Startup Funding: The CRV QuickStart Seed Funding Program

From Charles River Funding: QuickStart Seed Funding

Charles River Funding (Boston & Silicon Valley) is launching a new program looking to move them down the food chain and get into companies while the gettin's good. Read the NY Times article: Venture Firm Is Giving Loans A Try. (registration required)

Here is how the loan works:

• A standard interest bearing loan will be made to a corporation, which we will help you establish if you do not already have one in place. This arrangement eliminates any personal liability for the loan.
  
  
• It is our intention to convert our debt into equity if and when your company closes its Series A round. If the company successfully raises its Series A, in exchange for sharing the risk with the entrepreneur, CRV receives a discount on the conversion price when the loan is rolled into the Series A. The discount will be a maximum of 25% (determined ratably at five percent per month, depending on how long it takes to create a Series A financing, up to the maximum).
  
  A simple example: if CRV loans your company $100,000 with a six percent interest rate, and six months later the company closed a Series A round, at that point the loan balance (with interest) would convert at a 25% discount (value = loan dollar amount plus interest / .75) into $137,333.33 worth of Series A stock. Given that seed funding amounts are typically very small compared to the amounts one might expect to raise in a Series A round, as the example illustrates, the aggregate discount amount, in this case $37K, is a tiny fraction of what is likely to be a multimillion dollar Series A financing.
  
  
• In addition, CRV would like the opportunity to support the Series A financing and thus retains an option to contribute up to 50 percent of your Series A funding. For example, if you raise a $3M Series A round, we can contribute up to $1.5M of the round.

Redeye VC thinks the move is to address exit trouble:

It also is a recognition of some of the challenges that larger venture funds face.  Take a hypothetical traditional $400M VC firm.  In order to achieve a 20% IRR, the fund must return 3x their initial capital over a 6 year term -- or $1.2B.  Now say this hypothetical VC firm typically owns 20% of their portfolio companies at exit (an industry average).  That means that at exit their portfolio needs to create $6 Billion dollars worth of market value (ie, $1.2B / 20%).  Assuming that their average investment size is $20M, that means that they invest in 20 companies -- this assumes an average exit valuation of $300M PER COMPANY.  Given the tight IPO Market and an average M&A exit value of less approximately $150M, this math creates some real challenges.

From VentureBeat

The advantage of a seed round is that it done as a “convertible” loan, which means the $250,000 is essentially a no-strings-attached loan to an entrepreneur. There is no equity stake claim by the investor at the time, which is good for the entrepreneur, who can see how good his idea is first. If the idea gains traction, he can raise money in the series A and negotiate a high valuation for his company. If he can command a $5 million valuation, for example, the investor’s $250,000 seed money converts into only 5 percent of the company.

Zachary  says he sees too many entrepreneurs giving away between 10 to 20 percent of their company in the seed round. They have fewer shares to give to employees, and they’re less attractive to venture capitalists.

There is almost no liability for the entrepreneurs, because the loan is made to a corporation formed around the entrepreneur. If the company fails, the company goes away, and the founders aren’t liable. “We’re all big boys,” says Tai, explaining that CRV doesn’t mind when this happens. “We go into this with eyes wide open.”

Fred Wilson of Union Square shares his analysis

I think that's a very fair deal. The loan is structured very similarly to what some angels are doing these days (loans that convert at a discount) and Charles River gets to take up to half of the round on the same terms as the other new investor.

Read the first bullet: There's also no personal liability. Something that Utah investors could take note of. 

Startups, venture, hiring, tech, geeks, & other smarts.

Paul Graham writes insightful essays on... 

• How to Start a Startup.
  Build something users love, and spend less than you make.
• Hiring is Obsolete.
  The market is a lot more discerning than any employer.
• How to Make Wealth.
  To get rich you need to get yourself in a situation with two things, measurement and leverage.
• Ideas for Startups.
  The initial idea is not a blueprint, but a question.
• Why Smart People Have Bad Ideas.
  A hacker who has learned what to make, and not just how to make, is extraordinarily powerful.
• The Hardest Lessons for Startups to Learn
  Some things about startups are kind of counterintuitive.
• How to Fund a Startup.
  Venture funding works like gears.
• How to Present to Investors.
  Explain what you're doing and why users will want it.
• The Venture Capital Squeeze.
  Why not let the founders have that first million, or at least half million?
• The Other Road Ahead.
  You may not believe it, but I promise you, Microsoft is scared of you.
• What Business Can Learn from Open Source.
  There may be more pain in your own company, but it won't hurt as much.
• What the Bubble Got Right.
  Even a small increase in the rate at which good ideas win would be a momentous change.
• A Unified Theory of VC Suckage.
  If you're not one of the very top funds, you're condemned to be the bad guys.
  

Founder Discount: More on why founders make less than hired guns.

From Canadianbusiness.com: Read the entire article here.

To solve the mystery of the underpaid entrepreneur, Wasserman collected data from 1,200 executives at more than 500 U.S. high-tech companies. After controlling for numerous variables such as experience and company size, his findings were stark: founders earn about $30,000 (U.S.) a year less than hired-gun managers doing pretty much the same job. In fact, 51% of founders earn less or the same as their employees.

The good news: the founder discount isn't forever. It shrinks over time and with the growth of the company. The bad news? Founders' compensation is inversely related to their control over the organization and their own job satisfaction. As I read it, as a company grows and gets more complicated — with more layers of management, boards of directors, outside investors and stricter management-performance metrics — founders get paid more because their jobs get harder.

But why does the gap exist in the first place? In simple terms, it's because founders tend to care too much about their own creations. Outside executives have to be paid market rates or more to join a company, and if their compensation doesn't keep pace with the outside world, they have little incentive to stay. Founders take a longer view. Like Cullen, they often put the company's financial needs ahead of their own. And their boards of directors don't worry that founders will bail out, because they know that founders are emotionally committed to the organization.

And there's this:

Paul Britton, a compensation consultant to businesses big and small, sees this problem again and again. The founding partner of Crossford Consulting in Toronto says there are two stupid reasons why entrepreneurs underpay themselves.

First, he says, some entrepreneurs think they can use their own lousy compensation as a lever when negotiating subordinates' pay. By pointing to their own pay packages, they think they can convince their employees to accept less, too. The problem, of course, is that your best people have lots of job options and know you have an ownership stake; it's generally only less valuable employees who will agree to work for below-market pay.

The other reason entrepreneurs underpay themselves is bad budgeting, says Britton. Instead of factoring in an appropriate salary for themselves ahead of time, founders will wait and see how much money the business makes over the year, and draw from that. When he asks groups of entrepreneurs if they have built a rate of return for themselves into their forecasts, Britton says only about one person in 20 will raise their hand.

Founder Frustrations Blog: From Harvard Business Schools Noam Wasserman

From Noam Wassermans "Founders Frustrations" Blog. Noam Wasserman is a professor in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.

Noam's blog is a great read for entrepreneurs looking to understand how to structure ownership in a startup or why investors think they're adding more value than the entrepreneurs running the business. Here's nifty chart.

Table 6: Entrepreneur Expectations
(traces the trend between the entrepreneur’s perception and expectation of
the value-add potential of the investor throughout the various funding stages)

Entrepreneur's perception of investor

 

If it's so great, why hasn't it already been built?

Matt Asay has a post on 'Self indulgence and Silicon Valley' that gave voice to a question that I've been asking myself about Nimble which is, 'if this idea's so damn good, why 'hasn't' anybody done it already. It's a common question that every entrepreneurs faced with all the time. (10 seconds into the elevator pitch is when the eyebrows start to arch.)  Why? Because there are insulators that prevent people, even really smart people, from having the information they need to make sense of the world. How else could you explain George Bush.

Kiva: Microloans for third world entrepreneurs.

Kiva is an organization that makes microloans to tiny businesses in the third world. The repayment rate is 97% according to the site. I'm using Kiva for our extended family project this year, something you might wish to think about.

If you're a blogger and you'd like to post a banner like the one above on your blog, here's the code: <SCRIPT type='text/javascript' src='http://www.kiva.org/banners/bannerBlock.php'></SCRIPT>

If you would like to loan to Maria or any other entrepreneurs please head to Kiva.org. 100% of your loan goes directly to the borrower and you can loan as little as $25. Why not get started as an international financier today? With repayment rates around 96% you don’t have much to lose but you do have many lives to change.

Barriers to imitation

Excellent post on 'Barriers to Imitation' from Early Stage VC.

From the post: So what do we really mean when we say what’s your barrier to entry?  I think what we mean is really the reciprocal. What’s everyone else’s obstacle to imitation?  Competitive imitation erodes your uniqueness as in Unique Sales Proposition. It raises the cost of differentiation and it gives the customer more perceived choices.   You have to spend more to stand out and get less market share for it.

Imitation comes in many forms. It can be a current claim, as is “we do the same thing.”  It can be a future promise, as in “we will have that feature, too.” Worst of all, it can be a rapid replica of your actual product.  It is the latter that most investors care about when they fear competitive “entry” or imitation.

Re-casting the question as obstacle rather than barrier also points to how to address the issue.  There is rarely a single obstacle that is so insurmountable as actually to be a barrier.  However, you can often outline a series of speed bumps that will slow down even the fastest fast follower.

Early stage VC Article: What’s everyone else’s obstacle to imitation?

What are Your Barriers to Entry? Post worth reading.

Note to VC: “Wake up.”

Via: Lone Ronin on the oddness of venture capital.

Of course, this number is meaningless. No one can really forecast this kind of return on an investment. No one can really say, "Yeah, given our business model and the way we're structuring this deal, I totally see a 10x multiple in two years."

 

I mean, one more time, seriously? Anyone who stands in a meeting and says, "You'll get back ten times what you put into this thing," is absolutely, completely, without exception, lying through their teeth or overly naive about business in general.