Monday, September 24, 2007

Startups Then and Now

A few years ago, I remarked to a friend that Microsoft Word took longer to start up on my 3GHz Pentium laptop than my DEC EDT word processor took in 1980 on a PDP-11/34 running RSX-11M. My modern laptop was hundreds of times more powerful, but I was still waiting 10 seconds. True, MS Word is much more powerful, but for the basic stuff, I was still waiting…

Nevertheless, when you read about productivity nowadays, it is apparent that in this decade we are reaping the benefits of the digital age --- all those computers and Internet linkages mean that the average information worker is much more productive today than he was just 20 years ago. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity in software publishing is up by a factor of 17x in the past 20 years. In Computer and Electronic Manufacturing, it is a factor of 9x.

So what does this mean to Venture Capital and startup financing? I submit that it simply takes less money to start a high tech company nowadays. Particularly in software development, the costs of developing a product are far lower compared to 20 years ago. And the reach of the Internet and the ease of leveraging viral marketing and messaging, means the costs of customer cultivation and product marketing and deployment are far lower as well.

I frequently see startup teams who have launched their company on less than $100K of total capital in, and only need $200-300K to get to breakeven. They can almost bootstrap it, if they use all the tools available to them, play the blogosphere right, leverage the buzz… Now it’s debatable whether trying to do it that cheap is always the best way to go, but it is certainly a viable option.

So one clear trend in my mind in seed venture capital is that deals are going to get smaller and VC funds are going to have to adjust to that. Six digit seed checks will become more common in the coming years, even with the effects of inflation. ($100K isn’t what it used to be…)

I actually believe that is healthy for the VC funds. As I’ve mentioned in my first post, I’m a big fan of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s writings, particularly his most recent Black Swan book. He persuasively argues that a good way to invest in our inherently unpredictable world is, among other things, to expose yourself to as many positive Black Swan opportunities as possible, with a portion of your money. I think all VC funds would benefit from setting aside a portion of their funds, say 20%, and taking “fliers”, betting “hunches”, but most importantly making more, smaller bets. Yes, they can take up time, but I think it is manageable. And as Taleb says, your downside is limited to 1x, but your upside is largely unbounded.

The irony is most VC funds are going the opposite direction. They were so successful in the last decade that they have had little trouble raising gigantic new funds. When a partner group has to invest $1B, they are discouraged from making $250K investments. So they set a policy of investing no less than $5M in a first round investment, and reject deals that don’t “put that much money to work.” They say “your deal is very interesting, but it isn’t big enough for us”. In my humble opinion, this is a big mistake, and heading in the wrong direction.

VC funds, particularly those than do Early Stage investing, will necessarily have to evolve in the coming decade. This is a particular focus for me in this blog. More on this topic to come…

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Dangers From Friends&Family Money

There is one truism in the startup business. The more an entrepreneur can reduce the technical and market risk in their startup before seeking outside money, the better valuation they will get, and therefore the more ownership they will retain. VCs and angels will value a startup by the size of the opportunity and the inherent risks in that opportunity. An entrepreneur can only clearly describe the size of the opportunity --- it is what it is, but he/she can definitely reduce the technology risk by building a proof of concept demonstration, or reduce the market acceptance risk by signing up pilot customers.

These early risk reduction efforts typically require some seed capital. Entrepreneurs often self-finance this seed stage, or they turn to “Friends & Family” angel investment. In general, this is a good idea, and it helps a startup get later financing if the idea has been better validated, and if the entrepreneur seems to have some “skin in the game”. However, I want to discuss some aspects of F&F seed financing that may be under-recognized and hurtful to the entrepreneur’s efforts.

Here is a great saying that I have always respected for its wisdom:

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people." -George Bernard Shaw

Entrepreneurs almost have to be unreasonable, even irrational, to try to start a business around a new idea. They have to visualize something that doesn’t exist, create it out of thin air, and sell it to others, particularly VCs and early adopter customers. If it was obvious, everybody would be doing it. Instead, it is usually obscure and often seemingly crazy. Who will invest in such a raw idea?

Mom and Dad, ... your best friend… that’s who. They trust you for reasons unrelated to the idea you are promoting. In fact, in the case of parents, biology drives them to support their offspring, even irrationally. In the case of friends, it can be payback for that time you bailed them out of a DUI in college, or any number of pre-existing debts, or irrational friendship.

I’m going to ignore the argument that parents investing in their kids is an unwise concentration of assets. I’m concerned with the hazier issue of irrational seed investors not giving the entrepreneur unbiased feedback. There is danger in F&F seed funding.

If for no other reason, subsequent investors will be looking to see who has invested before them. They will be looking for previous validation. Mom’s money is weak validation.

It’s a tough balance to strike --- you want some seed money to validate the idea, but you also want unbiased input on whether you are drinking too much of your own KoolAid. And believe me, after an unreasonable, irrational entrepreneur fixes on an idea and throws their weight behind it, it is hard to be convinced otherwise. The danger is that calling on the easy money, may delay getting a cool, rational dose of reality.

So I guess my advice is to validate that idea before seeking VC money, but test it both with F&F money and with unbiased, “tell you the honest to God truth” advice that a family member or close friend cannot give you. Don’t just labor away in stealth mode, eating up your parent’s money. Find “seed advisors” you can trust who know the space and the technology, and continually test your idea and fine-tune your pitch on them.

VCs have a phrase for Friends and Family money. Sometimes it’s just called Friends, Family and Fool’s money. Don’t trust the F's to validate your idea, and definitely don’t trust them to Value your idea. They love you and love is blind.