Crapshoot
Investing in startups, especially in the early stages, is a very risky business. This is evidenced by the fact that most VC Funds don't make returns that safe 10 year treasuries do. As a matter of fact, most VC funds don't return the capital back to to their investors. Only 2% of the people at large succeed as entrepreneurs and only 20% of the funded startups make a reasonable return. It is a crapshoot!
So why invest in such risky businesses? Because 100X return is common enough and 1000X is not unheard of. One such hit covers for many sins. Latter category includes Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon; just to mention a few.
A typical VC bet is placed on an unproven entrepreneur, in an unproven market with an unproven technology. VCs try to mitigate risks by doing due diligence and by doling out investments in stages. For every one dollar they invest initially, they reserve two for investments in the emerging winners. Later investments are done with more onfidence because of the direct experience with enterpreneurs. Emerging losers are to be weeded out quickly to conserve cash for winners.
Standard risk management techniques are used. VCs build a diverse portfolio of 15+ companies, hoping that one or two will hit big. They negotiate hard to have as low a valuation as possible to get get a reasonable ownership position, in many cases they would not invest unless they can see a potential return of 20X or more. They reserve a sizable portion of the equity for talent to be hired to improve the odds of success. They also build in many protective and control mechanisms to make sure that they are able to assert some modicum of control in the troubled situations.
The best teams with good funding fail often for myriad of reasons beyond their control. Markets don't emerge, competition overwhelms them, unit economics and business models don't click. But, an inept enterpreneur is the single most common reason the startups fail. See: "https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/entrepreneurial-traits-kanwal-rekhi/"
A good VC does his due diligence to verify facts, spends an inordinate amount of time picking the right horse to bet on. He then provides enough funding to meet agreed upon specific and fundable milestones. The goal of the early stage VCs is to show enough tangible progress to attract the late stage VCs to invest at stepped up valuations. More the progress, better the valuation. Not being able to attract the next stage money can prove catastrophic for both the entrepreneur and the early stage VC. VCs and entrepreneurs sit on the same side of the table and have a shared interest in the success of the venture, except during funding episodes when they sit across from each other with divergent objectives about the valuations. To get a good valuation, an entrepreneur has to attract multiple VCs willing to invest.
The VC business, like a movie business, is a business of hits. It is not for soft hearted individuals. You have to walk away from emerging losers. You have to double down on winners. No room for muddled thinking here.
One big hit overcomes 10 failures. For that to happen, it takes lady luck to smile. Without that nothing else matters.
Interim Management, Board Advisor | Digital Solutions & Services | Consulting Businesses
5 年So then what is the alternative option? Not 15 companies to dig out one super winner, nor shooting the breeze of unknown model, unknown technology, unknown whatever...so then let us consider this: Is this a route followed by some VCs? VCs that focus narrowly and work with a very small portfolio? 1. Evaluate many spaces but finally find the 2-3 big problems/ideas that have potential in one or maybe two sectors - start with that NOT the start-ups 2. Focus further on these 2-3 opportunities deeply - addressing those only & build the team (and the funding) that has potential for this space, NOW find the 2-3 start-ups or create them yourself 3. Start small with each start-up and go the full distance 4. Make course corrections along the way as needed, but go with a long horizon view 5. Build 2 out of 3 as substantive long term plays? Be the Mike Makkula of Apple 1977 (except that you are not an angel and you may need to start with a bit more than 250K these days:)). Counter-intuitive but this game of playing the wide basket for better risk/returns management is probably not working for most VCs, is it?
Investing in and building companies that are changing the world
5 年Great summary of what it takes me three classes to articulate! Thanks for posting Kanwal - sorry I missed you at 14 Floors this year.
CEO at Udyogwardhini | Democratizing Entrepreneurship & Skill Development | USF Grad
5 年Great viewpoint!
Kanwal Rekhi?Could you please share any of your experience investing in early-stage start-ups where you thought the idea or the business model or the entrepreneur/team won't add up to tickle enough to get investment folks interested but went on to outperform your expectations??? Also, what's your take on "Pre-idea, Pre-team, Pre-product" kind of early-stage talent investors (EF London or Antler Singapore) which is quite opposite to the traditional VC model??
Interim Management, Board Advisor | Digital Solutions & Services | Consulting Businesses
5 年There is a game and then there is the real thing. The game emerged as a consequence of typical human behaviour - seeking to find shortcuts through uncertainty and risk. Most of what we see today is the game (to be really, really honest) even if some play it so rashly and so evidently a con (the Unicorn phenomenon, the We-Work story? etc.), it is all mostly a game. The real business of venture financing dates to roots in the 1500s or even before. The crown gave some sums to vagabond explorers and risk takers on a ship to Africa or the Indian west coast. In the 1920s English bankers or aristocracy called up nouveau riche American bond market friends in NY, to rustle up money to invest in a tea/coffee plantation in India/Malaysia or a banana farm in the West Indies. Sometimes, they made huge returns and sometimes the monsoon doomed them. The spirit of the thing and the thrill of an exploration - that should be the key to support anything with money (And hopefully make some return out of it eventually). Unless you can sense that same spirit/a new frontier in biz beckons… don't waste raising money on it (even if you can afford to). Better to just give away money to a good cause and nurture that.? There is really no science to it.