challenges they need

RIG recently hosted a CEO roundtable dinner to explore what it takes to make a board work.

The discussion revealed that only one of the CEOs had ever had a board that had functioned well and pushed the company forward. Overall the level of dissatisfaction with boards was high.

The main sources of dissatisfaction for the CEOs present were:

  • Not having a board that could contribute or challenge them sufficiently on strategic issues‬
  • Particularly for first time entrepreneurs, having a board made up mainly of executives/founders, making it difficult to switch out of operational mode into a more strategic mindset‬
  • Finding that board meetings had become reporting sessions to professional investors. While the financial rigour of professional investors was valued, it tended to take precedence over strategic discussion and the investors often expected to be treated as first among equals‬

So what kind of capabilities and composition would they like to have (or have had) for their boards?

  • At early stage, people with contacts – essentially high-level salespeople or door-openers‬
  • Closer to exit, a board that can spot and generate exit opportunities‬
  • At all times: people who have done it before – who can challenge and whose experience can be leaned on.

‬There was much lamentation in particular at the lack of sales experience among virtually all the boards – it was felt by all that this is an essential part of the balance that is generally missing.

Above all, there was agreement that a board has to have a clear purpose that fits with the needs of the company at its stage of development. Because the early stage environment is one of change, the composition of the board may need to change more regularly than would be the case for a more mature company.

How then to put together a board that is a good fit?

  1. ‪Understand the needs of the company at each stage – this should determine the purpose of the board
  2. Select board members accordingly: try to strike a balance between externally facing board capability (sales, marketing, PR) and internally facing (strategy, operations, planning)‬
  3. ‪‪Decide what the board and its members should be spending their time on‬
  4. ‪Choose performance criteria against which to measure the board and its members
  5. ‪Give voice to the founder executives without needing necessarily to have all on them on the board‬
  6. Recognise when the company’s needs are changing and see whether the board needs to change and adapt to better serve them
         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


12/08/11

Current trends in the startup world

Over the past few weeks, I had the chance to research some interesting topics including recent developments in startups. I was really intrigued by some of the trends that are circulating within the area and I have decided to highlight a few in this post:

Global startup funding is on the up

Globally, more than 400 companies received funding in Q2 2011. Although the US has traditionally been stronger in the amount of funding it provides and the number of companies it provides this to, Europe is growing both in terms of funding and startups. Over $1 billion was invested in European startups alone in the last few months. 

Investors are pouring their money into social media, IT and energy

Looking at the Calibre One Index review released this week, a large amount of investor funding was awarded to companies in the social media, IT and energy sectors. The group of companies within the social media sector consisted not only of consumer-focused services, but also many B2B products and services. In particular, these B2B companies focused on using social media-based platforms to track customer sentiment, to increase ad exposure and maintain its integrity, and to make use of social media channels more efficient for marketing purposes. Other funded B2B companies also provided cloud computing and related systems management solutions. Additionally, a significant amount of funding was given to many companies based in alternative and efficient energy technologies.

Startups can help reduce the current unemployment crisis

Companies had a variety of purposes for the funding that they secured. Among these are:

  • Improving existing products or services
  • Creating new product lines
  • Expanding sales locally and/or in a foreign market
  • Growing the business by building up their team

The last point is particularly interesting as the majority of companies that recently secured funding stated that they are hiring more people in order to expand their operation. This includes candidates with experience in technical expertise, sales, marketing and other divisions. Furthermore, these companies and their growth plans ranged in sizes. Some were companies with less than 10 people looking to double their workforce by the end of the year. Others were more medium-sized companies that already had been successful in one local area and were looking to open one or more offices in other cities.

Despite the recent negative news about the lack of prospective growth in the global economies, there is real potential within the startup market. More startups are securing funding, and they are providing strong opportunities for job creation that will only have a knock-on effect in other areas of business.

On a personal note as an entrepreneur, it is exciting to see that the possibilities are looking up.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


04/08/11

How to give your startup more power when selling to corporates

A friend of mine used to run a technology project at Tesco, working alongside a growth-stage technology company. Whenever he phoned that technology company, he represented Tesco with the full weight of its brand and its revenue potential: his calls would be answered at all hours of the day. On the other hand, even the CEO of the technology company was seen as only one element of a much wider project, from which my friend would shortly move on to the next one.

There seems to be a clear imbalance of power here. I think that this can sometimes arise from the very understandable eagerness as a growth-stage company to prove yourself and your product or service to the best and the biggest in your sector.

But growth-stage companies should remember that they have power too. And this should be reflected in your approach to potential customers.

Compare these two approaches:

  1. We have a really great product; we have experience in your sector and a proven ROI; we can save you £1m within the first year. Based on your characteristics x, y, and z we think you might be a good fit for us. We'd love to open a dialogue with you to see whether we might be able to help you
  2. We have taken funding from VC investors in order to demonstrate in the next 12 months that one of the major players in this sector can save £1m within the first year through using our product. We're going through a process of identifying which the best company would be to partner with to generate this proof. We feel based on your characteristics x, y, and z that you might be interested in exploring this with us.

The second approach creates a sense of scarcity: the startup is choosing the customer not the other way around. There is an opportunity here to save £1m, the entrepreneur is saying, but it's not open to everybody. The offer won't be around for long because our investors need to see a return. It's then up to the potential customer to convince the entrepreneur that they are the right people to capitalise on this opportunity.

Give yourself more power when selling to corporates by remembering that your resources are limited and so you have to be just as careful to select with whom you work as your customers are.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


15/07/11

Why "Venture Capital is just like poker" by Fred Wilson

In this video East-coast VC, blogger, and adviser Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures, discussed the ups and downs in his lengthy career and explained why VCs still have something to offer, even in this "golden age" of angel investment.

In his view, Venture Capital is "just like poker" – and looking at your portfolio of entrepreneurial companies as a series of poker hands "is the right way to do the VC business."

He went on to say that any entrepreneurs looking for investment from Union Square should always aim to "get to know us early."

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


09/06/11

Is floating on the PLUS exchange a plausible option for tech entrepreneurs?

I attended Vitesse Media‘s PLUS-XS seminar last week entitled ‘Turning ambition into growth.’

One of the discussions that stuck with me was led by Paul Rewrie of Metro Electric plc, the supplier and distributor of electric vehicles. He said that he initially “went down the venture capital route” but he felt that he wasn’t able to “change direction” or “try to do anything significant like a Joint Venture or an acquisition” because his company’s valuation would suffer under the threat of running out of cash.

Enter stage right the PLUS Exchange, a London-based stock exchange that provides cash and listing services: Metro Electric listed in July 2007 and later acquired Powabyke out of administration in December 2009. Rewrie commented that “being listed on PLUS gave us a lot more credibility for Powabyke’s suppliers, so we were able to negociate good credit terms with them.”

Vivienne Cassley of PLUS-SX argued that it gives entrepreneurs more flexibility than the London Stock Exchange’s market for growth-stage companies, the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), for instance because PLUS allows convertibles and other financial instruments that are prohibited on AIM.

Rivington Street Corporate Finance’s Eran Zucker also supported PLUS, saying:

  • Growth-stage companies can get lost on AIM because investors gravitate towards the larger companies
  • Investors have a more direct relationship with management teams on PLUS than on AIM
  • Listing on PLUS costs less both in hiring advisors and on maintaining your listing (a PLUS Financial Advisor costs around £10-15k per year compared to £50-65k for AIM)
  • Hiring a PR firm is not obligated on PLUS (although you do need to retain a news broadcaster)
  • The management team has more independence on PLUS than on AIM because its Financial Advisor cannot suspend the company listing if her advice is not followed
  • The reporting requirements are less onerous on PLUS than on AIM (for instance, audited interim reports are not required)

The reporting requirements for public listing on PLUS or on AIM represent a significant change from other common funding sources (debt, angel funding, venture capital, private equity). Even on the PLUS exchange management teams are required to report publicly on significant customer wins and – more painfully – significant customer losses, as well as fully-audited financial reports on an annual basis.

I’d be interested to hear from any other entrepreneurs who have floated on PLUS to get their thoughts on the practical differences in running a listed company compared to a VC-backed company.


         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


09/05/11

Radian6 Acquisition

So Radian6, the Canadian backed social media monitoring and engagement platform provider, has been bought by Salesforce.com.

Having looked at the deal, I have two observations:

  1. The revenue multiple was just short of 10
  2. Salesforce.com paid A LOT of cash.

There must have been an intense amount of competition in the space. Both of these points are interesting for differing reasons. A multiple of ten shows these type of exit deals can still happen for VCs – the buyer clearly saw massive opportunity value in the technology platform (they estimated a three year build cycle if they attempted it in hour), rather than just the current revenues. Salesforce.com must be scared by the social space to pay this kind of money, and this leads onto my second observation – they paid A LOT of cash.

I realise that a lot of the large tech companies are cash-rich at the moment but this deal implies that there was a lot of perceived competition for Radian6 – Salesforce.com wanted it badly, and knew that if they didn’t get it then someone else would (who maybe wouldn’t give them access to the capability). I don’t know whether a single line in Vocus’ recent quarterly report (Q1 2011), detailing $1.2m fees spent on a failed cross-border acquisition, has anything to do with it.

I also reflected on my own experience in that marketplace in the UK. That a Canadian company had the sales and growth trajectory to get picked up by Salesforce.com shows how far behind the UK is. I cannot think of many companies, with the exception of Glide Technologies, that provide a similar level of social media engagement service in Europe. Equally, I haven’t heard of many corporates this side of the pond that have engaged with the space to the extent that a best practice technology platform provider has been able to emerge.


         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


04/05/11

When is an elephant worth forgetting??

Continuing on the theme of elephants….

I was lucky enough to be at GeeknRolla – the excellent TechCrunch Europe startup event – a couple of weeks back, and two very similar conversations I had during the day with online-software entrepreneurs stayed with me.

The conversations with the went something like this:

“We have started to gain good traction in the SME market, we have secured a good channel partner / we are proving that we can scale…now we just need to win a {blue chip / really big} customer to get the next round of funding”

There’s something about winning an elephant customer that seems irresistible: while the idea of having large annual recurring contracts is attractive, for a new company that has worked hard to get its model working and scaling in the SME space, winning an ‘elephant deal’ is almost certainly a double-edged sword.

One of RIG’s former clients had an online enterprise software offering and it was making good progress winning large companies. Then it had the chance to bid for an enormous global customer. In the process of preparing the tender it had become clear that a lot of customization and special support would be needed, but it was such a prestigious account that the client pressed ahead and ended up winning it. 

The strain from having to service the new customer was evident – development resources were insufficient to cover the new customer, continue core development and keep the existing customer base happy. Funds that might have been put into marketing to drive the critical transition from predominantly out-bound to predominantly in-bound lead generation were diverted to providing customized support. It is very hard, even as a growth-stage technology company, to serve multiple masters, and even harder as a start-up. 

If you have worked out how to acquire, deliver to, service, and retain SME customers in a scalable way, then you are already doing very well. SME customers are often under-rated: they can be very dependable, and as a service provider, you don’t have the risks associated with revenue concentration.

Think carefully before you go elephant hunting. Scalability is a key driver of the valuations that SaaS companies can receive. At the point where a company is having to customize and maintain customer-specific resources, it can still call itself ‘SaaS’ but it starts to look more and more ‘old economy’. Savvy buyers and investors increasingly recognise this. So, as ever, if you do choose to try to break into the enterprise market, make sure your assumptions stand up to heavy scrutiny.


         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


08/04/11

Is it too daunting for a graduate to become an entrepreneur?

I attended Editorial Intelligence’s excellent Comment Conference yesterday on the topics of The Enterprise Economy, Women in Enterprise, and Entrepreneurship.

Panelists and speakers all agreed that successful and sustained entrepreneurship is a necessary requirement for the UK economy to start growing again. The Minister of State for Universities and Science, Rt. Hon. David Willetts MP reeled off some interesting averages on the state of entrepreneurship in the UK:

  • Each year 6% of the UK’s workforce starts a business
  • Male entrepreneurs start their first business in their late-20s
  • Female entrepreneurs start their first business in their mid-30s
  • 61% of business owners are aged under 50

The Minister declared his passion for helping young people in particular to become entrepreneurs by investing in more apprenticeship schemes and promoting educational programmes such as Enterprise UK‘s Make Your Mark with a Tenner.

But the overwhelming opportunity for the UK to find new entrepreneurs seems to me to be in the elder generations.

According to Martin Bright, the most important determinant of whether young people start their own business is access to capital. Those without a hefty inheritance are significantly less likely to become an entrepreneur. Derek Wyatt made the point that the UK’s Financial Services Authority prevents the type of micro-financing that has enabled so many young entrepreneurs in India to get their first small cash injection.

With graduate recruitment still subdued in the UK, more and more young people are already feeling down about being unable to get a job – and entrepreneurship has a reputation as a career path with a high probability of failure. It is difficult enough for those at the very beginning of their careers to appreciate and to articulate what skills and strengths they have – at RIG we find this during our graduate recruitment process – and if you want to bet on yourself to create a successful company then understanding your strengths and weaknesses has to be one of the first steps.

On the other hand, Donald Steel pointed out that the high redundancy rates in the UK, particularly in the public sector, are effectively creating an enterprise fund for experienced professionals. He went on to say that the public sector and large corporates should do more to promote entrepreneurship with staff that they are making redundant.

Inmaculada Martinez summed up what compelled her to start her own business as “the fear that someone else would invent ‘my’ technology before me.” There are certainly people who can envisage an entrepreneurial venture before having been exposed to business life, but I would imagine that more successful ideas would come from those that have spent some time in an industry already.


         Subscribe to our RSS Feed