Ignore the first two slides if you’re unaware of the methods.
Ignore the first two slides if you’re unaware of the methods.
Traditionally, they say there are four ways of creating value:
Entrepreneur magazine says that there are three ways of creating value – Price, Quality and Speed. Remember the days when places like printing companies and auto body shops posted cartoons that showed an employee laughing hysterically, accompanied by a line like, “You want it when?” Or how about a placard like this? “Price. Quality. Speed. Choose any two.”
In the mindset of days past, customers had to expect steep prices to get top quality at breakneck speed. For top quality at low prices, they expected long waits. And if they wanted delivery fast and cheap, they expected to compromise quality.
That was then. Today, customers have different expectations. They want and are used to receiving price, quality and speed. As a result, successful businesses deliver on all three fronts to win and keep customers. Be Good at Everything and Great at Something
Brian Tracy in this post talks about the 7 ways of adding value to business.
This article is written by Minhaz Merchant and the original article is here.
Got a great new idea? Are you from IIT? Here’s a $5 million cheque.
That’s the dream conversation every 20-year-old has with a fantasy venture capital (VC) or private equity (PE) firm. And there are lots of people living out that fantasy. Flipkart’s valuation is now over $15 billion (Rs 100,000 crore). In comparison, the stock market values the venerable Tata Motors at a mere Rs 95,000 crore.
Hindalco, India’s largest aluminium company, has a market valuation of Rs 16,000 crore. Snapdeal, which began trading just five years ago, is valued at Rs 35,000 crore. India’s biggest airline, Jet Airways, with large assets, is valued at Rs 3,800 crore. In stark contrast, asset-light Ola Cabs, the app-based taxi-hailing startup, is worth Rs 30,000 crore.
So what gives? In short: the internet and mobile phones.
App-based firms (Ola, Snapdeal, Flipkart, Grofers, Foodpanda) are essentially brokers and couriers. They connect service providers with consumers. The web cuts through the infrastructure clutter. Small town buyers who don’t have a physical store to pick up a pair of branded jeans or a set of bluetooth speakers can do so through an e-commerce site. And they can be assured of delivery the next day.
But are these startups worth the money VCs and PEs are paying for them? Conventional wisdom suggests they are not. Dig deeper and a more complex, nuanced story emerges.
But first let’s dispel some myths. Myth number one has to do with revenue. Most e-commerce sites like Flipkart and Snapdeal focus on gross merchandise value (GMV) to pitch their stories.
Now GMV is misleading for two reasons. First, it reflects the total value of goods and services transacted through the site, not the actual revenue earned by it. Second, the huge discounts offered are not excluded from GMV.
The real revenue of e-commerce sites is broadly around five per cent of their GMV. It’s like a stock broker who buys shares worth Rs 1,000 crore for clients and whose actual brokerage revenue is one per cent (Rs 10 crore) but claims Rs 1,000 crore as revenue.
GMV is pass-through revenue. Real e-commerce revenue is the commission the site charges the brands it sells through its app. That’s rarely over five per cent of the discounted retail price.
When VCs and PEs do valuations of startups, they use GMV as the primary metric. No startup is listed; so scrutiny by financial analysts is limited. Their balance sheets, though, are available on the Registrar of Companies (RoC) website and it’s clear that actual annual revenues are a fraction of the GMVs.
Does that mean e-commerce startups are over-valued? Not necessarily. The Indian retail market is huge and growing rapidly amidst an aspirational middle-class. Mobile internet is exploding. VCs and PEs are betting that sheer volumes will eventually make even five per cent of GMV a big number. Flipkart, for example, has “real” annual revenue of just over Rs 3,000 crore on a GMV of Rs 40,000 crore. That’s a ratio of around 7.5 per cent. Its audited annual loss on account of discounts in 2013-14 was a staggering Rs 719.50 crore.
That had got investors worried. Questions are now being asked: is the hype overcooked? In a recent piece in Mint, Shrutika Verma and Mihar Dalal searched for an answer: “Investors have started to step back, take stock and ask questions about how consumer internet startups plan to make money before writing cheques, according to investors, analysts and entrepreneurs.
“About time, some analysts say, pointing to the mushrooming of such internet startups, some of which have questionable business models. For instance, more than 25 startups in food and grocery delivery and home services market places – startups that deliver food, groceries and services – have received venture capital (VC) money. ‘There’s a definite slowdown in terms of the pace at which deals are being struck since the last seven-eight weeks,’ said Avinish Bajaj, managing director at VC firm Matrix Partners. ‘Investors are starting to ask questions about long-term sustainability. The number of $50 million deals has gone down. Deals are taking longer. This is a soft landing and it’s a good sign. The time correction is likely to be followed by a price correction.’”
The US offers a glimpse of the future for e-commerce startups. Amazon, only recently, announced a quarterly profit after 21 years of being in business, but commands a market value of $260 billion (Rs 17 lakh crore), which is more than that of America’s largest retail chain Walmart (market value: $230 billion). Uber, the taxi cab aggregator, founded in 2009, is valued at $50 billion (Rs 3.30 lakh crore), higher than auto giant General Motors ($44 billion), which was founded in 1908.
In a recent article in The New York Times, Katie Benner sounded a warning from the Silicon Valley: “Startups that cannot adapt to a world that prizes profit over growth may ultimately be forced to raise money at the same or lower valuation than in the past, something referred to as a ‘down round’. Those can be debilitating: employee stock options usually become less valuable when a firm’s valuation falls, making it harder to retain people.
“If a firm has raised many rounds of capital, later investors often have protections that guarantee a specific cash payout or return on investment. In a down round, those protections are paid for out of the returns that would have gone to earlier investors and employees.”
And yet, there’s little doubt that technology will change the rules of business.
E-commerce, mobile wallets, payment banks, driverless cars – these disruptive technologies will transform the way we work, consume, travel and pay. It is this transformation that VCs and PEs are betting on.
The future of private/public transportation, for example, is Uber and Ola. With tech companies developing driverless, sensor-laden cars, the General Motors, Fords and Toyotas of the next decade could be Google, Apple and Tesla. All three are in advanced stages of testing sensor-driven autonomous vehicles or selling battery-powered electric cars. Tesla has already sold over 21,000 Model S electric cars this year to rave reviews. Apple has quietly begun testing a driverless prototype in San Francisco, dubbed by geeks as the iCar. Google too is testing advanced models of driverless cars with sensors to detect and avoid the smallest object on the road.
Meanwhile, startups are surviving on VC/PE/angel money, not earned profits. When that source eventually dries up, some will go belly-up. Only those with business models that generate real cash profits will survive and a few thrive.
But when six-year-old Uber is valued higher than 107-year-old General Motors, we know that a brave new world is already upon us.
Paul Graham once said that ideas mean something, but execution means far more. He also said that if he provided the entire idea to a team and the team executes the idea, he would still be entitled to less than 10% of the company.
“What matters is not ideas, but people who have them” – Paul Graham.
In the context of this post, when I say ‘idea’ it is not only the raw idea like lets build a social network for kids, but an idea that also includes answers to questions like – will customers buy/use you and how do you know it?, how will you make money?, how will you go-to-market?, etc.
If one spends little time around start-ups, then one will very soon realize that the idea doesn’t matter much, and it is actually the people behind the idea that matter so much more.
Here are five reasons why the team matters more than the idea?
1. An idea doesn’t have any saleable or usable value. Ideas alone don’t hold any value to the end customer, because the customer has to solve a particular problem by using a product or a service and not by using the idea itself. If you don’t believe this, try selling your start-up ideas.
2. Ideas are relatively easy to arrive at. This is probably the reason why almost everybody has start-up ideas, even including people who think they don’t have one. On the other hand, execution (tech/business) demands a certain depth of know-how and a good amount of motivation for a long period of time.
3. An idea is not the reality, it is a wishful piece of organized thought. A startup is not about the idea, but it is about the team that actually transforms an idea into a product or a service with their know-how and their motivation. Therefore, if the people behind an idea are good and motivated, then chances are that the idea might translate into a good product or a service eventually.
4. Ideas change with time, but the team might not change. Or I can say that it is much easier to change the idea than to change the team. If you put a good team behind any idea, they would at least bring out the best possibilities out of the idea. So, what happens to the idea is actually dependent on the team that is behind the idea.
For example, I am not saying that Mark Zuckerberg would’ve made a multi-billion dollar company out of any idea during his college. But, I am saying that if Mark got interested in an idea, he would’ve seen it through into a product or a service, trying to come up with the best possibilities to do so.
5. In the startup world, there are so many ideas floating around perennially that the startup community is not very excited to listen to only ideas anymore. Having an exciting idea doesn’t really separate you from the crowd. Investors actually almost every time look at the execution (the growth or the product or the people) behind the idea, because it is very difficult to judge an idea in isolation. You either have to have the product (or traction) or you have to be a highly motivated team with a strong reputation for execution and know-how or probably balance out the previous two, in order to have a small chance of success in the start-up world.
We all have ideas; it just doesn’t matter!
Startups typically have three broad ways of funding their companies. They are incubators/accelerators, angel investors, and venture capitalists (institutional investor). Generally, Incubators and Accelerators help the start-up team to set-up the company, and shape the start-up’s Go-To-Market strategy. This article is limited only to explain how the equity dilution works and won’t get into the details of valuations of start-ups.
The typical amount of money different investors pump in and the equity they take is as follows.
Understanding Equity Dilution with an Example
Let us take a start-up named XYZ Labs, and we shall walk through how the equity of the founders and the early investors gets diluted as the company goes through various rounds of investment. For the sake of simplicity, lets say the company has gone through an Angel round and one VC round (Series-A). Let’s say the angel investor took 20%, and the venture capitalist took 25% of the company for $N and $M post-valuations respectively. Let’s see how the equity gets diluted.
In any round of investment, if an investor is taking x% of equity, then the equity of all the existing equity holders will come down by x%. So, if I say y% goes down by x%, then the calculation is: y%*(100-x)% Or y%*(100-x)/100
Let’s start with Founders of XYZ Labs holding 100% of the company, and having a first angel round of 20% for $N valuation.
Let’s say the angel round is followed up by a Series-A round of 25% and $M valuation.
So, as mentioned above, at each stage of investment, the equity of the earlier investors or founders (equity holders) will get diluted. But, with higher valuations in every round, the diluted equity will have more value than in the previous round. Also, typically in Series-A there will be an additional 12.5% of Employee Stock Option Pool (ESOP) that is to be allocated. I haven’t considered ESOP in the above example to keep things simple.
The typical equity dilution at various rounds of investment looks as follows.
So, how does it happen in practice?
In practice, your earlier investors won’t like their equity to be diluted too much in the further round of investment.So, they would like to put some cap on the dilution.
The other important thing to notice is – the type of equity that the investors and founders hold is different. Lets understand that with an example. Let’s say the company XYZ Labs is being acquired by some other major company ABC Labs. So, will all the equity holders of XYZ Labs be paid at once? The answer is No. Typically, the order of payouts is as follows:
1. You first clear out any debts that XYZ Labs owes to any banks or other investors.
2. You then start paying out the equity holders in the following order:
a. Preferred Stock
b. Common Stock
The stock that the founders hold is called Common Stock. This has the least priority during payouts in case of bankruptcy, mergers & acquisitions, etc. As the investor would want to have an early and safe exit, the investors’ stock comes with certain preferences over the commonly held stock, and it is called Preferred Stock. Preferred Stock could have preferences such as conditions on future dilution, priority during payouts, option of investing in future rounds, etc. Additionally, preferred stock can also be converted into common stock to maximize investors’ returns. Also, since debt is payed before equity during payout, some investors will give you money in the form of debt (debt note) and not in the form of equity. Because investors know that debt has the highest priority during the time of payout, and hence they can have the earliest exit .
Now, you see that not all of us in the company are equal, and not all money is equal. But, remember that investors are putting their money on you at early stages and are taking high risk. So, it is justifiable for them to look for a safe and early exit with maximum return. As an entrepreneur, you will hear many terms such as convertible debt, participating preferred stock, etc. These are various payment preferences for the investors to have maximum return, and a safe and early exit under various situations of bankruptcy, mergers and acquisitions, or dividend payouts.
If you’re interested to know more about the start-up terms, please refer to the below link to a Forbes post.
For more details on common stock and preferred stock, refer to this article.
Hope you found this post useful. Thank you.
The following is a nice article from The Economic Times on start-up and fund-raising. I thought it would be a good article for all the start-up buddies here.
To raise risk capital from a private equity or venture capital investor marks a high point for most start-up companies . It sets to rest one of the biggest concerns in the initial months of company formation and while many entrepreneurs are loath to admit it, being funded by a venture capitalist is a prized validation.
However,once the initial euphoria fades away, most entrepreneurs find that raising money was the easy part, managing the intricacies of having an investor on board and minimising conflict while maximising the benefits is the more arduous task.
When to raise funds?
India Emerging spoke to a roster of start-up entrepreneurs who have successfully managed this transition. Taking on investment at the right time is essential. “Do not raise capital to keep it in the bank for mental comfort. Raise it when you need it,” says Manav Garg, whose firm Eka Plus develops risk management software for commodity firms across the world. However, entrepreneurs say the timing of the fund raising depends on the business model and the stage a company is in.
Eka Plus was started with seed funding from Thailand-based GP Group and later took on venture investment from Nexus Venture Partners. Garg says most companies take on investment when they are developing a product, or to invest in sales and marketing and in operations when they are expanding . “We took on funding when we were expanding internationally to the US and the UK and needed to hire international talent,” says Garg. Still, others do not have the luxury of choice.
Sourabh Jain launched JiGrahak Mobility Solutions, which runs mobile-based shopping solutions product ngpay, in 2005. But funds started running out in 2006. “We took on funds for survival . It was as simple as that,” he says. Jain raised funds from Helion Venture Partners in 2006. However, Jain says it is best to raise funds as late as possible .
The earlier the investment , the more time required for returns to come through. “How long can the VC wait without numbers and clear direction ? Life is easier for the entrepreneur and the VC if the investment is done later,” he adds.
Amount and Valuation
Once an entrepreneur decides on when he needs to raise funds, he also needs to decide how much equity he is willing to dilute for the required funds. Typically , VCs look to acquire over a fifth of the company going up to owning almost 40%.
They could stay invested for up to five years and would expect to earn at least a three-fold return on their investment .
“Entrepreneurs must also know that with every subsequent round of funding, promoter’s stake will reduce,” says Manish Sharma, co-founder of Printo, a printing and documentation solutions venture, which received funding from Seed Fund and Sequoia Capital at different business stages. Eka’s Garg says an entrepreneur should build in a buffer while raising funds as sudden expenses can come up. He says the investment should last for around 24 months.
The role of a VC
While money does matter, that should not be the only consideration , as a VC has a say in the running of the business. Most entrepreneurs also expect strategic direction, business contacts and help in hiring talent from the VC. Garg compares an entrepreneur-venture capital relationship to marriage.
“It is one of the most important relationships an entrepreneur can have. The chemistry is important ,” he adds. IT management services venture Appnomic Systems raised funds in two tranches from Norwest Venture Partners in 2009 and 2010. The company’s co-founder D Padmanabhan says they wanted Norwest’s managing director Promod Haque on board.
“Participation from Promod is very high and that was very important for us,” he says. Padmanabhan says the strategic and sometimes practical advice Haque provides is invaluable . He says that in their hurry to expand internationally the team considered acquiring a company. However, Haque told them to first partner with the company as Appnomic was still getting its structure and processes in place. “This was very good advice . We finally expanded organically and did not acquire the company,” says Padmanabhan.
Dealing with conflict
In an early-stage venture, most partners, including VCs, cannot know for certain which decision will lead to results. Entrepreneurs feel the VC must not interfere in operational issues while their counsel is important on strategic matters.
Ngpay’s Jain says there was a time when he wanted to stop a particular segment in the business , but the Venture Capitalists wanted to keep it going for some more time. “I did not want a delay in decision taking and we agreed to stop it immediately,” he adds.
Knowing that such disagreements can happen and handling it maturely will steer the relationship away from break point. “Communication is important. The VC should be kept in the loop, especially if the decision will have an impact on the fund,” says Eka’s Garg.
Managing expectations is also important. “Expectations change as an entrepreneur matures . When I set up my first company, I was literally expecting ‘hand-holding’ ,” says Alok Kejriwal, who straddles both lines of the entrepreneur-investor divide. A serial entrepreneur, Kejriwal also invests in start-ups .
He says now he expects industry contacts. Printo’s Sharma says the Indian VC ecosystem is still in its infancy and so many of them cannot contribute more than funds to a start-up . “Entrepreneurs need to temper expectations and should do extensive homework before opting for a fund,” he adds.
Finally, entrepreneurs say it is still all about the money. The fund can help in getting excellent valuations in further rounds of funding. Kejriwal, whose Mobile2win China was acquired by Walt Disney, says: “VCs help in exits, not because they love you, but because they love themselves.”