Time For VCs To Start Pitching Startups?
from the shoe-on-the-other-foot dept
Back during the boom years, newly minted MBAs seemed to believe that the only way to start a company was to take their cocktail napkin scribble to a VC and get startup cash. The VCs didn't mind getting in early. They claimed their connections and know-how were necessary, but a bit of ancedotal evidence and some research suggests entrepreneurs are realizing that's not the way it needs to be done. In all honesty, it's always been the case that most startups are not right for venture capital -- but even those who will need it eventually can do quite well for themselves by bootstrapping. The recent sales of Topix and Bloglines are two cases in Silicon Valley where seasoned founders (who know both the upsides and downsides to VC funding) bootstrapped companies, passed on the VC money and sold their companies instead. The deals appear to give the start-ups access to capital to grow their businesses, some upfront payout for their hard work and continued control over the business. Going the acquisition route as opposed to taking funding and shooting for an IPO may have limited the upside of the founders, but the entrepreneurs are still making out well. VCs may discover that they need to rethink the "value proposition" they offer to a new generation of hot startups that seem more skeptical of the typical VC route.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bootstrapping
[ link to this | view in thread ]
VC and Money
If you can develop a growing, self sustaining, "somewhat viral" business, you should definitely fund it yourself and pass on the VCs.
I'd suggest that even in the capital intensive startups, you seed the business yourself and convert your investment into the same preferred stock the VCs are funding you with.
I got two things from the VCs: money and advice on how not to make stupid mistakes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Done it both ways
There are great investors who really do bring all three of money, connections and helpful advice. Unfortunately they are few, so most people by definition won't be able to meet or work with them.
But on the other hand, though I have heard all the "horror stories" of investors sucker-punching founders etc, when I drill on the story it usually turns out not really to be true. I have directly seen two companies destroyed by idiots on the board, but then again I've seen many more destroyed by stupid founders (one of which was one of my own, sigh).
Luckily for most readers of this blog, software companies usually have quite minimal capital requirements, so bootstrapping is easier for most of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bootstrapping
Here is a site I like w/ equity tables on bootstrapping vs. raising venture capital. Also, a lot of good content on bootstrapping by a chap that has done it. I would encourage Techdirt fans to read it:
http://www.klhess.com/bootstrap/bootstrap.htm
Sincerley,
Clouser
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bootstrapping
In my own experience, I have encountered both angels and VCs (pre dot com crash) that were too control oriented and the effective intangible "cost" of their investment was heavy maintenance by the executive staff...it might have been a lot easier for us if we were more aggressive and choosy about which investors we accepted and which we should have passed on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Respobse
That said, it is important to note that many of the more capital intensive startups - the ones that command higher acquisition values - do require VC financing. There is a correlation between risk return to the amount raised and the dollar out. Of these capital intensive investements, VCs are hoping to hit a home run. And, 2, 3 home run investments can return all the committed capital (and more) in a VC fund. See Google.
An example of this is Cisco's acquisition of Airespace for over $450M. Founder Hae Nahm and Storm Ventures, collectively, will pocket over $100M in a matter of 3 years. What an amazing IRR. Compare this home run to the "triple" that Topix and Bloglines founders hit. Though the Topix and Bloglines founders made out, they certainly did not hit a home run.
Another example is Liquidnet, where the founders - Seth Merrin and team - grossed over $200M, at least, in a sale to the later stage private equity companies. Liquidnet previously raised VC money from TH Lee and others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Respobse
[ link to this | view in thread ]