I was speaking to a prominent angel investors in the Seattle ecosystem yesterday. He has been pretty prolific, doing over 20 deals in the last 5 years. He does mostly syndicates and has a band of investors he works with. Having been a successful technology executive before, he understands the market and the landscape fairly well.
We got talking about accelerators and their place in the startup food chain.
Most VC’s and angels will tell you that in the last 2-3 years, accelerator backed startups have gone from 0 to about 5-10% of their portfolio. Many seed (angel, individual) investors still believe that proprietary deal flow is critical to their success in building a strong portfolio.
The thing that struck me was how he mentioned that in the last year he has changed his position from “angel investor education” to “entrepreneur education”.
The reason was that he felt entrepreneurs were not clear on the market landscape for exits and how angel investors need to make money as well. I can understand and empathize. If angel investors don’t make money, they wont be able to convince other new investors to come along.
He was talking about the example where most of his startups (of the ones that exited) have been acquired for between $25 and $100 Million. He has 4 exits, so there’s clearly insufficient data to form a trend.
Nonetheless, he felt it was important to ensure that entrepreneurs understand that the series A VC round was getting bigger and getting harder, so he was pushing for his entrepreneurs to be capital efficient and raise as little as possible, expecting to raise < $3 million ($500K – $1Mill, first seed, followed by a < $2M post seed). That way he felt, that a < $10 Million valuation in your post seed will still get you a 2 – 5X multiple return.
Normally I would have filed this under “investor that cares about returns only so don’t bother”, but this investor is really smart and has been helping his entrepreneurs successfully raise their follow-on’s. Of the 20+ startups, he has helped 80% of them raise follow on funding within 18 months. Pretty impressive.
Then it struck me as I was speaking to a valley VC later in the evening, who mentioned there was “frothiness” in the valley and that startups were raising money because everything is just so much more expensive. He was advocating the “Go big or Go home” strategy.
Turns out there are multiple options indeed for entrepreneurs – if you can get to the valley, and plug into the network, you tend to raise a lot more money, grow big and scale fast.
If you are not in the valley, you grow slower.
I have a few questions though:
1. Do you know what drives you – making good money or making a difference? – Saying both is an easy cop out. What would you prioritize?
2. Does the size of your ambition affect who you raise money from and where?
3. Does who you raise money from (not the amount) affect the size of your outcome as well?
I suspect the answer to all these questions is a qualified yes. I’d love your 1-2 sentence answer (or 140 character tweet) to these questions.