Sign in
in
   
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

About Me

I am a co-founder of Notches, an early stage startup currently based in NYC. We are building a free, open reviews network that anyone can participate in and anyone can build on top of. You can find out more on our official blog.

Read more about my background.

Connect with me on...

Recent Readers

Flickr Photos

 

Warning:

This article is more than 45 days old. Given the speed at which the technology world moves, this post is probably somewhat out of date. Please keep this in mind when reading the post. If this is a tutorial, please check whether you are using the same versions mentioned in the article.

Valuation: Sometimes you *can* take too much money

If you're raising capital for a technical startup, how much should you take? Marc Andreessen says as much as possible, a sentiment echoed by Jason Calacanis. Jeremy Liew expounded on some of the risks of having a valuation that's either too high or too low. Marc and Jason are two guys who definitely know about building successful companies (and, perhaps more importantly, successful exits).

Jeremy's example focused on an angel round that gave a company a valuation of $30m, where he most certainly would have valued the company less than that (and thus either passed on, or lost, the financing). Despite what Marc and Jason say, though, you can raise too much money in a given round - not because of subsequent rounds, but because of the expected exit. After all, as Jason says, if you raise "too much" money in an earlier round, the big challenge is just not too burn it too fast.

This applies especially to VC rounds, which are typically very standard as compared to an angel round. The "average" fund has a life span of 10 years - the first 2 may be spent primarily raising funds, while investments are made typically up to year 4. That means that most investments need to be liquid in 5-6 years. The important thing to remember is that VCs invest for capital appreciation, not income - they are not interested in a cash cow, but rather in something that will "blow up". A good general rule is that the VC is looking for a return that will double in value and be marketable within 3 years.

If you take $10 million in an A round (giving the "standard" 40% per round), your company is valued at $25 million pre-money. That means that the VC is going to be looking for an exit within 6 years (preferably sooner) for at least $50 million. In many situations that might be fine - but there are also plenty of companies who might be very, very successful and profitable but not worth that much in the short term. Or, if they are valued accordingly, it still might undervalue what the company would be worth in the long run. (See, e.g., the number of Web 1.0 startups who bought back stock, etc. and eventually sold for significantly more than they would have been worth at the end of the VC window).

The real problem with raising "too much" money is that it creates certain expectations for an exit that might not be in the company's, or the founders', best interests.

(Edited to clarify a few points in the original post)

Update: After I posted this, Dick Costolo wrote an absolutely amazing post about raising too much money.

Only published comments... Jul 10 2007, 09:46 PM by Tim

View related posts

 

jeremy liew said:

Tim - I think you read Jason Calcanis' blog post and not mine. I did not comment on "taking too much" money. I wrote about the risks to an entrepreneur of raising money at too high a valuation, and at too low a valuation, and about how these risks were different.

July 10, 2007 11:43 PM
   

Tim said:

Jeremy - my apologies, I admittedly did simplify what you wrote about a little in the context of Jason's post and riffed on just a single thread within this whole discussion.

I think taking the risk of taking "too little" is obvious: generally, you're giving up the same % regardless of how much you actually raise, so taking less money means you're diluting your shares at a lower.

My point was mostly that the risk of taking money at the high-end valuation was more connected to the exit as opposed to subsequent rounds.

July 10, 2007 11:50 PM
 

jeremy liew said:

i think that is a valid point

July 11, 2007 2:33 PM
 

links for 2007-07-16 | innonate said:

Pingback from  links for 2007-07-16 | innonate

July 16, 2007 6:25 AM