Ben Zises’ Post

View profile for Ben Zises, graphic

SuperAngel.Fund😇 | Investor #1 & Founding Advisor @quip🦷 @Caraway🏠 @Arber🪴 | Consumer (CPG, eComm SaaS), PropTech & Future of Work | ben@superangel.vc

I want to share something that a lot of investors don’t like to talk about: It’s the delta between a company’s “public” success and the venture returns that it produces. Contrary to popular belief, public notoriety and venture returns aren’t always equal. It’s one of the things that makes venture investing difficult. Here’s a short crash course on what that means: Let’s say you speak to an ambitious founder who’s building a company called Bark Bath, a startup that will revolutionize the dog washing business. But, to do so, she needs $20M in Series A funding. As a savvy investor, you see the market opportunity and decide to lead the Series A round, contributing $10M at a $100M post-money valuation. When the Series A round closes, your firm owns 10% of this dog washing empire. Now, let’s assume that after 10 years, this founder has done exceedingly well. She agrees to sell her company to Walmart for $1B. Pretty great right? Not exactly. The game of startup investing is not that simple. Over the course of those 10 years and several more rounds of funding, your 10% stake has been whittled down to a mere 2% at the time of the acquisition. When you finally collect the profits from the sale, your firm receives $20M. Sure, you doubled your money (2X), but that’s a mediocre outcome by venture standards. Especially over 10 years locking your money up in an illiquid asset. You’re trying to make 10-100X with each investment. That’s the discrepancy that I’m talking about. By all public accounts, Bark Bath as a company was a runaway success! They achieved unicorn status before being acquired by one of the largest retailers on the planet. And you... You had the foresight to know that this was a great business with a great founder a decade before the rest of the world knew it. But, the world isn’t aware of the fact that the success of this investment wasn’t as substantial as the success of the company. So why is it that most early- and growth-stage investors don’t talk about this? Well, because the publicity is still beneficial. Sure, you didn’t make a 10X return on your money for this investment. BUT, you’re still an early investor in Bark Bath. And, that buys you something just as valuable as top-quartile returns: Reputation. The reason that investors don’t talk about that discrepancy is because these cosmetic venture successes still help the investor and the fund build a lasting reputation within the industry. Which ultimately helps their LPs too in the long run — I've seen many VCs make an investment just to get the logo on their portfolio page. While the Bark Bath investment might not return the entire fund, it’s proof to your peers, your LPs, your portfolio, and future startup founders that you know how to pick a great company. Simply put, it gives you better access than you had before. The crazy thing, though, is that the reputation and social proof that it buys you can actually be worth it in the long run. It’s all a balancing act.

Ben Zises

SuperAngel.Fund😇 | Investor #1 & Founding Advisor @quip🦷 @Caraway🏠 @Arber🪴 | Consumer (CPG, eComm SaaS), PropTech & Future of Work | ben@superangel.vc

4mo

In my post above, the example provided was for a mock company not as capital efficient as it could’ve been and therefore required too much additional $$$ to reach an Exit. This resulted in tremendous dilution to the investor’s ownership %. The lesson: Capital efficiency is KING As good as a product/service might be, it is CRUCIAL for a team to maintain strict financial discipline and rigor. In the scenario below, had Bark Bath not required more funding, it would have resulted in an additional $80M of returns to the VC fund, earning a total of $100M upon the sale- instead of $20M! Times like these will spawn more and more founders that understand these truths. We will continue to back these legendary founders with an eye towards capital efficiency.

Jonathan Kennedy

Founder, AppStoreResearch | User Research Recruitment for eCommerce Saas

4mo

Great post. Even at the angel level from one round to the next, the squeeze on ownership is real - in my experience. I’ll add that even if the company isn’t a success, just being an early investor in a company that can raise the next round, can reflect well and help an investor’s reputation and bring other forms of value. In fact, just having your name on a cap table with more established investors can be valuable…which can result in more deal flow. For most angels, I’d always recommend several smaller cheques in the first years to establish a reputation and network through cap table association. I’ve done this through a mix of direct deals, as an LP in funds and through SPV’s.

Dave Carruthers

Building Zeeda the group buying marketplace for outdoor enthusiasts.

4mo

Ben thanks for sharing this perspective, curious as an early investor (typically first check) how would you evaluate this hypothetical scenario. Two early stage opportunities where all things are relatively equal the TAM, team, problem, vertical etc is the same. One founding team is looking to do a seed round but believes that is enough capital to build an efficient business that could have a strong outcome for seed investors and founding team in 2-4 years. The other plans on going the more traditional Seed, A,B,C…IPO route raising hundreds of millions in capital but this will take the typical 8-12 year cycle. On one hand the former provides probably the same outcome (as outlined in your post) in half the time so a greater IRR, but often my experience has been early stage investors see this route as a lack of ambition from the founding team. It seems market dynamics are changing and more and more founders are exploring the former, what are your thoughts on this and how does the venture model which is largely based on high failure rates and outlier outcomes from a small subset of the portfolio evolve?

Like
Reply
Moe Green

Vice President Innovations

4mo

My cats breath smells like cat food 🤒

Like
Reply
Daniel Faierman

Consumer Investor/Operator | Stanford MBA | ex-NCAA Tennis

4mo

Another example of why capital efficiency is better for MOIC :)

Leila Ancelin

Founder/CEO of Schooltopia - AI Edtech - e/acc

4mo

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that!

Andrea Popova

CEO at CPGD | Product Growth at Meta

4mo

Such a great point!

Chris Moreno

"Mr PropTech" Entrepreneur, Investor, Father, Podcaster, Board Member, Writer, Speaker | Focused on Real Estate, Future of Work, Enterprise, AI, Logistics, Hardware, ESG

4mo

Spot on Ben!

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics