How do venture capitalists feel about following a crowdfunding capital raise?

This was one of the primary subjects for discussion at Venture Forward 2012 (ventureforwardconference.com). The answer to that question at the pre-conference speaker’s dinner implied unanimous agreement (from a group consisting of many of the top angels, VCs, lawyers, and pundits in the industry), that “direct, equity-based, common stock crowd funding as envisioned by the JOBS Act” would absolutely, positively preclude future investment by any serious professional investor, either angel or VC.

That said, the two workable options that were discussed would be either (1) provide some means for blowing up a crowd funded cap structure and making all those individual, unaccredited investors disappear prior to the VC investment (such as by buying them out, or rounding them up into a single vehicle with a professional manager), or (2) do the crowd fund raise from the beginning using a vehicle such as either a revenue-based note with a multiple return kicker, or a single-holder Special Purpose Vehicle managed by a professional.

But I’m sure there will be many, many stories of all kinds once the final provisions go into effect in January, and it will take quite a while for this all to shake out.

*original post can be found on Quora @ : http://www.quora.com/David-S-Rose/answers *

Second-Class Investor Citizens: Facebook’s IPO and Dual-Class Equity Structures

Dual-class voting structures are receiving a lot of attention these days along with intense publicity related to the Facebook IPO, following in the wake of other recent tech IPOs with a similar structure such as Zynga and LinkedIn.  This is nothing new; long favored by family-controlled media empires such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, among Internet firms alone, Google took a dual-class approach when going public in 2004.  Some commentators have suggested this is the wave of the future, signifying a shift in the balance of power from investors to founders of the relatively small, elite group of growth companies that make it to public markets.  Yet I’m skeptical that a widespread shift will occur anytime soon, and for reasons discussed below, as much as I admire and advocate for talented entrepreneurs, I believe it would be a losing proposition for nearly all involved. Read more

Antone Johnson , Founding Principal, Bottom Line Law Group
May 24th, 2012 1

5 Traits Investors Look for in Entrepreneurs

What do investors look for in an entrepreneur? This month I’ve been reviewing submissions for my local angel group. I found this excellent list of 14 Ways to be a Great Startup CEO, posted at OnStartups by Jason Baptiste. And that reminded me of my own list, 10 Traits of Successful Entrepreneurs, which I posted a few years ago, before I joined the angel investing group. Both of those lists, against the background of what I’m doing this month, remind me that what makes a successful venture, or a successful entrepreneur, isn’t necessarily the same thing that makes a good investment opportunity for outside investors.

Hint: there’s a difference between a good business and a good investment. There are a lot more good businesses. A good business can make its entrepreneurs happy, while a good investment has to make the investors happy. Investors aren’t employees. They aren’t building themselves jobs. They need to get actual money back, sometime in the future, to get a return. Read more

Tim Berry , Founder, Palo Alto Software
April 10th, 2012 0

Forget Crowdfunding: Why JOBS Matters

Most all the talk about the JOBS bill is about crowdfunding, seeding, and the ability to advertise private placements.  In my mind, other provisions are the really big news for young companies.

Those are the expansion of the size limits for “Reg A” offerings, and the newly created “regulatory on-ramp.”  Together, these have re-opened a door to capital that’s been boarded over and forgotten:  small company public offerings.  In a back-to-the-future way, companies with a proven model and modest revenues will have a new, realistic option for growth capital– one that doesn’t require capitulating to onerous terms from large funds, or begging bankers who prefer to make money by simply rolling over government securities. Read more

Bob Rice , Managing Partner, Tangent Capital
April 6th, 2012 3

Crowdfunding Back On Track — As Milk Train, Not TGV

Last week I penned an in-depth critique of the portion of the JOBS Act seeking to legalize crowdfunding in the United States.  The bill, which may have more to do with political grandstanding in an election year than with actual job creation, was approved by a strong bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives. As I argued last week, the version of the JOBS Act approved by the House is a bold experiment in targeted radical deregulation of financial markets on the heels of one of the worst economic disasters in American history — itself attributable to deregulation with inadequate oversight — while the asthmatic U.S. economic recovery wheezes and stumbles through the smoldering wreckage of once mighty financial institutions. Read more

Antone Johnson , Founding Principal, Bottom Line Law Group
April 2nd, 2012 0

Blogger About Angel Investment: “Confused, Scared, and More Than a Little Ashamed”

Now there’s a great title for a blog post. Writing about angel investment, on his Portland-based Silicon Forest entrepreneurship etc. blog, Rick Turozcy titled his post: I’m confused, scared, and more than a little ashamed. Don’t even try to tell me that doesn’t make you curious. Rick’s a smart guy, very well known in Portland (OR), and his blog matters. So here’s his problem:

WTF Angel Oregon? This is one of your concept companies? Blanket Booster? Again… WTF?

Yes, it turns out that the Portland angel group called Angel Oregon (actually OEN Angel Oregon, where the OEN stands for Oregon Entrepreneurs Network) just announced an investment in a startup making a bar that goes on a bed to hold the blankets up so they don’t weigh down the feet. What’s the problem?

I’m struggling to grasp how a rail that holds your blanket off of your feet is a better investment than the hundreds of concept companies I’ve talked to in the past six months.

Rick likes high tech. He’s a techie, entrepreneur, and startup expert, deeply immersed in a local incubator. (And I get that, I’m a techie too. Look at my bio.)  He says this shows two problems:

  1. Angel investing in our region is decidedly weak in tech. And with good reason. Very few of the Angels in our region have a tech background. As such, they’re not very confident investing in tech. Angels invest in what they know. I get that.
  2. You didn’t even enter the race. You didn’t even have the confidence to take your awesome idea to Angel Oregon. That you didn’t feel like you had something worthy of investment. That you didn’t think your startup was worth submitting to a selection committee.

I like the way Rick writes. His point number two is golden. I hope it’s clear he’s talking to all the techie entrepreneurs in his incubator, on his blog, and working in Portland. You didn’t enter. Touche. Well said.

Posting here as a very active member of an Oregon angel investment group — not Angel Oregon, but one in Eugene and Corvallis, the Willamette Angel Conference (WAC), I’m not comfortable with Rick’s summary of Oregon angel investor tech background. Our group has 35 members and more than half of them have come out of software, web business, or computer hardware. We have two major universities in our two towns, and there’s a huge Hewlett Packard installation in Corvallis. We’ve made three investments so far, two of them software companies, one a clean-and-green personal product. I don’t think we’re weak on tech. But Rick’s talking about the group in Portland, 100 miles north.

Here’s part of the comment I left:

One thing I dearly love about business is that almost everything is a marketplace. Buying is voting, and investing is voting. And people are unpredictable. Self interest rules in these markets, and investors are spending their money. Some consider the good of the community, some care more than others about the environment, some want to change the world, most are comfortable with investments in industries they are familiar with, some care only about what gives them the best risk-return relationship. You wind those various factors up like a top or a wind-up doll, and you set them lose, and what happens is what happens. It’s beautiful.

That’s my answer to Rick’s worries. I’m not confused, I’m not scared, and I am not in even the slightest bit ashamed. Hooray for business.

Tim Berry , Founder, Palo Alto Software
March 21st, 2012 0

The Great Crowdfunding Train Wreck of 2013

The verb “to disrupt” in all its forms is rightly popular in the startup world.  To many entrepreneurs, few things are as personally satisfying (or as lucrative) as disrupting an entrenched, complacent, monopolistic, inefficient or stagnant market in ways that often empower consumers and producers alike.  Consumer Internet and mobile technology businesses continue to be rife with opportunities for disruption.

On March 8, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the JOBS Act, becoming the subject of much chatter at this year’s South by Southwest Interactive (SXSW) conference that began the following day.  This bill is the latest in a series of efforts and initiatives in recent years intended to disrupt the traditional methods and markets for investment in, and capitalization of, emerging growth businesses.  Boosters can be found all over the Web proclaiming a nascent crowdfunding revolution that will ensure prosperity for entrepreneurs and mom-and-pop investors alike. Read more