Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very commonly heard refrain in the Valley is some variant of: "Would you rather own 100% of a company worth $1 million or 40% of a company worth $200 million?" Money is used to purchase acceleration. It's not totally crazy, although it implies very different trade offs as compared to running one's own business without investors.
The problem here is risk is ignored. If I were to rephrase the question as "Would you rather own 100% of a company with a 50% chance of success or 40% of $200 million company with a 1% of success?" then the answer we get is very different.
The Fatal Pinch
171–180 of 208 posts
Re: The Fatal Pinch
#172First time founder. My company is in a "fatal pinch." Similar to a previous comment by @LukeFitzpatrick, we built something for our alma mater that we thought we could sell to colleges for 50k/year. We got investment, we built it, we sold it to a few more schools but the software is not feature-packed and mature enough to attract sales fast enough. Higher ed also moves super slow even when you're doing well. We're st…
[0] http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/fileadmin/aap/2014/...
Re: The Fatal Pinch
#173I agree with this article. Founders overspend once they get their first initial investment, and rely on the next investment too much. Founders should be paying more attention to burn and churn rates. I once saw one of my best friends fail his first startup. They had a kickass programming team, received investment and did a bunch of things wrong. 1) Spent the whole investment on Founders salaries. They had 4 tech prog…
Funny thing is that you got your first round of investment, before you even knew what you were building.
What?
Re: The Fatal Pinch
#174"Although your product may not be very appealing yet, if you're a startup your programmers will often be way better than the ones your customers have or can hire." Is this really true? I'm very sceptical. Does anyone have any evidence to back this up?
And what's fantastic about funded startups from the perspective of a software muggle is that not only might they have a product already in existence that you can check out and find reviews from other customers but they've also been given the stamp of approval by investors, investors who are likely far more knowledgeable than the average software consultancy customer. Just look at the Obamacare website debacle as a case in point of how incredibly difficult it is to a: find a quality development shop who can actually deliver what you want, and b: do so within reasonable budget and time constraints. And the difference between finding a good development shop and a poor one isn't merely a better quality product, it's a factor of maybe 2x or more in development time (which is, of course, tremendously valuable) and a factor of 10-100x in cost.
Re: The Fatal Pinch
#175I agree with this article. Founders overspend once they get their first initial investment, and rely on the next investment too much. Founders should be paying more attention to burn and churn rates. I once saw one of my best friends fail his first startup. They had a kickass programming team, received investment and did a bunch of things wrong. 1) Spent the whole investment on Founders salaries. They had 4 tech prog…
> If you went out and hired 15 people before you even knew what you were building, you've created a broken company. Funny thing is that you got your first round of investment, before you even knew what you were building . What?
Re: The Fatal Pinch
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember David from Weebly noting that they narrowly avoided the pinch by becoming profitable (circa 2009?) Now AFAIK they are kicking ass.
Yes, the Weebly story is amazing. He covered part of it at Startup School a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_b228qEVi8
Re: The Fatal Pinch
#177How do you keep your employees in this market if you're lowering salaries across the board?
Re: The Fatal Pinch
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also very surprised this happened. I've done my fair share of Ramen, can barely eat it anymore. I'd assume they sold the investor on selling the service to Universities at 50K each, the investor believed in them and that he'd get a good return in his investment.
Well in cases like this the investor should have known better. I really think your friends did OK. I sell into the university system and I expect that each sale will take me at least 12 month to convert. The positive is that once you sell a university customer you rarely lose them.
Re: The Fatal Pinch
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There's not a whole lot VC can do about it at this point. Except ask for their money back :) If you think you can get away with running a sane growth company (100% Y/Y) and don't have to worry about the VCs asking for their money back, then the most rational thing to do is take the seed money and run the business as a "slow growth" business with an enormous runway. Unfortunately most VC's are aware of this and will…
VCs can't ask for their money back. It belongs to the company and is in the company bank account. They can refuse to give you more, and if they control the board they can try to put in a new management team, but except for cases of fraud or other malfeasance, they cannot get their money back.