In our previous post (Let It Be) we noted that Senator Chris Dodd’s financial reform bill that is on the way to the House floor contains new provisions that would reduce the number of individual eligible to invest in private ventures. The original draft of the bill would increase the $1 million net worth threshold that defines an “accredited investor”, which in turn determines an individual’s eligibility to invest in exempted private securities offerings under Regulation D of the 1933 Securities Act.

These Reg D offerings enable startup businesses access to “angel” capital — the critical means of finance for early-stage ventures that could not otherwise bear the prohibitive costs and regulatory burdens of SEC registration.

The angel investor and entrepreneurial community responded vociferously against the proposed legislation citing the chilling impact that an estimated 77% reduction in the ranks of accredited investors (per Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s estimate) would have on angel investment, financing startups, new job creation and reviving the reliable stalwart of economic growth—the small business sector.

Now we hear that the Angel Capital Association announced that Dodd and his Senate Banking Committee have drafted amendments to the initial proposal whereby the threshold for “accredited investor” would stay the same, although the standard for net worth of $1 million would be revised to exclude the investor’s primary residence.

The ACA has proclaimed that although “we would have preferred no adjustment to the standard for angel investors, we believe this is a good compromise” adding that the amendments “improve the bill so that it balances the importance of small business capital formation while protecting angels and other types of private investors from securities law violators.”

What bunk. The ACA should be opposing such compromising compromises. The opportunity to make a private investment in a private venture should be every investor’s right. The ability to invest in a new business should not be an exclusive privilege bestowed by politicians upon persons of a certain economic class.

Moreover, there are ample investor protections already in place. The SEC’s powerful Rule 10b-5 is all about protecting investors, and it applies to private investors just as it applies to the general public. Every state has securities laws on the books that protect private investors from fraud. Indeed, the registration requirements of the 1933 Act also serve that protection purpose.

As explained by SEC alumnus Patrick Daugherty of Foley & Lardner, “Regulation D is an exemption from those registration requirements. It’s part of our law precisely because there exists a class of investors who can ‘fend for themselves,’ in the words of the Supreme Court’s venerable Ralston Purina holding. Congress, the SEC and the Supreme Court have believed for fifty years that offerings limited to investors who are ‘rich and smart’ about finance need not be registered.” 

Although there is no doubt that the majority of frauds have occurred in highly regulated or visible investment schemes (remember Refco, Enron, Worldcom), there is ample history of unscrupulous brokers, dealers, issuers and promoters abusing Reg D and defrauding investors. The SECs recent indictment of Provident Royalties, LLC for a massive $485 million ponzi scheme is a good example of how the SEC’s limited resources could be effectively allocated away from surfing porn on the web.

But I have never heard a cogent argument that supports the notion that any individual should be restricted from the opportunity to invest in a startup or new business venture that has appropriately disclosed the risk of failure and loss of all capital that is inherent to venture investment.

Private venture investment in startup and early-stage businesses should be entirely exempt from the Reg D accredited investor provisions.

Angel investors know the risks are high and that a significant portion, if not the majority of their venture investments will fail. There is absolutely no evidence that angels investing in startups played any role whatsoever in the recent financial crisis that has prompted Dodd’s proposed reform bill. So, who does this compromise “protect”?

The notion that net worth is an effective indication of an individual investor’s sophistication or ability to bear the risk of loss is laughable. The bright-line standard used to ascertain an investor’s sophistication is ironically unsophisticated and utterly under-inclusive.

I align with Richard Rahn, chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth that “the rule makes little sense and strongly discriminates against knowledgeable people who are not yet wealthy but are quite capable of making good investment decisions.” Rahn refers to this as “financial fascism”.

In this connection, there is no reason to suppose that investors who are millionaires only after including home equity are unable to fend for themselves while those who are millionaires exclusive of home equity are self-reliant. Consider Sid and Nancy. Sid has $500,000 in financial assets and a $1 million home with no mortgage. Nancy has $1.4 million in financial assets and a $1 million home with a $900,000 mortgage. Both Sid and Nancy have a net worth of $1.5 million. Sid has constructed a more-conservative balance sheet for himself. But Senator Dodd says that Sid needs federal protection while Nancy doesn’t.

This makes no sense, especially since Sid can “become accredited” simply by borrowing $500,000 against his house and investing the proceeds in securities. Does Senator Dodd really want to encourage greater mortgage borrowing as a means of facilitating private capital formation?

Does anyone really believe that an IT professional making $75K is less able to evaluate a web startup than a professional athlete? Is a recent B-school grad less able to assess the merits of a new retail business venture than a trust fund baby? Is a cook any less able to evaluate a new restaurant venture than a lottery winner with an eight grade education? Wealth is simply not an effective proxy of sophistication.

But what I find most offensive is that this “compromise” only compromises personal financial freedoms and investor’s rights and liberties…a viewpoint shared by my old friend John Mauldin, acclaimed creator and curator of commentary at investorinsights.com, a blog focused on private money management.

“Why should 99% of Americans be precluded from the same (investment) choices available to the rich? If you were to tell investors that they would be discriminated against because of their gender or race or sexual preferences, there would be an outcry….It is a matter of Choice…Equal Access…Equal Opportunity…it is time to change a system where Americans are relegated to second-class status based solely on their income and wealth.”

Nice, John. I also see that one of Canada’ top angel investors also shares our opinion that any investor should be able to make angel investments (assuming the proper disclosure of risks).
 

Regulators and politicians whom plead that such provisions protect the poor and unsophisticated from unscrupulous promoters are hollow hypocrites. Presently 42 state governments run lottery programs—a regressive tax that preys on lower-income households to the tune of more than $17 billion in 2007, the most recent annual estimate. Recently, researchers have identified a correlation between economic difficulties and the popularity of lotteries….so we are likely seeing greater lottery ticket sales today.

Single state lotteries usually have odds of about 18 million to 1, while multiple state lotteries have odds as high as 120 million to one. The state lottery and government officials know that it is a sucker’s bet that is disproportionately supported by low-income households and marketing programs make sure to advertise in lower income areas and increase television advertising when welfare and social security checks are distributed. The poor and unsophisticated are left to their own defenses when government acts as the issuer and the promoter.

Government should be encouraging private investment in new businesses which historically account for the majority of the innovation and job creation in the American economy. The Kauffman Foundation, tells us that “between 1980 and 2005, virtually all net new jobs created in the U.S. were created by firms that were 5 years old or less…That is about 40 million jobs. That means the established firms created no new net jobs during that period.”

Startups continue to be a robust and critical engine of job creation as according to Bloomberg, despite the sluggish economy some 259,480 angels invested $17.6 billion in 57,225 entrepreneurial ventures in 2009.

As the average startup employs approximately eight people, increasing the bracket for accredited investors in any manner will only make it more difficult than it already is for startup businesses to raise money and create new jobs.

To the contrary, nothing would be gained by reducing the pool of accredited investors—no additional protections to investors and no benefits to the national financial system or the economy. Private venture investment in startup and early-stage businesses should be entirely exempt from the Reg D accredited investor provisions.
 

Album: Up The Bracket, The Libertines, 2002

Private venture investors consciously embrace the notion of swapping liquidity and safety of principal in the pursuit of positive asymmetrical outcomes and the higher risk premium associated with venture capital. Against the certainty of uncertain outcomes, the venture investor accepts liquidity and principal risks as the apropos quid pro quo towards achieving high double-digit and triple-digit IRRs on investment.

But, venture investors too willingly accept the notion that their investments outcomes will be the result of a binary set of events—characterized either by loss of capital or an attractive multiple on exit as the result of an IPO, sale, merger or other change of control transaction.

These investors can become more effective fiduciaries of their capital by demanding investment terms that broaden the variety of each investment’s potential returns. I refer to this as increasing an investment’s “optionality” beyond a binary set of boom or bust outcomes.

Among the most frustrating venture investment experience is the non-outcome outcome. In an earlier post (Hits & Exit Wounds) we described this sort of venture purgatory as “My Grandkids Company”—a private company that is successful but there is no exit in sight. (Perhaps your grandchildren’s inheritance?). You were prescient enough to back an early-stage venture that is now successful yet all you have to show for it is an annual K-1. This is where investment term sheet mechanisms that enhance the investor’s optionality really come in handy.

I have become a strong proponent of requiring that venture investors demand a “put right” (or, put option) as a contingency to committing venture capital to an angel round or early-stage equity financing. A well-conceived put option may reduce unintended gifting to your grandchildren by giving you one way out of a private investment without an exit in near sight.

Typically, a venture investor’s exercise of a “put” would require the company to repurchase their equity securities at fair market value. Investor put rights have been around venture transactions for years for the express purpose of providing a way out of an investment with no liquidity event in near site. But, because of the terms by which they have generally been structured, they have been rarely exercised.

That’s because if the company appears to be on the right track, investor’s are more likely to let their fortunes play out. On the other hand, if the company is not performing to plan it is not likely to be able to afford to honor the investor’s put—rendering the option worthless.

With investors rarely exercising these puts and with companies generally apprehensive of the uncertain implications of any non-budgeted hit to their balance sheet, issuers are less willing to draft investor put rights into their offerings…but you should insist.

It works like this…upon completing due diligence and deeming a venture to be worthy of a capital commitment the investor reviews the company’s anticipated revenue projections to identify a period in the future (beginning at 30 or 36 months out) at which the company’s cash flow model and pro forma balance sheet suggests that it would be able to return the investor’s initial capital contribution along with any accrued dividend. As a contingency to financing the venture, the investor requires the company to grant a put option for that future point in the company’s growth trajectory.

If the investor exercises the put, the investor is entitled to redeem all or a portion of their equity interests in exchange for the initial capital contribution value plus a nominal return above the risk-free rate. In addition to the return of investment, the put right allows the investor to maintain a reduced equity position in the company…perhaps, somewhere between 50% to 75%. (This would imply an increase two to four times higher than the company’s initial valuation)

Essentially, the exercise of the put allows the investor the ability to take “risk off the table” (the initial contribution) while still maintaining a material amount of “skin in the game”.

To prevent the investor from exercising the put at a moment when the company’s financial stability or expansion plans could be jeopardized, the company can require that in addition to a prescribed time period restriction, certain revenue and/or R&D milestones must be achieved and set as “triggers” before the put may be exercised.

The put option must be constructed in a manner that enhances the investor’s optionality, without putting the company at balance sheet risk. It is possible to achieve that balance. The company that achieves the predetermined revenue milestones would likely savor the opportunity to buy back its stock to the pro-rata benefit of the remaining stakeholders, and of course the investor benefits from the possibility of a wider variety of liquidity events and exit outcomes…which, in turn, enhances the ultimate appeal of venture capital as an asset class.

Album:    One Way Out, The Allman Brothers Band, 2004

One of the few commonalities among the thousands of VCs and angel investors is the consensus that the process of identifying an attractive private venture investment is “part art, part science”. The art part speaks to the inherent absence of certainty with respect to any venture’s viability. There are no absolute truths…no bankable checklist to follow that ensures a successful outcome for a private venture investor.

The science part? That’s simply hindsight, which of course is an exact science. Of the ways that I have derived knowledge as a private venture investor, hindsight is the most expensive, the least merciful and the most valuable.

When it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, my primary screen is simple. For a private venture investment (PVI) to be worthy of the costly, time-consuming, bandwidth-bogarting process of evaluation, consideration, due diligence and deal term negotiation, it must initially meet these four criteria;

1.  There is a large market for the firm’s products or services

The size of the market must be material for a PVI to potentially achieve a high cash flow or high-multiple (positive asymmetric) outcome. The success of category-killer app, product or service in a small market lacks the potential of an exponential payoff and does not proportionately offset the risk of a loss.

Ideally, the market should not be merely mature—it should be a growing market. The market can be newly-emerging (alternative energy, for example) or non-existent (Twitter) at the point of the venture’s introduction of its product or service, but it’s potential must be measurable and meaningful.

The values set forth in the modern business classic Blue Ocean Strategy often come to mind. Blue oceans denote industries untainted by competition. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than fought over…competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set.

I am predisposed to the notion that the initially contemplated product, service or business model rarely succeeds, and consequently ventures are frequently forced to adapt to new data points. This requires the room to maneuver that a large market provides.

2.  The firm has a sustainable competitive advantage

The venture must have a sustainable edge to attract and retain its market share. The location or lease of a real estate development can be an edge. The celebrity chef to a restaurant, the IP portfolio of a technology or medical device company or a strong distribution channel relationship can be a critical edge to a consumer product.

The more tangible, unique, defensible and proprietary the edge (such as patents)…the better. The competitive advantage should discourage competition and create a barrier to entry. The edge will vary according to the venture’s industry. First-mover status is often meaningless (like many others I prefer second-mover) and certainly not sustainable in a market of compelling size.

A sustainable edge to compete in a large market is critical to potential acquirers or public markets and the objective of realizing compelling multiples on an exit.

3.  The management team has compelling expertise in the contemplated market

You must have a great execution team. Visionary founders may be inspiring but they alone cannot bring a great idea home. Get an experienced and accomplished operator in early.

In a couple of my early investments I failed to hone this rule to its proper endpoint. Naively, I believed that the serial entrepreneur with prior liquidity events was a proven winner and worthy of the wager. The first time that formula fell short I failed to make the proper connection, the second time I learned the lesson. There will not be a third time.

Successful entrepreneurs too often become deal junkies fueled by the fumes of their prior triumph. Some become self-anointed business “generalist” experts (contradictory, eh?) that no longer feel restricted by the limitations of their actual core competencies.

The founding partners and management team must include an accomplished C-level executive or highly accomplished operator with a track record of proven experience with the specific business model and target market. Moreover, the operator must have the authority and discretion to execute the business plan. Serial entrepreneurial ego in the absence of domain expertise is a formula for failure.

4.  The deal terms are no less than fair, and ideally—favorable

Valuation, investor rights, board representation, management discretion and transparency with respect to material events, protective provisions, anti-dilution protection, liquidation preferences and optionality issues must incentivize and respect the source of the capital. The investor’s capital is the great enabler… the sine qua non for any venture.

Few things are as humbling as the successful venture that does not translate into a successful investment. I respect the often repeated axiom that a fair deal is one where both parties feel that they got a bad deal, but the end game should always be to negotiate favorable deal terms.

The probability of an attractive outcome is diminished if a private venture investment cannot meet these initial thresholds. In VC-speak you are nursing a newborn “zombie”…a walking dead venture…the ship is already sinking and it has not even left the port.

Album:   We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank, Modest Mouse, 2007

Private investments in venture and early-stage companies are characterized by their potential for positive asymmetrical outcomes (PAO). The risk of losing the entire investment is offset against the potential for high-multiple ROIs. But asymmetric outcomes refers to more than the non-linear relationship between risk and return…it also refers to the appeal of investments where multiple liquidity and exit outcomes are possible.

This is often referred to as optionality…current knowledge of the potential for multiple future outcomes.

According to his book, In an Uncertain World, Robert Rubin, the nine-figure alumni chairman of Citi, is said to have developed his appreciation of optionality in his prior days of risk arbitrage at Goldman. While practicing risk arbitrage, Rubin developed a penchant for optionality (keeping ones options open) and avoidance of a mindset that restricted decision-making to binary and zero-sum outcomes.

It is believed that Larry Summers ultimately coined the phrase “preserving optionality” back when he was deputy secretary of the treasury under Robert Rubin in the Clinton administration. It was meant to describe a strategy of keeping options open and fluid, before all of the uncertainties have been resolved in dynamic environments where there is a high likelihood for the emergence of new and material information.

The phrase is relevant in venture circles for investors, as well as, entrepreneurs.

Preserving Optionality for Investors and Entrepreneurs

For entrepreneurs, optionality in rapidly evolving scenarios (such as a start-up) means leveraging real-time data and experience before making important decisions that are either resource intensive or cannot be easily reverse…such as pursuing a market vertical, developing a new technology or application, embarking on a joint venture or contemplating multiple exit strategies.

In most instances these options were not conceivable at the outset of the venture because, at best, a start-up’s business plan is to an entrepreneur what a treatment is to a script writer…it’s simply a first draft. It is the actual, real-time development of the story line and its characters that ultimately determines the final draft of a movie script…or the path to monetization for a new business venture.

Investors and experienced entrepreneurs know this. I have rarely seen a startup that successfully monetized itself based upon the mission, objectives and milestones envisioned in its original business plan. That’s because time in the market is often more valuable than time to market with respect to improving the quality of the critical decisions that are of material consequence.

Technology consultant Sean Hull of the Heavyweight Internet Group notes this nuance…“preserving optionality is a philosophy that takes some getting used to. It involves having a sense of humor, and realizing our own human limitations.”

Author-epistemologist-investor Nassim Taleb gets it as well. In Fooled by Randomness he characteristically opines “people overestimate their knowledge and underestimate the probability of their being wrong“. He suggests that by being ever aware of our limitations of prescience, and keeping our eyes and our options open, we can make better, more educated, and lower risk decisions. He is correct.

This implications and realities of preserving optionality, often positions entrepreneurs at odds with investors. The interests of optionality must be balanced.

For the entrepreneur, preserving optionality is an interest that frequently requires a balancing act against intrusive, non-strategic, no-value-add investors who view accountability and measurability as metrics preeminent to the benefits of prudent executive flexibility and strategic discretion.

On the other hand, the investor’s needs for optionality is particularly relevant today in light of the macro market malaise and minimal marquis exits. With venture-backed IPOs now more an exception, venture investors need to stipulate optionality with respect to cash-flow and exit rights as a contingency to their investment commitment.

Investors need to see visibility to alternative liquidity events such as dividend distributions or return of initial capital beyond the sale or merger of the company or its assets, or a less than likely IPO.

It is of no surprise that investors have a preference for positively-skewed outcomes and hold an aversion to negatively-skewed outcomes despite the fact that linear or variance-based risk measures generally weigh the outcomes equally.

Yet, investors seeking the potential for multiple and positive asymmetric outcomes on their commitments must also apply the measures of asymmetry and optionality to their deal diligence and terms. More than ever, investors should require visibility on multiple paths to liquidity. The investor has the responsibility to appropriately balance their interest in ROI with the survival or expansion cash-flow needs of the portfolio company.

Why so many “professional” investors are so passive on this issue is puzzling.

Investors and entrepreneurs alike both benefit from preserving optionality and having the pre-negotiated discretion to pursue a prudent Plan B.

We will discuss those some of those options in upcoming posts.

Album:   Balance & Options, DJ Quik, 2000