Ask Twitter: does it make sense to have funding *rounds* anymore?
Some thoughts below and would love to hear your thoughts - thank you!
Some thoughts below and would love to hear your thoughts - thank you!
1)Buying shares of stock in cos are securities that are regulated by the SEC. So unlike setting pricing for other things - such as amusement park tickets, you cannot just willy nilly pick prices for your shares.
But, mechanics aside, does it make sense to have funding rounds?
But, mechanics aside, does it make sense to have funding rounds?
2) And specifically, when I talk about funding rounds, I mean the concept of rounding up a SPECIFIC AMOUNT of funding at a SPECIFIC SHARE PRICE.
E.g. Raising $1m at $4m pre-money valuation.
The more time goes by, this feels like an archaic practice. Why?
E.g. Raising $1m at $4m pre-money valuation.
The more time goes by, this feels like an archaic practice. Why?
3) Here are a few reasons:
a) A true priced round often requires a minimum funding threshold to go through. And that often takes months to round up, which is huge risk for the company.
Startups often don't have months.
a) A true priced round often requires a minimum funding threshold to go through. And that often takes months to round up, which is huge risk for the company.
Startups often don't have months.
4) In addition, why should all the investors in that round get the same price. Price shouldn't just be a function of how much the company is worth. It should also reflect how much an investor is worth to that company.
Afterall, it takes 2 to do a deal.
Afterall, it takes 2 to do a deal.
5) And not all investors are the same! Having shared rounds with hundreds if not thousands of investors, some are very value add. Most are ok. And a fair number are negative value add. Why should we all be treated the same?
6) The analogy around price in the product world doesn't treat all customers the same.
When I buy a soda pop at the store, it costs say $1 a can. When Costco buys, they are probably getting it at $0.25 a can. That makes sense. They are more value add than I am as a customer.
When I buy a soda pop at the store, it costs say $1 a can. When Costco buys, they are probably getting it at $0.25 a can. That makes sense. They are more value add than I am as a customer.
7) And there is reason to believe other investors AND startups feel this way. I often see people try to come to terms in other ways without ruining the mechanics of the round.
E.g. angel investors often get advisory shares to get a "blended" lower valuation than a funding round.
E.g. angel investors often get advisory shares to get a "blended" lower valuation than a funding round.
8) VCs do this too. Some ppl criticize this practice, but I think this makes total sense if both parties agree.
E.g. I've seen on cap tables VCs investing at say $6m cap & taking advisory shares for providing a program. This makes sense to me if all agree.
E.g. I've seen on cap tables VCs investing at say $6m cap & taking advisory shares for providing a program. This makes sense to me if all agree.
9) This weird kludge happens, because everyone is trying to "prop up" the valuation of the investment and offer different prices to different investors with common advisory shares.
10) So you can see ppl doing kludgey things because somehow in the startup ecosystem, we have this belief that all investors should be treated the same and treated fairly.
But in no other place in business do we have this expectation. So, this just feels odd to me.
But in no other place in business do we have this expectation. So, this just feels odd to me.
11) Logistics on managing different valuations aside (which seems solvable), curious for people's thoughts on this?
