April 15, 2008

Where Have All the Bold VCs Gone?

Erick Schonfeld

42 comments »

pirate-creek.jpgAs startups become cheaper to launch, more and more venture capitalists are finding themselves left out in the cold. Either angel investors are beating them to the punch in funding new startups, or Google buys them before any VC even gets to hear the company’s pitch.

In fact, angels invested $26 billion in startups last year, nearly as much as the $29 billion invested by venture firms. However, there is growing gap between the $20K to $100k most angels will put in and the $2 million to $3 million that a venture firm will commit. Paul Graham, chairman of the Y Combinator investment incubator, argues that what startups need are more investments somewhere in the middle to fill that gap. Most Web startups don’t need $2 million. They need $300,000 or $500,000. But most venture capitalists don’t think those types of investments are worth their while.

In a post about why we are not seeing any more Googles, Graham is scathing in his criticism of venture capitalists, who seem stuck in their old ways of thinking. According to him, most venture capitalists wouldn’t know a good idea if it landed on their head. Excerpt:

I used to think of VCs as piratical: bold but unscrupulous. On closer acquaintance they turn out to be more like bureaucrats. They’re more upstanding than I used to think (the good ones, at least), but less bold. Maybe the VC industry has changed. Maybe they used to be bolder. But I suspect it’s the startup world that has changed, not them. The low cost of starting a startup means the average good bet is a riskier one, but most existing VC firms still operate as if they were investing in hardware startups in 1985.

They’re terrified of really novel ideas, unless the founders are good enough salesmen to compensate.

And yet it’s the bold ideas that generate the biggest returns. Any really good new idea will seem bad to most people; otherwise someone would already be doing it. And yet most VCs are driven by consensus, not just within their firms, but within the VC community. The biggest factor determining how a VC will feel about your startup is how other VCs feel about it. I doubt they realize it, but this algorithm guarantees they’ll miss all the very best ideas. The more people who have to like a new idea, the more outliers you lose.

So where have all those pirate investors gone? I’m sure there are still a few of you out there hiding in the coves.

(Photo by Midnight Creek).

  • Sphere It

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. RealityCrunch - VC Intelligence Is Inversely Proportional To Size Of Their Checkbook
  2. TechCrunch Japanese アーカイブ » 勇気あるVCはどこへ行った
  3. Silicon Moon
  4. On Funding: Where have all the good angels gone?
  5. Founder’s Co-op: a New Twist on Angel Investing | After Beta
  6. notes, thoughts, ideas and responses » TechCrunch.com partners with WashingtonPost.com to link critical nodes

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Andrew

    another Ycrunch post?

  2. VC Dan

    good question/thoughts…

    I particularly liked: “And yet it’s the bold ideas that generate the biggest returns. Any really good new idea will seem bad to most people;” — that definitely plays a role in my investing… ;-)

  3. Jason

    I’m no expert but I am an experienced entrepreneur (experience both in succeeding and failing at launching ventures and at raising money). I don’t buy this argument - I feel it misses the point slightly.

    Do VC’s need to learn to assess opportunities more quickly and nimbly? Yes.

    Do VC’s need to start negotiating deals in better faith, with the interests of entrepreneurs taken a little more to heart? Most definitely.

    Are VC’s often frustrating to deal with given their staunch self centered, myopic view to earning the greatest multiple on their investment, often seemingly to the virtual exclusion of the company’s objectives? Yes and yes.

    But…

    Do VC’s need to be more open-minded and use a different, bolder framework for accepting/denying investment opportunities? I don’t think so.

    There is a framework to determining whether a team can bring a company to fruition and whether a company can reasonably and sustainably make money. While technology changes, people do not and business fundamentals do not. Yes, perhaps more VC’s should offer smaller rounds of capital and bring down the barriers to pitching, negotiating, due diligence, and closing. But these things will happen by the nature of competition (from angels and other VC’s). I don’t think ‘boldness’ is what is lacking however.

  4. jenkins

    We’re heading into a recession. It’s been happening for some time now. The Graham excerpt is great. The only thing to think about is that many of the ideas out there now are terrible. The few really good or great companies have been funded and we all know about them. There are probably only a few dozen significant M&A deals each year. There are hundreds of companies that fail.

    I think the VC community gets things right for the most part. Do some of them miss some good ones along the way? Yes, certainly. Do they regret that? Sure.

    I think we can often times blame the founder for not being funded. He/She wasn’t persuasive enough or didn’t have the right track record, or the proper team in place. Something was wrong.

  5. John Ramey

    Graham and Erick are spot on. This gap between friends/family and what an institutional VC will spend their time on is killing innovation.

    So how do you change it? I was recently at a venture conference (not on the coasts) where a VC speaker scolded the audience for their lemming mentality, risk adversion, etc.

    Entrepreneurs won’t change things around - it will take a few success stories and alpha investors to lead the way. Be more bold guys!

  6. Ole Eichhorn

    Investment capital obeys market forces like everything else. If there is demand for $500K investments, supply will form, with an appropriate return.

    Naturally you will get a higher return percentage-wise on a smaller investment made at a higher risk, this is what attracts angels. You will get a higher return in absolute value on a larger investment made at a lower risk, where many VCs make a living. Someone (maybe Paul Graham) will make a living in between :)

  7. Rick

    I’m an experienced entrepreneur, too. I needed $500K for my latest venture, and I got it from a group of angels. I wouldn’t have considered using a VC under any circumstances, because our business was not projected to be a high multiple business. It went positive after a couple years, on plan, and it is now nicely profitable. It grows linearly, and it has paid back its original investors many times.

    I know other people in my vertical with VC funded ventures who have been told that they need to go from zero to 100M in three years, or they will be terminated, kthxbye. So, naturally, they have taken stupid, risky chances — like a bridge player who HAS to try the low-probability finesse, or there’s no hope of making the hand. And they are dropping like flies as they run out of money.

    VCs are fine with that — heck, if 1 of 100 finesses work, they win. But 99 companies lose, and lose big time, when many of them could have been managed into solid businesses.

  8. Asus

    Angel investors invest much less per firm than VCs.

    The reasons fewer companies do VC rounds is because the need for intensive amounts of capital to finance operations is not so great with online businesses.

    And why take in huge amounts of capital from VC to finance something perhaps useful (like marketing) when you might not need the money against a slice of the company you don’t want to give?

    The increasingly likely scenario going forward is going to be

    1st round: angel investors / self financing
    2nd round (VC round) bypassed in favor of organic growth / old time debt finance from banks
    3rd round: investor & founders exit via IPO / acquisition by a major company

  9. Van

    I agree that VCs need to take more risk when they find good ideas and good entrepreneurs in the early part of their endeavors.

    I find that VCs tend to invest in businesses that are already very successful. I think that sort of defeats the point.

  10. M

    Re - #6 is right on regarding the gap in the market. We are seeing some creative models here in Canada. Probably due to the smaller size of the overall market. The usual larger size VCs exist but I have come across a few smaller scale ones that hit the gap you are describing and seem to understand the business lifecycle at this stage as well.

  11. dustin

    Is the money worth the headaches? If the money isn’t worth the headaches, why get the money when angel money (which brings its own headaches) has fewer.

    Web startups require less money these days. Responding to new models requires boldness, vision… that is difficult for any established business. VCs are no exception to disruptive technologies. They’ll have to change too.

  12. Shafqat

    I’m not sure if PG’s assessment is fair. Its a bit tough to generalize so broadly. While angel investors are definitely taking a bite out of the VC’s cakes, I see plenty of VCs who are willing to take risks. We’re a tiny startup, at a super early stage, yet have been approached by VCs who are curious. Things may fizzle out, but the point is that there are VCs who are still looking, still inquiring and kicking the tires of early stage, risky ventures. At the end of the day, if VCs dont want to fund your business, its easier to blame the VCs than take a long, hard look at your business’ flaws right?

  13. Wayne Lambright

    The VC’s I have meet with have brass balls the size of BB’s. Where are the men in the industry. People who know how to say no, people who know how to pass on a deal and say upfront, instead of hoping that their childish behavior will somehow reward them in the future. Sure a post like this might reduce the number of meetings I get, and thats OK, I’m looking to meet with men, men who have the stones to write a check, and join me in the battle.

    “Only he who can see the invisible can do the impossible” ~ Frank Gaines

  14. MrCashyCash

    The reality is VC’s only fund a small amount of the deals that get done.

    More alternatives for entrepreneurs is a good thing.

  15. lawrence

    @13, Wayne

    you seem upset - release your tensions on that ‘thefunded’ site.

  16. Monsoon

    There is a gap in the asian markets as well. Basically, it means that the start-up needs to self-finance and generate a 12 month track record plus cash-flow positive. VCs would come in later to the process than perhaps before.

    If anything this is not going to charge with a recession here.

    Best to concentrate on getting the basics right.

  17. Gleb

    Actually a great post.
    There are no project ideas that will need more then 500k invested in development untill the beta and start promotion that will prove the company has what it takes to get to the top. Even if it’s a new search engine or an ad-serving solution which are the most technically hard ones.

    I expirienced exactly the situation. After investing 250k own money (which were also earned on web-projects) and 2 years development I got stuck needing additional 100k-150k to launch a completely developed product to proove the concept before aproaching VCs to grow fast or before the project finances itself to grow. So right now I am losing my time on smaller projects earning that 100k with a completed product that could grow really big in my bagpack.

    An average startup needs about 100-200k before it’s clear that it works great and needs millions to grow fast before it’s copied or can grow on by itself. And there are tons of such ideas where 100-200k can be a start of something huge.

  18. Afraid of the dark

    @17 … beta is not simply telling your graphics person to modify the logo.

  19. Sean

    Heh at first I thought you were just ripping off PG’s post from yesterday or whenever it was. No, it just took a while before you brought his name up and linked to his article. :)

  20. Sean

    PS: I agree that there needs to be more investments in this range (100K-500K). Clicky was seeking 100K a while back but no one would take it. Either they wanted to give us pocket change, or millions of dollars. Neither one was what we wanted.

    Of course, it’s kind of nice owning 100% of our company and not having to answer to anyone. And now that we’re making good income on our own, we ain’t taking anyone’s money. Oh well - their loss!

  21. DaveS

    TC should outsource all article writing to YC gang. You guys have now resorted to even covering YC news now!

    Aren’t there actual STARTUPS worthy of covering?!

  22. Matt

    Your $26 billion angel figure has a broken link. I’d like to check out your source data.

  23. Q dub

    The falling cost to develop websites and applications puts the pie back in the hands of entrepreneurs. The best financiers are now those who provide more council and soft-support than raw capital, which is exactly what Y Combinator does.

  24. t s

    And TC says nothing interesting comes from Boston. Seems you guys are totally enthralled with anything YC, trolling YC news and basically reposting PG thoughts.
    Didn’t see the value add from this post. Whats up?

  25. nemrut

    I think one has to take into consideration the reputation/stereotypes and generational gap of your avg vc with your avg startup founder to understand why the former tend to be more conservative and less gung-ho…

  26. befreenistan

    In all honesty, the returns in any type of venture investing, angel or institutional, is extremely low. The reality is that there are far too many entrepreneurs creating great products and apps, but the barriers are so low that success will remain elusive for all non-blockbusters. This part of the economy has rationalized itself to deliver $1 CPM to one and all.

  27. Tony Stubblebine

    Maybe the bold VCs moved to an industry that actually needs capital. Do you know who can fill the $100k-$500k gap? Customers. If your software works, and by works I mean makes them money, then you shouldn’t have problems finding business. I’d wager that your product has to be less outstanding to make $100k in revenue than it does to attract $100k in financing.

  28. jason goldberg

    It costs less now to prove more.

    5 years ago you needed a couple million dollars and usually at least a year to get a good product to market.

    Today, you can get to market on a few hundred thousand dollars and a few months.

    That gap has created a venture gap.
    Venture firms raised these huge funds and need to invest them.
    The scaresest resource a VC has is his/her time. It’s challenging for a VC to spend his/her time chasing $250k deals when they need to invest a billion dollar fund. VC’s need to put money to work and they need to see a clear path to turn $5-10M in investment into $200M+ in gain 9/10 times.

    This venture gap has provided an opening for angels to not only be the first money in, but to also be bigger players as their money lasts longer and takes companies further.

    I’ve heard from many savvy VC’s over the past few months who recognize this venture gap and who are starting to get creative around how to get in first.

    The entrepreneur benefits from all this. Good money will always chase good ideas. A few years ago many an entrepreneur was beholden to their VC’s from day 1 — they had to be or they couldn’t fund the business in the early days. Today though entrepreneurs can get further along with less money, enabling them to prove traction before raising VC if they so choose. Angel terms are typically less onerous than VC, another positive for the entrepreneur. That VC’s are now starting to figure out how they too can play in the early early build it for cheap game — also positive for the entrepreneur.

  29. Alex Iskold

    Bulls eye!

    The problem is that it might not be worth people’s while to do investments in between?

  30. EditorX

    Some say there is not much interest in investing as compared to a few years ago? can anyone confirm this?

  31. Markz

    The most interesting idea by Graham is to have VCs apply a different approach towards investing <$1 million in a lot of startups - much like CRV’s Quickstart program.

    From a portfolio standpoint, seems like a no-brainer - no/very limited GP time commitment, plus option value from the right to invest in future rounds.

    Then again, why should a VC take the risk if they can get maybe 5x consistently on proven companies?

    Maybe what it comes down to is the LPs that invest in VCs — they probably need to put a few billion into this tier of the VC market. Since higher seed/early stage investment returns have been documented, it makes financial sense.

    Then again, why should an LP take the risk if they can get a good return consistently through proven investments?

    It would be great to see some LPs enter this market - just as they entered the VC market and saw tremendous gains in their portfolios from doing that.

  32. YDrive

    To the Deadpool?

  33. Max

    I couldn’t agree more on the angel/VC funding gap. Most web based startups do indeed need something in the 500-700k.

    When we were looking for our first round we had the same problem. We did find some new thinkers in the space (like Rob Monster @ Monster Venture Partners or the guys from H-Farm.it ) that are positioning themselves “north of angels, south of VC). Rob posted some of his thoughts here: http://blog.monsterventure.com/?p=12

  34. chrisco

    Paul G is right: “VCs are driven by consensus.”

    The specific correct term is “Social Proof.” From Wikipedia: “Also known as informational social influence, is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior. Making the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation, they will deem the behavior of others as appropriate or better informed.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof

  35. jason goldberg

    caught a typo in my comment #29.

    Should read:

    “That gap has created a venture gap.
    Venture firms raised these huge funds and need to invest them.
    The scaresest resource a VC has is his/her time. It’s challenging for a VC to spend his/her time chasing $250k deals when they need to invest a billion dollar fund. VC’s need to put money to work and they need to see a clear path to turn $5-10M in investment into $200M+ in gain 1/10 times.” [instead of 9/10]

  36. Matthew

    Rick in post #7 nailed a big part of the VC problem. It’s the mid-90s style of VC portfolio building that sets up the gap.

    When they build a portfolio predicated on a 1 in 10 success rate (or worse), every opportunity has to be a big one with a big potential market cap and consequently a big initial investment. Sprinkle in some rules of thumb that only apply to mid-90s hardware startups and you have the subsidy portfolio model that many VCs still use.

    Not only does it setup a gap but it supports the crazy idea of million dollar failures - namely smaller, very profitable companies that either get scuttled in the quest for knocking one out of the park or feel the pressure to overbuild their business to match the VC model and fail. I see it happen a lot when startups go to the VCs too early. Even some angels in their zeal to find the next big one setup this dynamic.

    And the founders get to take some of the blame too. Often they take way too much money because they can get it rather than taking the amount the need to build the business they have from the right sources. I’m always amazed how often startups violate the rule that customer cash > partner cash > investor cash. In the end the VC can’t force the money in the founder’s accounts - the founders make the choice.

    So I’m not sure that it’s about how bold the VCs are. I believe many still are very bold, it’s just that they have funding models that make no sense in 2008 and don’t encourage wealth creation in any way.