Feeds:
Posts

Interesting article in Forbes, perfectly appropriate for Valentine’s Day. Best point is that while raising money may be like dating, a financial partnership is like marriage..for good and bad reasons. Pick your partners carefully.

I was at a dinner party recently with an entrepreneur friend who had just secured big funding for her business—to the tune of several million dollars. Not surprisingly, she was glowing, abuzz with excitement over her new relationship.

As she told the story of the preceding few weeks, a time when several different venture capital funds were vying for a spot, pestering her with phone calls, lunch offers and even the occasional gift, it struck me. My friend had, after four years of struggling to get her business off of the ground, become the belle of the ball.

“Finding the right investor is a lot like the dating process,” said Dhana Goldstein at February’s Pipeline Fellowship Conference, a meeting of seasoned and aspiring angel investors at the law offices of Goodwin Procter in Midtown, Manhattan. Is every date going to yield a long-term love affair? “You like them and they like you back. You think they’re cute, and so you go out a few times and get to know them. But… getting married is a commitment.”

Alexa von Tobel, whose personal finance site LearnVest has raised over $24 million in funding since its launch in 2007, most recently $19 million led by Accel Partners in July of 2011, is well-versed in the ritual of seeking and securing funding. “At many phases we’ve been in a position where we have a lot of opportunity,” von Tobel says, in reference to the multiple venture capital firms offering investment in LearnVest’s Series A and Series B rounds. “But early on I received the very good advice to be very, very thoughtful about my decision on who to partner with, because taking an investment was going to be a multi-year, maybe even decade-long arrangement.”

It’s easy to get caught up in the hype and energy of so much opportunity, she says, but by viewing her relationship with potential investors through the lens of a long-term relationship, even a marriage, helped her to stay focused on the future, rather than the fleeting excitement of signing a multi-million dollar contract.

“The action stage of investing is the wedding,” says Robert Delman, managing director at Golden Seeds, an angel fund that focuses its investments on women-led ventures. “The marriage, of course, is much, much more important.” And so, he says, the decision-making is just as tricky for investors as it is for the entrepreneur who stands to benefit.

If the road to financial backing is a thrilling and emotional one for entrepreneurs, for investors, especially Angel investors, who regularly part with their own money, rather than an impersonal fund, it can also be especially fraught. Parting with money is undeniably personal. What if the decision is made too quickly? When do you know to follow your gut?

“Intuition only gets you so far,” said Delman, continuing the romance theme. “I like to spend a lot of time with the entrepreneurs I’m considering funding, testing them and challenging them.” For him, it’s about asking the right questions—of the start-ups team members as well as friends and colleagues to gauge the entrepreneur’s promise, humility and coachability. “Like any relationship,” he says, “It’s best to really get to know each other before you go to bed. Because once the papers are signed you’re going to live together for the next five to seven years.”

Think of investors doing due-diligence as the most thorough stalking job you could imagine, one prospective angel investor joked to me. Their job is to look into your business plan, projected numbers and history of success through dozens of phone calls and meetings with former employers, advisers, bankers and even rivals in an attempt to evaluate the likelihood of your success—and potential returns to the investor. Once she’s satisfied, like any high net worth relationship, there’s one final step before walking down the aisle: the pre-nuptial agreement.

Well, not really. But almost. “I wouldn’t say the term sheet is exactly a pre-nup,” says Delman, “But in terms of structuring the deal it’s pretty close.” A term sheet is meant to lay out, in no uncertain terms, each party’s ownership in the company, and road-maps milestones and possible succession plans for further down the road. In short, it’s a very complicated—and legally binding—contingency plan for both parties that consummates your long-term relationship… for better or for worse.

For von Tobel, her experience since taking her first outside dollar in 2009 has been positive, something she credits to her relationship-minded approach to finding the right investors. “It’s really important to think not just about who you can stand to be in a long-term relationship with, but who you’ll be excited by years down the road,” she says. “Because of that, because of my thoroughness through all that excitement, we picked the right team, and I can say with all honesty that I have true and genuine trust in my board and my investors.”

“It is a relationship,” she says, offering advice for both entrepreneurs and investors not to rush into any deal too-soon based on the early jitters of young love. “And just like any other relationship in your life, you want to be truly thoughtful. Because if you make the right decision, you really will have a much more functioning, respectful and—yes, exciting–marriage.”

Popular press continues to confuse private equity and venture capital. Each group comes out of the newsrooms as “vulture capital”. Rather than address obvious questions: how many businesses can be liquidated for a profit; or how often can you make money cutting costs with no growth; the following Op-Ed piece carefully explains the nature of the two businesses and how they were practiced at Bain.

The Washington Post Op-Ed piece below by Jack Backus can be found here:

http://wapo.st/ApXbgI.

“As we gear up for Super Tuesday on March 6 and the primaries move closer to home, let’s take a deeper look at Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney’s career to predict how he might run America. For me, this is personal. I worked at Bain & Co. and Bain Capital during Romney’s tenure and will cast my vote in Virginia.

From my vantage point, there continues to be confusion about the definition of private equity and venture capital, the distinction between the two, and whether Romney’s track record makes him a hero or villain. With the economy the No. 1 issue of this election, let’s look at Romney’s role as an investor to see how he might turn the country around.

Venture capital is all about a vision for what the world might be like in the future and helping entrepreneurs build businesses to get there. A venture capitalist doesn’t run the business; instead, the VC creates an environment for an entrepreneur to succeed, by providing guidance, capital and insight, while removing obstacles. Venture investors buy a minority ownership position in a company, and influence the outcome of the business through their role on a company’s board of directors.

The Kauffman Foundation released a study showing that two-thirds of net new jobs created are by young businesses — those less than five years old. According to the National Venture Capital Association, venture-backed companies account for 14 percent of all private sector employment and 21 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Staples, Domino’s Pizza and Sports Authority are examples of companies Romney helped start during the early days of Bain Capital, when Bain was doing classic venture capital start-up investing. This venture capital experience suggests that he has the background to put in place policies and create an environment in which new business formation will blossom.

As a result of Bain’s early success in its venture investments, it raised more money from investors, seeking strong financial returns, and Bain Capital became a premier private equity firm. Private equity is different than venture capital, as PE firms buy an entire company (often troubled or underperforming companies), using a combination of equity and debt. As owners of the business, they have the ability to pick the chief executive and set the strategy for the company. PE investors make money by growing the business, and making it more profitable. They do this by adjusting three fundamental levers: price (how much you charge for your product — although the competitive market often has a strong say here), volume (how many products you sell) and cost (what it costs you to make each product). Choosing which lever to pull, and pulling it, isn’t always obvious or easy, but businesses today compete in global markets, and have to make tough decisions, quickly.

Private equity is capitalism personified. Winners succeed and losers fail, much as in life itself. To succeed in PE investing, your successful companies have to outweigh those that fail, and make no mistake, failure is a part of business in a competitive world. Bain Capital’s returns during Romney’s tenure were among the best in the industry. His formula worked.

These skills and levers also apply to our federal government: we will need strong discipline and tough love to pull them. At the government level, price is the tax rate, volume is the number of people paying taxes and cost is the sum of the people, programs and interest costs to deliver essential government services. We must apply the right financial strategy or we will fail as a country. Romney has the wisdom to pull all three of these levers at the right time and in the right order, all the while bringing pride back to America and creating an environment that once again says, America is open for business.”

ZIRP Bad?

Bill Gross, the head of the largest bond manager in the world, has some great insights in his latest monthly commentary. Most policy makers seem to be convinced that a zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) is good in all circumstances and that the law of unintended consequences doesn’t apply to ZIPR. Gross believes otherwise:

“First of all, when rational or irrational fear persuades an investor to be more concerned about the return of her money than on her money then liquidity can be trapped in a mattress, a bank account or a five basis point Treasury bill.

Modern capitalism is dependent as well on maturity extension in credit markets. No venture, aside from one financed with 100% owners’ capital, could survive on credit or loans that matured or were callable overnight. Buildings, utilities and homes require 20- and 30-year loan commitments to smooth and justify their returns. Because this is so, lenders require a yield premium, expressed as a positively sloped yield curve, to make the extended loan. A flat yield curve, in contrast, is a disincentive for lenders to lend unless there is sufficient downside room for yields to fall and provide bond market capital gains.

When all yields approach the zero-bound, however, as in Japan for the past 10 years, and now in the U.S. and selected “clean dirty shirt” sovereigns, then the dynamics may change. Money can become less liquid and frozen by “price” in addition to the classic liquidity trap explained by “risk.”

Most short to intermediate Treasury yields … are dangerously close to the zero-bound which imply little if any room to fall: no margin, no air underneath those bond yields and therefore limited, if any, price appreciation. What incentive does a bank have to buy two-year Treasuries at 20 basis points when they can park overnight reserves with the Fed at 25? What incentives do investment managers or even individual investors have to take price risk with a five-, 10- or 30-year Treasury when there are multiples of downside price risk compared to appreciation? At 75 basis points, a five-year Treasury can only rationally appreciate by two more points, but theoretically can go down by an unlimited amount.”

According to William Blair, the average valuation for U.S. M&A activity in 2011 reached a new peak at 12 times EBITDA up 20% from 2010.

A quick search of CapitalIQ shows nearly 2,000 companies in North America and Europe with market cap’s of more than $1 billion trading for less than 12x. So, if one can buy that many public companies (and large public companies at that) at 12x, why pay someone else to own an illiquid company at that price?

For those with more of a value bent, you can buy nearly 500 companies in North America and Europe with a market cap of at least $1 billion at 6x EBITDA or better (about half what the private equity guys are paying). Some of these names include household names such as Vodafone and Eli Lilly. Once again, why pay someone else to pay 12x for an illiquid investment when you can buy liquid investment like Vodafone for less than 6x?

My father always said there was the easy way and then there was the right way.

In keeping with our posts about high profile forecast flops, here are a couple more:

Who said, “Books will soon be obsolete in the schools”? iPad-pushers? No; it was Thomas Edison in 1913. http://lat.ms/ykVptL

Head of the U.S. Patent Office in 1898 apparently said “everything that can be invented, has been invented”

John Hussman

Some of the latest macro thoughts from value investor John Hussman, who remains quite negative about the prospects the for U.S.

Goat Rodeo – Appalachian slang for a chaotic, high-risk, or unmanageable scenario requiring countless things to go right in order to walk away unharmed.

While the downturns that followed [the last several economic expansions] have provoked increasingly large and desperate actions of central banks to kick the can down the road by preventing debt restructuring and financial deleveraging, the fact is that the S&P 500 has achieved a total return of just 1.2% annually over the past 12 years, as a predictable outcome of rich valuations and still-unresolved economic imbalances.

Once again, we now have a set of market conditions that is associated almost exclusively with steeply negative outcomes. In this case, we’re observing an “exhaustion” syndrome that has typically been followed by market losses on the order of 25% over the following 6-7 month period (not a typo). Worse, this is coupled with evidence from leading economic measures that continue to be associated with a very high risk of oncoming recession in the U.S. – despite a modest firming in various lagging and coincident economic indicators, at still-tepid levels. Compound this with unresolved credit strains and an effectively insolvent banking system in Europe, and we face a likely outcome aptly described as a Goat Rodeo.

My concern is that an improbably large number of things will have to go right in order to avoid a major decline in stock market value in the months ahead. We presently estimate that the S&P 500 is likely to achieve a 10-year total return (nominal) of only about 4.7% annually, which reduces the likelihood that further gains will be durable even if they persist for a while longer. In the context of present valuations and a probable Goat Rodeo in the months ahead, my impression is that the recent market advance may be a transitory gift.

In nearly all real-world data, there are short-term fluctuations, random effects, and other influences that create “noise” in the values that we observe. Typically, those sources of noise confound the “signal” that we want to identify, so unless the noise is filtered away, there is a risk of being misled by meaningless short-term fluctuations.

Last week contained very little to alter our view that a global economic downturn is likely here. While we recognize the modest, low-level improvement in a variety of indicators, and also estimate that recession risk is something less than 100%, this is far from a suspension of our recession concerns. To the contrary, a concerted global downturn that includes the U.S. remains the most likely outcome.

Last week, the Conference Board released its revised version of Leading Economic Indicators, which shows a sharply weaker trajectory than the former version if the LEI. Indeed, the revised LEI has already turned down, though to a lesser degree than just before previous recessions.

Finally, GDP remains below 1.6%. A decline in GDP growth to this level has always been associated with recession, usually coincident with that decline, though with a two-quarter lag in two instances (1956 and 2007), and with one post-recession dip in growth during the first quarter of 2003. As it happens, the GDP growth rate dropped below 1.6% in the third quarter of 2011.

Given the strong and rather obvious relationship between the most recent year-over-year rate of GDP growth and the prospect of oncoming recession, it’s difficult to understand why Wall Street so completely rejects the likelihood of an economic downturn. Then again, that’s exactly why we’re expecting a Goat Rodeo.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.