VC 101

DFN: Insights into the VC process and mindset.

101 on How VC Industry Works
November 16th, 2009 by Pavan Krishnamurthy, Partner at Ojas Venture Partners
http://www.pluggd.in/how-vc-industry-works-297/#

Many first time entrepreneurs may not fully understand how a venture capital fund works and consequently may not fully relate to how VC’s function. This post makes an attempt to provide a generic overview of how a VC fund functions and what it implies for entrepreneurs.

To start with, it would help to understand similarities between VC’s and entrepreneurs. Just as entrepreneurs go through the cycles of opportunity, business plan, fund raising and eventual exit through IPO or M&A, VC’s also follow a similar cycle. VC’s identify the opportunity space in which they want to play and then develop a business plan. The business plan would broadly cover capital deployment strategies, time-frame for investing/exit, types of opportunities that would be considered for investing as well as target returns at the fund level. With this business plan, VC’s approach a set of qualified investors for raising the required funds for starting the VC fund. This fund raising effort is an intense and time consuming effort and closure can take anywhere from 12 months to 24 months depending on the size of the fund, team, past track record, nature of opportunities etc. Just as VC’s perform due diligence on the opportunities, prospective investors who are considering investing into the VC fund also perform detailed diligence on VC’s.

In VC jargon, investors who contribute to the capital of VC fund are called “Limited Partners”(LP’s) and people who raise money and then invest in start-ups are called “ General Partners” ( GP’s). Typically LP’s are high net worth individuals, family offices, pension funds etc and contribute 99% of the fund corpus while GP’s contribute 1% of the fund corpus. Investment into the VC fund by LP’s is generally based on a contribution agreement (Similar to shareholders agreement). This agreement broadly lays down the roles of the parties, governance and other requirements related to investments.

don-corleone and the VC industry

At this stage, it would be good to understand how VC’s make money. General Partners/VC firms receive their compensation in two forms. First they receive an annual management fee that ranges from 2 % to 3% of the fund size for their operating expenses such as salaries, office space etc. Secondly, the GP’s receive a share of profits from the investments made by the fund ranging from 20 % to 30%. However in most cases, GP’s receive their profit share only after repaying the entire fund corpus along with a hurdle rate to their investors. In most fund structures, annual management fee starts declining after year 4 or 5 and if GP’s have not succeeded in raising their second fund by that time, they will not be getting any management fees in subsequent years to support their ongoing expenses. Just as there is a concept of vesting of stocks for founders, GP’s are also subject to a vesting schedule with respect to their profit sharing %. Generally speaking, VC’s raise another fund by the time they are in year 4 and the ability of the VC’s to raise another fund would largely depend on the performance of their investments from the first fund or previous fund.

As a generic model, VC’s assume 3 years as investment horizon during which they will source deals and invest and next 4 years for developing their investments and positioning them for an exit. Through selection of right investments, VC’s hope to generate superior risk adjusted returns typically in excess of 30% at the aggregate fund level. In order to meet the target return expectations, VC’s would have to naturally consider only those opportunities that appear to have high growth and scale potential.

As can seen from above, generic structure of the VC funds and the mandate on which they have been raised impacts how VC’s approach their investment. As entrepreneurs, VC’s need to maximize the value creation and therefore would naturally be biased towards those opportunities that have the potential of rapid growth/scale and exit. Because of these parameters, in many cases, VC’s may turn down investing opportunities which otherwise are profitable but may not rapidly scale from an exit perspective.

At this stage, it would be good talk about two key points of risk and scale. While the general perception about VC’s being providers of pure risk capital is correct, one should realize that VC’s risk taking is always in the context of risk, efforts and reward equation. Unless the potential outcomes are large enough, VC’s are unlikely to support any idea stage opportunities and would rather wait to see business developing traction before they could consider the same seriously. This is very similar to what an entrepreneur would do in his own business. Scarce capital or resources is always allocated to those projects or efforts that have a higher probability of success.

Scale of the opportunity is another issue that is often difficult to qualify apriori. One useful approach to scale would be to consider it from an exit perspective. Assuming that the exit event is primarily in the form of an IPO, what would qualify as a good exit candidate? Typically, a good IPO candidate is expected to have a market cap between 200 crores to 300 crores at the time of IPO . Depending on the nature of business, this could translate into revenues of anywhere from 75 Crores to 150 crores at the time of going for an IPO. With this as the background context, the scale question reduces to the ability of the business to hit revenues of atleast 75 Crores in 5 to 7 years time-frame from inception with reasonable capital infusion. If a business does not have the potential to grow into this size, then it may not be a good candidate for VC investing (technology or IP based exits are of different kind and their valuation may not be based solely on revenues. Different metrics would apply to those cases)

To sum-up, it is important to keep in mind that VC’s are also entrepreneurs with a clear mandate to multiply money and create wealth. In order to achieve this, they take calculated risks within the contours of their business plan/mandate and therefore would consider only those opportunities that fit in with their requirements.

Taking Charge of the Interview??

DFN: www.glassdoor.com, need I say more? OK, since you asked, there’s a whole school of career coaches urging job seekers to "take charge of the interview"; that may work fine for some hiring managers, but, I know as a hiring manager, the approach has always irritated me. And, for those of you not good at math, irritation = rejection.

For every manager for whom this approach works, you’ll find another for whom it won’t. You can’t tell in advance on whom the approach will / won’t work. And, once you’ve embarked on this path, you can’t turn back.

I vividly remember the first time I tried to ‘take charge’, its was a phone interview with Autodesk, and I’ve been ‘blacklisted’ every since. Or, to be fair, I just can’t seem to get interview there no matter how well qualified I am. I’m sure is just coincidence.

I much prefer the approach of trying to focus on the company’s / hiring manager’s needs, the job will come.

Don’t Let Your Ego Ruin Your Interview is a post from: Glassdoor.com Blog
Posted: 16 Nov 2009 09:12 AM PST

Someone wrote: “I know you want to put the candidate in the control of their career, but make sure you tell candidates how to be a responsible driver.” It’s a great point. Just because you control your career doesn’t mean that you can make everyone else bend to your will. It doesn’t matter how good you are: you still need a recruiter and a hiring manager to be on your side.

Anyone who has worked as a recruiter knows the horror stories. You find the perfect candidate. They have an amazing portfolio of work, outstanding references and are great during the interview. It’s a slam dunk. All that’s left is negotiating the offer.

And then disaster strikes. Maybe someone said something during an interview like: “You are our top candidate” or “I can’t imagine the hiring manager not putting you at the top of her list.” Somehow, someway, the candidate becomes overly confident that the job is locked in. They move from guiding the process to believing they can control it. The perfect candidate is now the perfect nightmare.

Usually it starts with the candidate making scheduling demands. Next comes the dismissive emails, the constant reminders about other offers, the number of recommendations on LinkedIn and all the other options they are considering. The next thing you know the recruiter is making it their life mission to figure out how to get this “perfect” candidate on the reject list.

We all know that it is far more common for a recruiter to be rude to a candidate than the other way around. That bad behavior usually happens because the recruiter is overly confident that they are controlling the recruiting process and can afford to make the candidate dance to their tune.

That’s inexcusable and something that every recruiting leader needs to fix as fast as possible. But this blog has been about how to make you brand talent. You need to be in control of your career, not waiting around for overworked recruiters, overfilled job boards and distracted hiring managers to help you find the job of your dreams.

But once you get that desperate call, once you nail that interview and feel on top of the world, don’t make the same mistake as a bad recruiter. No matter how good you are you can’t afford to be uncivil, demanding, petulant or overbearing. Remember, recruiters and hiring managers are people too, with egos and expectations. They expect to be treated well, just as you do. If you want the job you want them on your side.

Cliff Notes – The Tradition Will Continue

I belong to a networking group, Job Connections, in Danville, California. We have over 3,000 people that belong to the group, but not everybody attends every meeting.  Attendance at our Saturday meetings currently averages around 150. Note, though this number may seem high, in January – March of this year, attendance was averaging 300+. This change in attendance is one of the reasons I feel ‘things’ are getting better. That, and I recently ‘landed’!

Anyway, I attend and hope to attend almost every meeting (particularly the ones I lead), and a couple of months ago started taking ‘Cliff Notes’. I will endeavour to continue this tradition, as it keeps me focused and by the comments I’ve received from people who can’t attend the meetings, I know it of value / service to others.

You can find these speaker notes (past & current) by typing “Cliff Notes” into the search box on my blogsite.

Best Regards,

Doug

The Thanksgiving Story

DFN: Thanks to Mike Breen for this posting. Mike’s contact info is at the end of this post.

An annual Thanksgiving message from Mike Breen, 11/16/2009 @ 11:32 AM PST

Samuel Johnson said, "People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed."

Well, another year has zipped by and we are again facing the one day of the year when nobody puts up a façade of worrying about calories- Thanksgiving

To enrich the dialog at your family table here is my annual reminder of the history of Thanksgiving

The Thanksgiving Story
The Pilgrims who sailed to this country aboard the Mayflower were originally members of the English Separatist Church (a Puritan sect). They had earlier fled their home in England and sailed to Holland (The Netherlands) to escape religious persecution. There, they enjoyed more religious tolerance, but they eventually became disenchanted with the Dutch way of life, thinking it ungodly. Seeking a better life, the Separatists negotiated with a London stock company to finance a pilgrimage to America . Most of those making the trip aboard the Mayflower were non-Separatists, but were hired to protect the company’s interests. Only about one-third of the original colonists were Separatists.

The Pilgrims set ground at Plymouth Rock on December 11, 1620 . Their first winter was devastating. At the beginning of the following fall, they had lost 46 of the original 102 who sailed on the Mayflower. But the harvest of 1621 was a bountiful one. And the remaining colonists decided to celebrate with a feast — including 91 Indians who had helped the Pilgrims survive their first year. It is believed that the Pilgrims would not have made it through the year without the help of the natives. The feast was more of a traditional English harvest festival than a true "thanksgiving" observance. It lasted three days.

Governor William Bradford sent "four men fowling" after wild ducks and geese. It is not certain that wild turkey was part of their feast. However, it is certain that they had venison. The term "turkey" was used by the Pilgrims to mean any sort of wild fowl.

Another modern staple at almost every Thanksgiving table is pumpkin pie. But it is unlikely that the first feast included that treat. The supply of flour had been long diminished, so there was no bread or pastries of any kind. However, they did eat boiled pumpkin, and they produced a type of fried bread from their corn crop. There was also no milk, cider, potatoes, or butter. There was no domestic cattle for dairy products, and the newly-discovered potato was still considered by many Europeans to be poisonous. But the feast did include fish, berries, watercress, lobster, dried fruit, clams, venison, and plums.

This "thanksgiving" feast was not repeated the following year. But in 1623, during a severe drought, the pilgrims gathered in a prayer service, praying for rain. When a long, steady rain followed the very next day, Governor Bradford proclaimed another day of Thanksgiving, again inviting their Indian friends. It wasn’t until June of 1676 that another Day of Thanksgiving was proclaimed.

On June 20, 1676 , the governing council of Charlestown , Massachusetts , held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks for the good fortune that had seen their community securely established. By unanimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving. It is notable that this thanksgiving celebration probably did not include the Indians, as the celebration was meant partly to be in recognition of the colonists’ recent victory over the "heathen natives,"
October of 1777 marked the first time that all 13 colonies joined in a thanksgiving celebration. It also commemorated the patriotic victory over the British at Saratoga . But it was a one-time affair.

George Washington proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving in 1789, although some were opposed to it. There was discord among the colonies, many feeling the hardships of a few Pilgrims did not warrant a national holiday. And later, President Thomas Jefferson scoffed at the idea of having a day of thanksgiving.

It was Sarah Josepha Hale, a magazine editor, whose efforts eventually led to what we recognize as Thanksgiving. Hale wrote many editorials championing her cause in her Boston Ladies’ Magazine, and later, in Godey’s Lady’s Book. Finally, after a 40-year campaign of writing editorials and letters to governors and presidents, Hale’s obsession became a reality when, in 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November as a national day of Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving was proclaimed by every president after Lincoln . The date was changed a couple of times, most recently by Franklin Roosevelt, who set it up one week to the next-to-last Thursday in order to create a longer Christmas shopping season. Public uproar against this decision caused the president to move Thanksgiving back to its original date two years later. And in 1941, Thanksgiving was finally sanctioned by Congress as a legal holiday, as the fourth Thursday in November.

And to compare and contrast what our table looks like versus the Thankgiving table of the Pigrims here is a list of what the Pilgrims did NOT have on the first Thanksgiving.

Some perhaps startling omissions from the authentic Thanksgiving menu
Ham. (The Pilgrims most likely did not have pigs with them).
Sweet Potatoes-Potatoes-Yams. (These had not yet been introduced to New England).
Corn on the cob. (Indian corn was only good for making cornmeal, not eating on the cob).
Popcorn. (Contrary to popular folklore, popcorn was not introduced at the 1621 Thanksgiving. Indian corn could only be half-popped, and this wouldn’t have tasted very good.)
Cranberry sauce. (Cranberries were available, but sugar was not.)
Pumpkin Pie: (They probably made a pumpkin pudding of sorts, sweetened by honey or syrup, which would be like the filling of a pumpkin pie, but there would be no crust or whipped topping.)

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family

Mike

Michael T. Breen
President
Parallel Thinking Inc.
117 Rassani Drive
Danville, California 94506
Phone 925-648-4477
Fax 925-648-3109
www.parallelthinking.net

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers