An innovator and strategic thinker with hands-on diversified sector and international experience who is recognized for his track record, knowledge, and experience of successfully funding and growing companies.
Thomas has a wealth of experience in business execution, successfully directing a number of sourcing customers towards their goals and objectives. Thomas successfully achieved rapid returns on investment providing services that allowed revenue turnaround with staggering speed.
An innovator and strategic thinker with hands-on diversified sector and international experience who is recognized for his track record, knowledge, and experience of successfully funding and growing companies.
Thomas has a wealth of experience in business execution, successfully directing a number of sourcing customers towards their goals and objectives. Thomas successfully achieved rapid returns on investment providing services that allowed revenue turnaround with staggering speed.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
membership
1.) Meet investors in our network
Join our investor Network and put your business in the investor spotlight. We take great pride in our investor network, interviewing and categorizing each investor who applies. Use our network to meet investors who are in your area and interested in your industry.
Post Your Plan Membership
* Post a Business Plan for our accredited Investors to view
* Get Feedback on your plan from a professional analyst
* Post a video pitch for investors to watch
* 13 Lesson Funding Bootcamp: over 30 hours of educational podcasts, webinars, and article from funding experts
* Business Plan Templates
* Pro-forma Financial Templates
Meet investors in our network
* Contact 10 of our accredited investors each month
* Search through our database of over 1,500 angel group's contact info and submission pages
* Everything from 'Post Your Plan' Membership
2.) SpeedPitch event: pitch to qualified investors
SpeedPitch is personal & exclusive. You'll get to meet and pitch to 20 - 30 active and engaged investors. The format is simple & personal. Five entrepreneurs are each given 4 minutes to present their business to 30 - 40 investors, with an additional 3 minutes for Q&A. The event is focused on funding and each investor in attendance is prepared to invest.
3.) InvestorReady Analysis
We analyze your business the same way investors do
A 56-point inspection detailing
* Traction
* Market Opportunity
* Sustainable Competitive Advantage
* Investment Offering
* Management Team
* A quick look under the hood (financials)
--
Venture Capital Intl., Thomas Duffy, CEO
Office 860-350-4440
Cell: 203.775.9999
Fax: 203.648.4942
Funding & Advisory
Join our investor Network and put your business in the investor spotlight. We take great pride in our investor network, interviewing and categorizing each investor who applies. Use our network to meet investors who are in your area and interested in your industry.
Post Your Plan Membership
* Post a Business Plan for our accredited Investors to view
* Get Feedback on your plan from a professional analyst
* Post a video pitch for investors to watch
* 13 Lesson Funding Bootcamp: over 30 hours of educational podcasts, webinars, and article from funding experts
* Business Plan Templates
* Pro-forma Financial Templates
Meet investors in our network
* Contact 10 of our accredited investors each month
* Search through our database of over 1,500 angel group's contact info and submission pages
* Everything from 'Post Your Plan' Membership
2.) SpeedPitch event: pitch to qualified investors
SpeedPitch is personal & exclusive. You'll get to meet and pitch to 20 - 30 active and engaged investors. The format is simple & personal. Five entrepreneurs are each given 4 minutes to present their business to 30 - 40 investors, with an additional 3 minutes for Q&A. The event is focused on funding and each investor in attendance is prepared to invest.
3.) InvestorReady Analysis
We analyze your business the same way investors do
A 56-point inspection detailing
* Traction
* Market Opportunity
* Sustainable Competitive Advantage
* Investment Offering
* Management Team
* A quick look under the hood (financials)
--
Venture Capital Intl., Thomas Duffy, CEO
Office 860-350-4440
Cell: 203.775.9999
Fax: 203.648.4942
Funding & Advisory
If you are currently raising capital and need to do any of the following:
1) Go outside of your existing network of contacts to find investors
2) Schedule an expensive national road trip to meet capital sources
3) Pay to retain an investment banker or placement agent
4) Find a cost-effective proven venue to locate new investors
5) Accelerate the funding process to execute your business plan
Then you should consider applying to attend or present at this event. You're welcome to send a copy of your Executive Summary to me at VCAPINT@GMAIL.COM. I'll get back to you promptly as to whether or not your company would be good fit for the event. Also, feel free to call my office at 860-350-4440. I would be happy to discuss the visibility options, qualifications, costs to attend or present and answer any questions you may have about the format, audience composition, references, etc.
We have been hosting these exclusive “deal-oriented” venues for the last nine years. They are the best investor-attended events of their kind in the U.S. and are not compromised with a high population vendors or service providers. This will be our 29th consecutive venue.
If you believe that your company's potential is truly compelling and that management's vision can be effectively communicated, this private event will provide a unique NATIONAL platform to get your message across to active serious investors who want to see fundable deals. YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS A “ROAD SHOW” THAT COMES TO THE COMPANY.
Please keep in mind that most of our presenting companies at the point where they are ready to begin commercialization or have begun marketing their products, and are not usually "unfunded start-ups" with no sales. We will consider pre-revenue companies that have already had some meaningful outside funding and have a clear proprietary advantage in their science, technology or business method and can reach a large addressable market. Presenter qualifications are listed at http://www.privateequityforums.com/qualifications.html .
This prestigious venue can help you solve the three biggest problems in the fundraising process: 1) identifying qualified investors, 2) gaining credible entrée to them and 3) meeting them under favorable circumstances. Moreover, the event drives the single most essential factor in getting funded quickly, and that is the ability to create contemporaneous interest among investors - which also can serve to significantly improve deal terms.
More information about this established proven venue to meet investors and the possible benefits of presenting or attending are on our website at http://www.privateequityforums.com/message.html .
As we are not part of any non-profit group and our events are not primarily funded by vendors and service providers, companies are required to pay a Presenter Fee based upon a number of options. Our forum could be best described as a co-op for the 12 to 15 companies that present, such as a trade show would be. We underwrite the events and the featured companies share in the cost. They do so because our model ensures them an audience of nearly 100% qualified investors who have paid to attend and whom we disclose in advance.
To see a list of recent registrants along with other investment groups who regularly attend our events, please go to http://www.privateequityforums.com/guests.html .
Look forward to hearing from you if you feel that this event can help you to get funded.
1) Go outside of your existing network of contacts to find investors
2) Schedule an expensive national road trip to meet capital sources
3) Pay to retain an investment banker or placement agent
4) Find a cost-effective proven venue to locate new investors
5) Accelerate the funding process to execute your business plan
Then you should consider applying to attend or present at this event. You're welcome to send a copy of your Executive Summary to me at VCAPINT@GMAIL.COM. I'll get back to you promptly as to whether or not your company would be good fit for the event. Also, feel free to call my office at 860-350-4440. I would be happy to discuss the visibility options, qualifications, costs to attend or present and answer any questions you may have about the format, audience composition, references, etc.
We have been hosting these exclusive “deal-oriented” venues for the last nine years. They are the best investor-attended events of their kind in the U.S. and are not compromised with a high population vendors or service providers. This will be our 29th consecutive venue.
If you believe that your company's potential is truly compelling and that management's vision can be effectively communicated, this private event will provide a unique NATIONAL platform to get your message across to active serious investors who want to see fundable deals. YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS A “ROAD SHOW” THAT COMES TO THE COMPANY.
Please keep in mind that most of our presenting companies at the point where they are ready to begin commercialization or have begun marketing their products, and are not usually "unfunded start-ups" with no sales. We will consider pre-revenue companies that have already had some meaningful outside funding and have a clear proprietary advantage in their science, technology or business method and can reach a large addressable market. Presenter qualifications are listed at http://www.privateequityforums.com/qualifications.html .
This prestigious venue can help you solve the three biggest problems in the fundraising process: 1) identifying qualified investors, 2) gaining credible entrée to them and 3) meeting them under favorable circumstances. Moreover, the event drives the single most essential factor in getting funded quickly, and that is the ability to create contemporaneous interest among investors - which also can serve to significantly improve deal terms.
More information about this established proven venue to meet investors and the possible benefits of presenting or attending are on our website at http://www.privateequityforums.com/message.html .
As we are not part of any non-profit group and our events are not primarily funded by vendors and service providers, companies are required to pay a Presenter Fee based upon a number of options. Our forum could be best described as a co-op for the 12 to 15 companies that present, such as a trade show would be. We underwrite the events and the featured companies share in the cost. They do so because our model ensures them an audience of nearly 100% qualified investors who have paid to attend and whom we disclose in advance.
To see a list of recent registrants along with other investment groups who regularly attend our events, please go to http://www.privateequityforums.com/guests.html .
Look forward to hearing from you if you feel that this event can help you to get funded.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Generally, to raise capital a company must register its stock or securities with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and with each state. Registration typically involves providing and obtaining approval from the federal and state governments for complex information about a company and its financing. Registration is time consuming and expensive. Most registration "exemptions" limit the number of investors, the dollar amount of the offering, and the manner in which money may be raised.
The most common exemption from registration is the private offering. Private offerings are generally sold through a legal disclosure document known as a private placement memorandum. Although private offerings are exempt from federal and state registration requirements, complex "notice" filing requirements still exist and many states further qualify a private offering. Finally, private offerings may not be sold by means of general advertising or solicitation. Normally a preexisting relationship between the company and the investor is required. Most entrepreneurs do not know enough qualified investors to finance a private offering. It is therefore easy to inadvertently turn a private offering into a public one, which then defeats the exemption and requires registration and/or return of investors' money.
The SEC has created a "safe harbor" guideline to enable companies to stay within the private offering exemption. Regulation D (17 C.F.R. Sec. 230.500 et. seq.), Rule 506 allows a company to sell an unlimited dollar amount of securities to an unlimited number of "accredited" (generally wealthy investors and institutions, see Rule 501) investors, and to up to 35 nonaccredited investors. While Reg. D provides burdensome disclosure requirements for offerings over $7.5 million such as expensive and time consuming audited financial statements, these requirements are lessened if the offering is limited to accredited investors.
Reg. D offerings must still comply with state exemption filing and qualification requirements ("blue sky laws"). However, Rule 506 offerings are not subject to burdensome state qualifications, only to state notice filings and fee requirements. See 15 USC Sec. 77r.
For emerging as well as many established companies, the best way to raise capital is through a Reg. D, Rule 506, offering limited to accredited investors. The only remaining problem is Reg. D's prohibition (see Rule 502) on Rule 506 offerings utilizing any form of "general solicitation or advertising".
Of course, the questions are what is and what is not "general solicitation or advertising", and whether or not it is possible to raise capital on the internet without violating this prohibition. A review of relevant SEC opinions on these matters is in order.
In H.B. Shaine & Co., Inc., No Action Letter dated May 1, 1987, the SEC staff indicated that the distribution by a securities dealer of questionnaires to prospective accredited investors to determine their suitability to participate in private offerings would not be a "general solicitation or advertisement". This view was premised upon several factors, including the use of a generic questionnaire and upon the elapse of a sufficient period of time between the completion of the questionnaire and the contemplation or inception of any particular offering. 45 days has been held to be a "sufficient period of time". See E.F. Hutton, SEC No-Action Letter (Dec. 3, 1985).
In IPONET, SEC No Action Letter (Division of Corporate Finance and Market Regulation Interpretive Letter dated July 26, 1996), the SEC staff indicated that a securities dealer and underwriter could distribute questionnaires to prospective accredited investors to determine their suitability to participate in private offerings, and that those investors may be invited to access a secured web-site to review private placement offerings not contemplated or commenced prior to the lapse of a sufficient period of time after completion of an investor's questionnaire.
In SEC Interpretation: Use of Electronic Media (Securities Act Release No. 7856; Exchange Act Release No. 4278; Investment Company Release No. 24426-4/28/00), the SEC staff noted that "third party service providers who are neither registered broker-dealers nor affiliated with registered broker-dealers have established web-sites that generally invite prospective investors to qualify as accredited or sophisticated as a prelude to participation, on an access-restricted basis, in limited or private offerings transmitted on those web-site." While the staff expressed some concern that certain sites have deviated from the format approved by IPONET, the staff went on to state that "the presence or absence of a general solicitation is always dependent on the facts and circumstances of each particular case" (citing and quoting Securities Act Rel. No. 6825-March 15, 1989, at n. 12 "the staff has never suggested, and it is not the case, that prior relationship is the only way to show the absence of a general solicitation"). The conclusion was that "a third party, other than a registered broker-dealer, could establish a 'pre-existing, substantive relationship' sufficient to avoid a 'general solicitation'". While it is permissible for these web-sites to accept a fee for their listing services, these sites may not act as broker-dealers by attempting to induce sales of the securities of others without being licensed to do so.
There are many web-sites purporting to match entrepreneurs with accredited investors. Some of these sites may be found at http://www..wall-street.com/vcpp.html. While it is legally permissible to sell securities to accredited investors through properly structured on-line services, most of these sites do not provide enough accredited investor leads to properly capitalize many private offerings. A conservative rule of thumb is to contact 1000 accredited investors to raise $25,000. Because most of these sites do not have 1000 accredited investors, it is difficult to raise the amount of money needed solely from these sites.
A more effective alternative involves the purchase or rental of voluminous "accredited investor lists". However, the mere fact that solicitations are directed solely to accredited investors may be insufficient to prove that solicitations are limited if no safeguards are taken to ensure that non-accredited offerees are not solicited. See In re CGI Capital Inc. Securities Act Release No. 33-7904 (9/29/00) ("CGI Capital"). In CGI Capital, the company sent e-mail messages to several thousand potential investors (some of whom the company did not have preexisting relationships with) regarding a private placement offering. Prospective investors were provided a "password" to a restricted web-site which contained the offering. However, offerees were not restricted from forwarding the password to others, nor otherwise advised that the password was restricted. Neither were offerees required to verify their accredited investor status prior to viewing the offering on the web-site. The SEC found CGI Capital had engaged in a general solicitation and advertisement because of a combination of three factors: (1) The e-mail was sent to thousands of offerees, many of whom lacked preexisting relationships with the company or its agents; (2) Offerees were not required to verify their accredited investor status prior to viewing the offering on the web-site; (3) There were inadequate restrictions on accessing the offering on the web-site-i.e., the password was not restricted from being forwarded and offerees were not advised the password was restricted to personal use. While it is important that the SEC found the lack of preexisting relationships a factor in finding CGI Capital had engaged in general advertising and solicitation, it is important to remember that the presence or absence of a general solicitation is always dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. As already mentioned, the SEC "staff has never suggested, and it is not the case, that prior relationship is the only way to show the absence of a general solicitation." See Securities Act Release No. 6825 (3/15/89 at n. 12.
Secured third party web-sites matching entrepreneurs with accredited investors, where the site has established preexisting relationships with accredited investors, is generally permissible. Use of large accredited investor lists, such as e-mails or direct mailings, would be appropriate if the list owner has established preexisting relationships with accredited investors. The stronger the relationships established the better. For example, buying or renting a list from a company of its existing accredited investor-shareholders is preferable to purchasing a list derived from public property records. However, preexisting relationships are not determinative. The other factors cited in CGI Capital should be heeded: (1) Prior to viewing the offering prospective investors should verify their accredited status; (2) Safeguards should be in place to ensure only those to whom the solicitation is sent are able to view the offering.
506D offerings have the advantages of allowing a company to raise an unlimited amount of funds without the headaches of registration or burdensome blue sky compliances (beyond notice filings and fees). By limiting investors to those who are "accredited", burdensome disclosure requirements are greatly lessened. The problem has been compliance with the ban on "general solicitation and advertising". In light of recent SEC releases, it is possible to target large accredited investor databases provided those databases were properly generated, prospective investors verify their accreditation prior to viewing the offering, and safeguards are in place to ensure those not solicited do not view the offering. Legal counsel is advisable not only to ensure compliance with 506D offering requirements, but to assist in maximizing the number of investors to whom an offering may legally be targeted. For more information specific to this article, please contact:
The most common exemption from registration is the private offering. Private offerings are generally sold through a legal disclosure document known as a private placement memorandum. Although private offerings are exempt from federal and state registration requirements, complex "notice" filing requirements still exist and many states further qualify a private offering. Finally, private offerings may not be sold by means of general advertising or solicitation. Normally a preexisting relationship between the company and the investor is required. Most entrepreneurs do not know enough qualified investors to finance a private offering. It is therefore easy to inadvertently turn a private offering into a public one, which then defeats the exemption and requires registration and/or return of investors' money.
The SEC has created a "safe harbor" guideline to enable companies to stay within the private offering exemption. Regulation D (17 C.F.R. Sec. 230.500 et. seq.), Rule 506 allows a company to sell an unlimited dollar amount of securities to an unlimited number of "accredited" (generally wealthy investors and institutions, see Rule 501) investors, and to up to 35 nonaccredited investors. While Reg. D provides burdensome disclosure requirements for offerings over $7.5 million such as expensive and time consuming audited financial statements, these requirements are lessened if the offering is limited to accredited investors.
Reg. D offerings must still comply with state exemption filing and qualification requirements ("blue sky laws"). However, Rule 506 offerings are not subject to burdensome state qualifications, only to state notice filings and fee requirements. See 15 USC Sec. 77r.
For emerging as well as many established companies, the best way to raise capital is through a Reg. D, Rule 506, offering limited to accredited investors. The only remaining problem is Reg. D's prohibition (see Rule 502) on Rule 506 offerings utilizing any form of "general solicitation or advertising".
Of course, the questions are what is and what is not "general solicitation or advertising", and whether or not it is possible to raise capital on the internet without violating this prohibition. A review of relevant SEC opinions on these matters is in order.
In H.B. Shaine & Co., Inc., No Action Letter dated May 1, 1987, the SEC staff indicated that the distribution by a securities dealer of questionnaires to prospective accredited investors to determine their suitability to participate in private offerings would not be a "general solicitation or advertisement". This view was premised upon several factors, including the use of a generic questionnaire and upon the elapse of a sufficient period of time between the completion of the questionnaire and the contemplation or inception of any particular offering. 45 days has been held to be a "sufficient period of time". See E.F. Hutton, SEC No-Action Letter (Dec. 3, 1985).
In IPONET, SEC No Action Letter (Division of Corporate Finance and Market Regulation Interpretive Letter dated July 26, 1996), the SEC staff indicated that a securities dealer and underwriter could distribute questionnaires to prospective accredited investors to determine their suitability to participate in private offerings, and that those investors may be invited to access a secured web-site to review private placement offerings not contemplated or commenced prior to the lapse of a sufficient period of time after completion of an investor's questionnaire.
In SEC Interpretation: Use of Electronic Media (Securities Act Release No. 7856; Exchange Act Release No. 4278; Investment Company Release No. 24426-4/28/00), the SEC staff noted that "third party service providers who are neither registered broker-dealers nor affiliated with registered broker-dealers have established web-sites that generally invite prospective investors to qualify as accredited or sophisticated as a prelude to participation, on an access-restricted basis, in limited or private offerings transmitted on those web-site." While the staff expressed some concern that certain sites have deviated from the format approved by IPONET, the staff went on to state that "the presence or absence of a general solicitation is always dependent on the facts and circumstances of each particular case" (citing and quoting Securities Act Rel. No. 6825-March 15, 1989, at n. 12 "the staff has never suggested, and it is not the case, that prior relationship is the only way to show the absence of a general solicitation"). The conclusion was that "a third party, other than a registered broker-dealer, could establish a 'pre-existing, substantive relationship' sufficient to avoid a 'general solicitation'". While it is permissible for these web-sites to accept a fee for their listing services, these sites may not act as broker-dealers by attempting to induce sales of the securities of others without being licensed to do so.
There are many web-sites purporting to match entrepreneurs with accredited investors. Some of these sites may be found at http://www..wall-street.com/vcpp.html. While it is legally permissible to sell securities to accredited investors through properly structured on-line services, most of these sites do not provide enough accredited investor leads to properly capitalize many private offerings. A conservative rule of thumb is to contact 1000 accredited investors to raise $25,000. Because most of these sites do not have 1000 accredited investors, it is difficult to raise the amount of money needed solely from these sites.
A more effective alternative involves the purchase or rental of voluminous "accredited investor lists". However, the mere fact that solicitations are directed solely to accredited investors may be insufficient to prove that solicitations are limited if no safeguards are taken to ensure that non-accredited offerees are not solicited. See In re CGI Capital Inc. Securities Act Release No. 33-7904 (9/29/00) ("CGI Capital"). In CGI Capital, the company sent e-mail messages to several thousand potential investors (some of whom the company did not have preexisting relationships with) regarding a private placement offering. Prospective investors were provided a "password" to a restricted web-site which contained the offering. However, offerees were not restricted from forwarding the password to others, nor otherwise advised that the password was restricted. Neither were offerees required to verify their accredited investor status prior to viewing the offering on the web-site. The SEC found CGI Capital had engaged in a general solicitation and advertisement because of a combination of three factors: (1) The e-mail was sent to thousands of offerees, many of whom lacked preexisting relationships with the company or its agents; (2) Offerees were not required to verify their accredited investor status prior to viewing the offering on the web-site; (3) There were inadequate restrictions on accessing the offering on the web-site-i.e., the password was not restricted from being forwarded and offerees were not advised the password was restricted to personal use. While it is important that the SEC found the lack of preexisting relationships a factor in finding CGI Capital had engaged in general advertising and solicitation, it is important to remember that the presence or absence of a general solicitation is always dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. As already mentioned, the SEC "staff has never suggested, and it is not the case, that prior relationship is the only way to show the absence of a general solicitation." See Securities Act Release No. 6825 (3/15/89 at n. 12.
Secured third party web-sites matching entrepreneurs with accredited investors, where the site has established preexisting relationships with accredited investors, is generally permissible. Use of large accredited investor lists, such as e-mails or direct mailings, would be appropriate if the list owner has established preexisting relationships with accredited investors. The stronger the relationships established the better. For example, buying or renting a list from a company of its existing accredited investor-shareholders is preferable to purchasing a list derived from public property records. However, preexisting relationships are not determinative. The other factors cited in CGI Capital should be heeded: (1) Prior to viewing the offering prospective investors should verify their accredited status; (2) Safeguards should be in place to ensure only those to whom the solicitation is sent are able to view the offering.
506D offerings have the advantages of allowing a company to raise an unlimited amount of funds without the headaches of registration or burdensome blue sky compliances (beyond notice filings and fees). By limiting investors to those who are "accredited", burdensome disclosure requirements are greatly lessened. The problem has been compliance with the ban on "general solicitation and advertising". In light of recent SEC releases, it is possible to target large accredited investor databases provided those databases were properly generated, prospective investors verify their accreditation prior to viewing the offering, and safeguards are in place to ensure those not solicited do not view the offering. Legal counsel is advisable not only to ensure compliance with 506D offering requirements, but to assist in maximizing the number of investors to whom an offering may legally be targeted. For more information specific to this article, please contact:
Saturday, February 13, 2010
predictions great article
This post is by Simeon Simeonov, the firm’s founder and CEO (and formerly a partner at Polaris Ventures). If you like it, check out Sim’s blog and tweets @simeons. – Nivi
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”
Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize winner
By penalizing entrepreneurs who are humble and honest about how their companies will grow, many investors cause entrepreneurs to over-promise (and later under-deliver) when they’re raising money.
The histories of some of the best-known technology companies demonstrate the power of luck, timing, the mistakes of incumbents, and solid execution.
Execution is the main tool under a startup’s control but it’s often under-valued by investors.
So it’s not surprising that most entrepreneurs come to pitch meetings armed with very precise statements about a very uncertain future and a list of proven strategies guaranteed to make their company successful. While sitting through these pitches, I sometimes wonder which is worse: the entrepreneurs who know they’re spinning tall tales or the ones who “got high on their own supply.”
VCs and entrepreneurs collaborate to lie about the future
Instead of bringing entrepreneurs back down to earth, some investors push them further into orbit. Some VCs ask a seed-stage, pre-product startup for a detailed five-year financial plan. When I was a partner at Polaris Ventures, I saw many of these spreadsheets built “for fundraising purposes.” We didn’t ask for these spreadsheets — entrepreneurs had usually built them after meeting other, less early-stage, investors.
I find the process of planning — and understanding how a founder thinks about a business — educational and valuable. But pushing the exercise to the point of assumptions layered upon assumptions is not just wasteful, but dangerous, because it sets the wrong expectations.
After a few pitches, entrepreneurs realize that the distant future is safer territory than the immediate. It’s easier to boast about 30 must-have features your product will have in three years, than to show the three must-have features in the current prototype. It’s easier to talk about how you’ll recruit world-class CXOs when you’re big and successful, than to show a detailed plan for bringing in an amazing inbound marketing specialist, when everyone on the team is getting paid below-market rates to conserve cash. The examples go on and on.
I’ve co-founded four companies. The two that most quickly and easily raised money did it with nothing but slide decks. Both were funded by Polaris, which has a lot of experience with very early stage investing. We didn’t waste time over-planning the future in those two companies.
And for good reason. Both startups ended up quite different than the fundraising presentations promised — for solid, market-based reasons that were invisible during diligence. Plinky acquired a new product line and became Thing Labs. 8th Ring failed quickly and cheaply, only seven months after funding. The CEO and I decided the execution risk was too high. And, in retrospect, we were right: our only competitor had an unexciting exit a few years later.
Over-promising causes startups to throw away money
Over-promising is not a problem when it comes with over-delivery. But the overwhelming majority of startups fail to meet the promises they’ve made during fundraising. After years of observing this pattern, I’ve come to believe that over-promising can actually cause under-delivery. Entrepreneurs over-promise to raise money easily and set themselves up for pain down the road.
How? The reasons have to do with information signals, expectation setting, and the psychological contracts between entrepreneurs and investors. It’s very hard to pitch one story today and then change it the day the money hits the bank, especially if you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid.
An overly rosy pitch leads to expectations and fateful commitments that downplay the variability of the future. Decisions are made based on assumptions rather than tested hypotheses. The burn goes up earlier. The sales team is hired much too soon. In venture funds, over-promising also spreads from the investing partner to the rest of the partnership. It can also spread from the company to its customers and partners, further extending the reality distortion field.
If you’re Apple and you’ve got Steve, that’s awesome. For everyone else, it can get rough. I saw this play out with one of my companies that was expanding internationally (the reason why the company had raised money). The world was going to be our oyster and, before the reality that our go-to-market strategy wasn’t as effective as everyone had hoped set in, we had burned through a good chunk of capital.
Find investors you don’t have to lie to
How should you choose between being honest (and hearing “no” a lot) vs. amping up the pitch and risking the anti-patterns above? I give two answers to the CEOs I work with at my startup advisory firm FastIgnite.
First, I strongly advise startups to go to venture firms where the decision process is more collaborative and less “salesy.” One of the main reasons a VC will push an entrepreneur to over-promise is his need to sell a deal internally.
Second, pitch investors with a track record of valuing a team’s ability to execute, over any specific strategy or execution plan. While most firms pay lip service to this cliché, few do many investments this way. Here are some examples from my experience in the past few months:
* On the smaller side, Betaworks and First Round Capital get this. Their portfolios and their philosophy show it. I look forward to working with them some day.
* Among VCs, General Catalyst has repeatedly backed companies like Brightcove, m-Qube, and Visible Measures very early — with the understanding that many important questions will have answers only after months of execution. I’m actively partnering with them at FastIgnite.
* Surprisingly, at the very high end, a private equity firm like Warburg Pincus can be a great place for the right early-stage entrepreneur. Last year, a Warburg entrepreneur-in-residence incubated Better Advertising, a company where I’m a co-founder and acting CTO. Better Advertising’s market and business model required a backer with staying power that exceeds most other investors’.
The firms above practice a form of agile investing by (1) not forcing entrepreneurs to over-plan for an uncertain future and (2) following the principle of minimizing wasted effort. Ultimately, it’s the investors’ responsibility to reward honesty with trust and cash. And I think that’s a win-win. I’m looking forward to discussing this with you in the comments.
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”
Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize winner
By penalizing entrepreneurs who are humble and honest about how their companies will grow, many investors cause entrepreneurs to over-promise (and later under-deliver) when they’re raising money.
The histories of some of the best-known technology companies demonstrate the power of luck, timing, the mistakes of incumbents, and solid execution.
Execution is the main tool under a startup’s control but it’s often under-valued by investors.
So it’s not surprising that most entrepreneurs come to pitch meetings armed with very precise statements about a very uncertain future and a list of proven strategies guaranteed to make their company successful. While sitting through these pitches, I sometimes wonder which is worse: the entrepreneurs who know they’re spinning tall tales or the ones who “got high on their own supply.”
VCs and entrepreneurs collaborate to lie about the future
Instead of bringing entrepreneurs back down to earth, some investors push them further into orbit. Some VCs ask a seed-stage, pre-product startup for a detailed five-year financial plan. When I was a partner at Polaris Ventures, I saw many of these spreadsheets built “for fundraising purposes.” We didn’t ask for these spreadsheets — entrepreneurs had usually built them after meeting other, less early-stage, investors.
I find the process of planning — and understanding how a founder thinks about a business — educational and valuable. But pushing the exercise to the point of assumptions layered upon assumptions is not just wasteful, but dangerous, because it sets the wrong expectations.
After a few pitches, entrepreneurs realize that the distant future is safer territory than the immediate. It’s easier to boast about 30 must-have features your product will have in three years, than to show the three must-have features in the current prototype. It’s easier to talk about how you’ll recruit world-class CXOs when you’re big and successful, than to show a detailed plan for bringing in an amazing inbound marketing specialist, when everyone on the team is getting paid below-market rates to conserve cash. The examples go on and on.
I’ve co-founded four companies. The two that most quickly and easily raised money did it with nothing but slide decks. Both were funded by Polaris, which has a lot of experience with very early stage investing. We didn’t waste time over-planning the future in those two companies.
And for good reason. Both startups ended up quite different than the fundraising presentations promised — for solid, market-based reasons that were invisible during diligence. Plinky acquired a new product line and became Thing Labs. 8th Ring failed quickly and cheaply, only seven months after funding. The CEO and I decided the execution risk was too high. And, in retrospect, we were right: our only competitor had an unexciting exit a few years later.
Over-promising causes startups to throw away money
Over-promising is not a problem when it comes with over-delivery. But the overwhelming majority of startups fail to meet the promises they’ve made during fundraising. After years of observing this pattern, I’ve come to believe that over-promising can actually cause under-delivery. Entrepreneurs over-promise to raise money easily and set themselves up for pain down the road.
How? The reasons have to do with information signals, expectation setting, and the psychological contracts between entrepreneurs and investors. It’s very hard to pitch one story today and then change it the day the money hits the bank, especially if you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid.
An overly rosy pitch leads to expectations and fateful commitments that downplay the variability of the future. Decisions are made based on assumptions rather than tested hypotheses. The burn goes up earlier. The sales team is hired much too soon. In venture funds, over-promising also spreads from the investing partner to the rest of the partnership. It can also spread from the company to its customers and partners, further extending the reality distortion field.
If you’re Apple and you’ve got Steve, that’s awesome. For everyone else, it can get rough. I saw this play out with one of my companies that was expanding internationally (the reason why the company had raised money). The world was going to be our oyster and, before the reality that our go-to-market strategy wasn’t as effective as everyone had hoped set in, we had burned through a good chunk of capital.
Find investors you don’t have to lie to
How should you choose between being honest (and hearing “no” a lot) vs. amping up the pitch and risking the anti-patterns above? I give two answers to the CEOs I work with at my startup advisory firm FastIgnite.
First, I strongly advise startups to go to venture firms where the decision process is more collaborative and less “salesy.” One of the main reasons a VC will push an entrepreneur to over-promise is his need to sell a deal internally.
Second, pitch investors with a track record of valuing a team’s ability to execute, over any specific strategy or execution plan. While most firms pay lip service to this cliché, few do many investments this way. Here are some examples from my experience in the past few months:
* On the smaller side, Betaworks and First Round Capital get this. Their portfolios and their philosophy show it. I look forward to working with them some day.
* Among VCs, General Catalyst has repeatedly backed companies like Brightcove, m-Qube, and Visible Measures very early — with the understanding that many important questions will have answers only after months of execution. I’m actively partnering with them at FastIgnite.
* Surprisingly, at the very high end, a private equity firm like Warburg Pincus can be a great place for the right early-stage entrepreneur. Last year, a Warburg entrepreneur-in-residence incubated Better Advertising, a company where I’m a co-founder and acting CTO. Better Advertising’s market and business model required a backer with staying power that exceeds most other investors’.
The firms above practice a form of agile investing by (1) not forcing entrepreneurs to over-plan for an uncertain future and (2) following the principle of minimizing wasted effort. Ultimately, it’s the investors’ responsibility to reward honesty with trust and cash. And I think that’s a win-win. I’m looking forward to discussing this with you in the comments.
Friday, January 29, 2010
OPTIONS
We work one of two ways:
Priority – If you want us to “Clear The Decks” put our heads down and get to work you'll honor us by paying a 1% fully earned, non-refundable commitment fee for our consulting services. The minimum fee is $2,500 and the maximum fee is $25,000 per project for six months of service. You may renew after that time.
When you hire us to work on a priority basis we thoroughly study your submission package to make sure that it complies with our recommended Road Map to Funding Success. Funding has always been about presentation. Those who present well are funded. Those who don't present well are not funded.
The key ingredients to funding success, in our experience, have been:
1.
A powerful Executive Summary of one to four pages.
2.
Bio's of key personnel.
3.
A detailed use of funds broken down monthly for the first year and quarterly thereafter.
4.
A 5-year proforma and written Exit Strategy.
Non-Priority – If you think that you've “nailed it” when preparing the four key ingredients to funding success, and you aren't in any hurry at all to fund and aren't quite ready to pay consultation fees then we'll take a look at your project when we can get to it. After we look at it we may need to send it back because you don't meet our requirements. (Priority Clients get major help from us in cleaning up their submission.) We'll return your calls and emails when we can: after all, priority clients come first.
We reserve the right to review each submission once, beyond that our consultation fee will be required. You had better complete the submission request correctly the first time or you better get familiar with our websites mentioned above. If you submit for free we can't spend a lot of time. It's not fair to us, our families, or our Priority Clients.
In our experience we can fund 1/3 of the files that cross our desks, 1/3 are DOA Dead on Arrival, and the final 1/3 are broken and need to go through some form of remediation which can take hours, days, weeks, months, or years.
We DO NOT GUARANTEE FUNDING. We work on a BEST EFFORTS BASIS.
With 33 years of Financial Services experience we may be uniquely qualified to serve you and those whom you choose to refer.
--
Venture Capital Intl., Thomas Duffy, CEO
Cell: 203.775.9999
Fax: 203.648.4942
Priority – If you want us to “Clear The Decks” put our heads down and get to work you'll honor us by paying a 1% fully earned, non-refundable commitment fee for our consulting services. The minimum fee is $2,500 and the maximum fee is $25,000 per project for six months of service. You may renew after that time.
When you hire us to work on a priority basis we thoroughly study your submission package to make sure that it complies with our recommended Road Map to Funding Success. Funding has always been about presentation. Those who present well are funded. Those who don't present well are not funded.
The key ingredients to funding success, in our experience, have been:
1.
A powerful Executive Summary of one to four pages.
2.
Bio's of key personnel.
3.
A detailed use of funds broken down monthly for the first year and quarterly thereafter.
4.
A 5-year proforma and written Exit Strategy.
Non-Priority – If you think that you've “nailed it” when preparing the four key ingredients to funding success, and you aren't in any hurry at all to fund and aren't quite ready to pay consultation fees then we'll take a look at your project when we can get to it. After we look at it we may need to send it back because you don't meet our requirements. (Priority Clients get major help from us in cleaning up their submission.) We'll return your calls and emails when we can: after all, priority clients come first.
We reserve the right to review each submission once, beyond that our consultation fee will be required. You had better complete the submission request correctly the first time or you better get familiar with our websites mentioned above. If you submit for free we can't spend a lot of time. It's not fair to us, our families, or our Priority Clients.
In our experience we can fund 1/3 of the files that cross our desks, 1/3 are DOA Dead on Arrival, and the final 1/3 are broken and need to go through some form of remediation which can take hours, days, weeks, months, or years.
We DO NOT GUARANTEE FUNDING. We work on a BEST EFFORTS BASIS.
With 33 years of Financial Services experience we may be uniquely qualified to serve you and those whom you choose to refer.
--
Venture Capital Intl., Thomas Duffy, CEO
Cell: 203.775.9999
Fax: 203.648.4942
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
