Growthink Blog

The Future IS Ours To See


Categories:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

The financial panic of 1873, which set off a severe nationwide economic depression that lasted for 6 years, included The New York Stock Exchange closing for 10 days, 89 of the country's 364 railroads going bankrupt, and unemployment as high as 14%.  During this extremely challenging time, a gentleman by the name of Thomas Edison started a company called General Electric. You may have heard of both of them.

The Great Depression of the 1930's is even scarier in statistics than in legend.  Industrial production fell by 45% between 1929 and 1932. Homebuilding dropped by 80%. 1,000 of the nation's 25,000 banks failed. US GDP fell by 30%. 

And during these dark days, DuPont created new products and indsutries including rayon, enamels, and cellulose film. RCA invented television.  And a little company called IBM started pouring research dollars into something called the computer.

The 1970's are commonly remembered as a dark period for American finance and business - stagflation, negative stock market returns for the decade, and hits to the national psyche including Vietnam, Watergate, and the Hostage Crisis.  It was also the era that 2 ambitious and visionary young men named Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got their start.

My 20 years in angel investing, small business and entrepreneurship have taught me to separate the world into two kinds of people: Those that comment and complain on how things are and those that do something about it.

Unluckily for all of us, television and the always on Internet give those that comment and complain bigger megaphones than ever to spread their false prophesies of doom. It is only human nature to be affected, depressed, and even scared by their strident negativity.

Very, very luckily for all of us, however, there always be budding Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Thomas Edisons and Thomas J. Watsons amongst us. And where are these future shining stars devoting their prodigious energies to these days? I promise you that most of them aren't working at General Motors, nor are they drawn to politics or working in the public sector, nor to non-profits.

No, they are capitalists. They are entrepreneurs.  They start and work at Internet companies, they research alternative energy technologies they discover new drugs to make us all live longer and healthier lives. They are and they discover Black Swans.  They - in the words of Voltaire - make "life throb to a swifter, stronger beat."  

And you know what else? They're in it for the money. They want to build companies like Pure Digital (makers of the FlipCam) did and sell out to Cisco Systems for $590 million.  Or Facebook, on the verge of a public offering that will make its early investors billions. Or Integreon, whose business plan was perfected in a small Growthink conference room 10 years ago, and is now the largest legal outsourcing firm in the world (and saving a lot of folks a lot of money on their legal bills).  

With apologies to Doris Day, the future is in fact ours to see. As long as little boys and girls are raised to grow up to do something great with their lives, progress will march on.  Technologies will be commercialized.  New industries will arise.  Companies will be born and will grow and grow and grow. Fortunes will be made.  

The question, of course, is what will be in it for you? Will you be on the couch with the critics? Or will you be in the game with the builders and the doers?


These Truths About Angel Investing Will Surprise You


Categories:

Scott Shane, one of the world's most respected statisticians regarding entrepreneurship and angel investing, has a new book out - "Fools Gold? The Truth Behind Angel Investing in America."  It is without question the finest compilation of statistics and cold, hard facts regarding the REALITIES - as opposed to the myths - of the keys to successful angel and emerging company investing.  Some amazing statistical nuggets from Scott's book:

  • The book's 12 chapters have a combined 692 source references!  Compare this to the average "this is what I think with absolutely no basis in numbers" opinions that pass for wisdom on CNBC, on the world of Internet financial blogs, and from your friendly neighborhood financial advisor
  • Average portfolio return for angel investors participating in organized angel groups: 27% annual return (quoting this study)
  • Return expectation per deal for investments by successful angels: 30x
  • Proportion of business angels that expect a 10 times or better return: 45.4% (what they actually get is another matter...)
  • Number of companies founded each year that achieve $10 million or more in sales in 6 years: 3,608
  • Number of companies founded each year that achieve $100 million or more in sales in 6 years: 175
  • Share of drug start-ups that go public: 20.3%
  • Portion of venture capital dollars invested in the top five industries for venture capital: computer hardware, software/Internet, semiconductors and other electronics, communication (including mobile) and biotechnology - 81%
  • Top reasons why people invest in private companies:  To make money (obviously), to learn new things, to pay it forward
  • Number of companies financed by business angels in a typical year: 50,700-57,300
  • Amount invested by business angels in a typical year: $23 billion
  • % of Angel Investors with net worths of LESS than $1 million: 66.7% (really an amazing statistic as the SEC definition of an accredited investor is a person with a net worth of greater than $1 million)
  • 45 to 54 - Age range with the highest odds of making angel investments - disputes the myth that most angel investor are retired
  • Proportion of angel investments that involve co-investment with VCs - less than 1.1 percent
  • Proportion of angel investments made in retail and personal service businesses - 37.5 percent.  (Note: If you just make a rule to NOT invest in these 2 areas, your probability of emerging company investing success goes up dramatically)


As working with and investing in entrepreneurial companies is my life's work, I read this book extremely closely and found it both invigorating and challenging.  Invigorating in that it confirmed, with statistics, the superiority of private company investment returns vis a vis all other investment classes.  And frustrating in that it starkly outlines the very basic mistakes that most private company investors make over and over again that prevent them from being a successful investor in this asset class.

My overall takeaway: If you want to invest in private company deals, only do so via one of two avenues: 1) Via a GOOD angel investment group like The Band of Angels or the Tech Coast Angels (if you can get in) or via a managed portfolio approach such as a private equity or venture capital fund targeted toward the space or via a hybrid, operational approach like Growthink.


Where to Find Alpha


Categories:

Adobe. Akamai. Amazon. Amgen. Apple. Baidu. Bed Bath & Beyond. Biogen. Broadcom. Check Point. Cintas. Cisco. Citrix Systems. Dell. eBay. Electronic Arts. First Solar. Flextronics. Garmin. Genzyme. Gilead Sciences. Google. Hansen Natural. Infosys Technologies. Intuit. Juniper Networks. Logitech. Maxim Integrated Products. Microsoft. NVIDIA. Oracle. Paychex. QUALCOMM. Research in Motion. Seagate Technology. Sigma-Aldrich. Starbucks. Symantec. Urban Outfitters. VeriSign. Xilinx. Yahoo!

What do these companies have in common? Their stocks are all components of the NASDAQ 100 – the “biggest and the best” of the mostly technology-focused companies that make up the overall NASDAQ Composite Index.

Quite simply, this is a list of some of the most dynamic, most innovative, most technological, most forward-thinking, highest “IQ” companies on the face of the earth.

And know what else? If you had been invested in any relevant basket of these stocks in the last ten years, your investment returns would have been HORRIFIC. Here are some sample returns:

In the period from January 1st, 1999 to December 31, 2008, the overall NASDAQ composite index went from 2,192.69 to 1,577.03, or a 10-year return of MINUS 28.1%. Microsoft, down -45%, Yahoo down 71%, Akamai down 86%. Even the winners haven’t down all that hot – Starbucks up only 18% for the decade. Electronic Arts – riding the global gaming wave – up a pretty mediocre 52% for the whole decade.

So the obvious question is - what is going on here? The companies on this list have certainly been innovating and growing these last 10 years. And the #’s here are not overly distorted by the bubble of 1999-2000 and the great crash of 2008. If you normalize for these two factors, the numbers are somewhat better, but still no way NEAR the mid-teens annualized returns that the mutual fund and insurance industries would like you to believe you will get via a standard basket of public stocks investment approach.

Like Mickey Rourke’s character in “The Wrestler,” the stock-picking industry can’t keep themselves from talking about their glory days of the 1980’s and 1990’s. These two decades saw consistent double-digit broad public stock market returns.  In those days, making good, and sometimes great returns, was as simple and easy as buying virtually any index or broad-based market index fund. To illustrate this, let’s look at the NASDAQ return by decade:

  • In the period from January 1st, 1979 to December 31, 1988, the NASDAQ returned 223%. And in 6 years during this 10-year period, the index returned greater than 14% annual returns.
  • In the period from January 1st, 1989 to December 31, 1998, the NASDAQ returned a whopping 475%. And in 8 years during this 10-year period, the index returned greater than 14% annual returns.
  • In the period from January 1st, 1999 to December 31, 2008, again the index returned a depressing -28.1%, with only 2 years (1999 – with a whopping 85.1% and 2003 with 50.01%) returning greater than 14%.


What is interesting, however, was that the last 10 years – the “00’s” – were far, far from a lost decade for the professionals. In fact, while the Main Street investors were left holding the bag, the hedge fund and private equity businesses boomed. Little and sometimes well-known money managers like Bruce Kovner, Edward Lampert, Eric Mindich, George Soros, James Simons, Louis Bacon, Marc Lasry, Paul Tudor Jones, Ray Dalio, Stephen Feinberg, Stephen Schwarzman, Steve Cohen, Steve Mandel, T. Boone Pickens and William Browder earned personal compensation packages that regularly exceeded 10 figures – as in billions of dollars of earnings. And to make it even more of a kick, when the bottom fell out these last 6 months, they didn’t have to give back all of the money they had personally earned over those years. No, conveniently those losses were born by a combination of their investors and the American taxpayer. Nice gig if you can get it.

So what does this all ad up to? A few action points:

  1. NASDAQ market investing is NOT emerging company investing. By the time these companies earn the kind of attention, trading volume, and brand to be NASDAQ-listed, it is simply too late to make breakout returns investing in them. 20 years ago, maybe. But today the combination of free-flowing information sharing in these stocks and having to compete with huge hedge fund players like the above, you don’t stand a chance.
  2. As the famed batsmen Wee Willie Keeler once said about his hitting prowess, I just “hit ’em where they aint.” To make any investment return beyond the averages, you have to fish where the sharks above aren’t. You won’t beat them and unless you have $10 million liquid, you don’t have enough money to join them.
  3. Luckily there is a MASSIVE investing arena where a) the big guys aren’t and b) where market efficiencies haven’t sucked out all of the opportunity for alpha return. It is, of course, the emerging and distressed private company sector. Most of the deal sizes here are simply too small for the big institutional players (hard to put a $1 billion to work in an owner-operated private company). And if you work hard and know where to look, you can exploit a LOT of market inefficiency and find those wrinkles of alpha return that will transform your portfolio.

What is an Emerging Company?


Categories:

Over the years, descriptions, or "boxes," for various type of privately-held companies like "middle market," "venture-backed," "startups," "small and medium-sized enterprises (SME's)," to name a few, have been tossed around so much as to obscure and confuse their original meaning and intent.

This is highly unfortunate, as it creates opaqueness and inefficiency in an asset class already plagued with too much of both.

Let's leave the official classifications aside for now and focus on developing an identification process for the kinds of private companies that are worthwhile for the growth investor to consider for their portfolio.

At Growthink the catch-all term we use for the private companies we like best is "emerging." It does not suffer from "commentary fatigue" as do private equity and venture capital, and it effectively carves out the large mass of startups and small businesses destined to stay small.

Webster defines "emerging" as follows:

1. To rise from an obscure or inferior position or condition
2. To rise from or to come out into view
3. To become manifest
4. To come into being through evolution

Let's elaborate on these definitions in the context of an investable company.

1. To Rise From an Obscure or Inferior Position or Condition: Emerging companies are, in their most common and interesting form, small and obscure. Microsoft and Google were once just a small group of programmers and were deep under-the-radar. And if you were invested in them then, your life changed dramatically for the better as they emerged. Less famously but still extremely lucrative were companies like the below that emerged to significant exits for themselves and their investors:
  • About.com: acquired for $410 million by the New York Times
  • Advertising.com: acquired for $435 million by AOL Time Warner
  • Affinity Labs: acquired for $61 million by Monster Worldwide
  • AllBusiness.com: acquired for $55 million by Dun & Bradstreet
  • Aruba Networks: IPO at a $1 billion valuation
  • Club Penguin: acquired for $350 million cash (and possible $350 million earnout) by Disney
  • FraudSciences: acquired for $169 million by PayPal
  • Glu Mobile: IPO at a $371 million valuation
  • Last.fm: acquired for $280 million by CBS
  • Mellanox Technologies: IPO at a $579 million valuation
  • Orbital Data Corp.: acquired for $50 million by Citrix Systems
  • Overture: acquired for $1.63 billion by Yahoo!
  • Photobucket: acquired for $300 million by Fox Interactive Media
  • Speedera Networks: acquired for $130 million by Akamai
  • Skype: acquired for $2.6 billion by eBay
  • The Generations Network: acquired for $300 million by Spectrum Equity Investors

2. To Rise From or To Come Into View: Emerging companies are often ones that have fallen on hard times and are seeking to "rise from" their current distress via turning around and restructuring their businesses. The banking and real estate sectors are right now treasure troves of fantastic distress and turnaround opportunities, as are arenas like publishing and the automotive industry.  As adversity intensifies, so does emerging opportunity.

3. To Become Manifest: Here we need Webster's help again - to become manifest, or to be "readily perceived," or to be "easily understood or recognized." Emerging company businesses are SIMPLE businesses. They make things or provide services, and sell them for more than they cost to make or deliver. And every quarter and every year, they just "chop more wood" and "carry more water," and thus drive revenue and earnings growth. It usually isn't fancy nor often even terribly interesting. But it almost always is easy-to-understand and recognizable in the company's financial statements. An important note here is that emerging companies, contrary to popular belief, are usually NOT venture capital-backed companies. Why? Because they don't need to deficit finance their businesses because they are cash flow positive. In fact, the very sign that a company needs outside financing (see GM, AIG, et al.) is often the best sign that it is NOT an emerging company because they can't make any money. 

4. To Come Into Being Through Evolution: This is perhaps my favorite because it references the essence of any business - the talent of its people and the quality of its corporate culture.  The best emerging companies are always run by a group of hard-working, thoughtful, creative, persistent, and fantastically committed owner-operators. They devote their lives to their businesses for multiple, non-contradictory motives. They want to offer true value to the marketplace with their product and service offerings. They want to leave a legacy via building enterprises of lasting value and character. And they want to make a lot of money. Accomplishing these 3 objectives in a big way involves a lot of trial-and-error and a lot of figuring out all of the ways not to invent the light bulb. While popular business culture is fascinated with the "golden boy entrepreneur" stories (i.e. Microsoft and Google), these are much more the exceptions than the rule. Far more common are stories like Amazon, Kinkos, The Body Shop, Outback Steakhouse, or even Wal-Mart and Hewlett-Packard - companies that had reasonably long gestation periods, and a lot of slow or no growth periods, before evolving to successful forms. And then continuing to evolve as market and competitive conditions dictate.

If you are a fundamental investor, look for the above qualities in companies you are considering for your portfolio.  Look for them quantitatively with the key metric of operating cash flow growth (everything else is subject to accounting whim) and look for them qualitatively in the mindset of management and in the tenor of the corporate culture.  If both the numbers and the business tone align and you can get in before the whole world knows about it, then you have yourself a money-maker.  Or, another way of saying it, an emerging company. 

Idealistic Capitalists


Categories:

Investing in startups and emerging companies is the process of identifying and backing the entrepreneurs and executives with the best ability to move efficiently and profitably from ideas to execution, and then from execution back to ideas and then back to re-focused execution. And finding those that do so on all aspects of their businesses -- marketing and sales, operations and finance.

The entrepreneurs to avoid are those overly focused only on ideas or only on execution. Those focused only on ideas often let the desire for the perfect negate the doable.  They don’t quickly and rigorously subject their ideas to the rumble and tumble of the marketplace. Here we are referring to the great idea person that never gets around to actually executing upon an action plan. 

On the other hand, those entrepreneurs focused on just execution, while at some levels far more effective than the ideas set, are often too slow to react to changing technological, marketplace or competitive conditions. They often define their value offerings so narrowly that they miss adjacent opportunities. Classic examples of this include IBM defining themselves as a computer hardware as opposed to a technology solutions company in the 1980s, thereby ceding the operating system software market opportunity to Microsoft. Or the traditional phone companies in the 1990’s not leveraging their huge patent portfolios to profit in the emerging mobile communications and Internet marketplaces.

Contrastingly, the best entrepreneurs and successful executives are constantly finding the balance between ideas and execution. They are masters at what we at Growthink like to call, “The Business of Ideas.” They are both creative and task-focused, but not too little or too much of either. They make plans and they work them, but they are not slaves to them. They understand that great businesses are inspired by ideas, but their success is counted in cash.  They are, in essence, “idealistic capitalists,” believing that the best ideas, the best products, and the best services make the most money.

Entrepreneurs running businesses like these are few and far between for sure. But when it all comes together, legends are born and fortunes are made.


Effort is Everything


Categories:

Stanford psychology professor Carol Dweck in her book "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success," addresses the fascinating issue of why some people and companies achieve their potential while others equally talented and positioned don't.

The key, interestingly, is not ability.

Rather it is whether ability is viewed as something inherent that needs to be demonstrated or as something that can be developed and increased over time, through persistence and experience. Incredibly important for entrepreneurs is the corollary idea to this -- namely that if you take on the belief that ability can and must be developed (as opposed to being something that you either are or are not born with) that great strides in performance are possible.

This "effort effect" is really a key success metric for emerging and middle market companies. In today's globally competitive, fast-changing marketplace, great companies are built not simply via aggregating talented teams, but via aggregating talented teams and creating a corporate culture that rewards thoughtful risk-taking and "learning on the fly" -- thoughtfully incorporating market and competitive feedback into managerial decision-making processes.

Another way to think of the Effort Effect is that business in the 21st century is not a place for resting on one's laurels, resume, or past successes. Rather, it is an increasingly global, level playing field where individuals and companies can rise from the humblest of circumstances, and via effort and imagination, rise to compete and win on the grandest of stages.

And make themselves and their investors a lot of money in the process.


Seeking Alpha


Categories:

The overriding body of statistical research conducted over the past 30 years shows that the vast majority of all venture, private equity, hedge, and mutual fund manager's investment return performance is worse than that of the market averages.

Stepping back for a moment, one should really be struck by how absolutely amazing this fact really is.

Think about it - here are some of the highest-paid and theoretically smartest people in the world, and yet if you take their advice you will most likely have a below-average performing investment portfolio. A famous feature in the Wall Street Journal for many years had a cross-section of well-regarded investment analysts pick stocks head-to-head against a monkey and a dartboard.

And this randomly-generated portfolio did, on average, appreciably better than the portfolio assembled by the top-shelf analysts.

Now, once-upon-a-time in a more innocent age, these results could be taken in an almost light-hearted manner. Overall stock market performance was generally good enough to overlook the reality that the huge infrastructure of Wall Street brokerages, analysts, and commentators essentially added no value. Over the past 25 years, there was so much money to be had by all as the investment management industry grew from a relatively quiet backwater to the behemoth that it is today, institutional and individual investors did "well enough" to not rock the boat on this issue.

As an aside, I think the main reason for the relative quiet has been that the investment industry has always been truly the ultimate old boy's club. Pension fund managers, the family office guys, the analysts at the big wirehouses and those that ran mutual and hedge and venture and private equity funds all traveled (and still do) in the same social circles. They all went to the same Ivy League colleges. Same golf clubs. Same charity banquets. It has been, for a long time, a nice, lucrative, relatively low stress, insider's game.

But the event of the last 6 months have taught us that those days are over. And from the perspective of believing that entrepreneurs and the operators of companies, and not financial intermediaries, should get the lion's share of a capitalistic economy’s financial rewards, it is about time.

We here at Growthink, as any regular reader of our contributor columns know, are not interested in being sideline commentators or market prognosticators. We'll leave that to the talking heads. Rather, we focus our effort in identifying, in investing in, and in helping startups and emerging companies grow and prosper. Why? First, because we believe that entrepreneurship is by far the greatest force for positive social and economic change in the world today. And second, because in modern, efficient markets, it is ONLY via investing in these companies that investors can consistently earn alpha returns.

Startup and emerging company investing, when done right, offers a unique combination of both value and trading-based fundamentals. Value-based because entrepreneurial companies, on average, offer a far higher probability of revenue, asset, brand, and cash flow growth than larger enterprises.

And trading-based because the equity in these companies can be bought in highly inefficient markets. These inefficiencies are two-fold. First, these companies trade in inherently lopsided markets - there are always a lot more sellers of startup and emerging company equity than there are buyers of it. 

Second, because there are so MANY of them - more than 500,000 new companies in the U.S. coming on-line every month (startups) and more than 2.2 million firms with between 5-100 employees (emerging companies), the savvy, hard-working investor can consistently achieve significant information advantage in diligencing these deals.  

So, to seek alpha, turn off CNBC. Put down the Wall Street Journal. Or, chuckle-chuckle, tune out Washington. Entrepreneurial America has, and will continue to be, your best bet. And in the process of making a lot of money, you just make help change the world for the better. Enough said.


The Role of Outliers in Emerging Company Investing


Categories:

The world of successful startup and emerging company investing is one of outliers.  Winning big requires identifying the "needle in a haystack" company that becomes big and famous.  And  to do so while they are small and fledgling.  The biggest investing fortunes of our era have been made by the early investors in Google, in Amazon, in Apple, in The Body Shop, in Kinko's, and will be made in current high-flying startups like Digg, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Simply Hired, among others.

These companies are outliers.  They beat or are beating the statistics that show that over 90% of all new businesses don't make it one year, that 70% of those that remain don't make it 10 years, and that less than 2 out of 10 achieve exits that make money for their investors. 

Here is the rub, though.  Companies like The Body Shop and Kinkos, when they hit, are so incredibly wealth-producing that they more than make up for the significant majority of companies that do not get to profitable exits for themselves and their investors.  The central rule of startup and emerging company investing is that to win you MUST have one or a few BIG successes in your portfolio.   And by big success, we mean it in the context of Fidelity's famous Peter Lynch, as in a "10-bagger" -- or a return of more than 10x on your principal investment.

So how to get these winners in your portfolio? A heavy influence on my investment philosophy is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, and pecifically his groundbreaking economic and philosophical masterpiece, The Black Swan.  Taleb's 2 main theses as they apply to our investment space are as follows: 1) That all huge early-stage investment successes are, by their very nature, fundamentally unpredictable "outlier" events, and 2) through the cultivation of humilty in the face of this randomness does investment wisdom spring.

So a few cautionary notes. 
First, imbibe deeply the overwhelming evidence that nobody, not Bill Gates, not Steve Jobs, not Sergei Brin, not Jim Kramer, not Kleiner Perkins, not Sequoia Capital, not Genentech, not the sellers at AIG of collateralized debt obligations, not the Federal Reserve Chairman, and certainly not your friendly neighborhood financial advisor can predict the future with any true level of certainty.

Secondly, run, don't walk, away from those who purport that they can or have because this reveals them as being either naive or disingenuous, and usually both. The road to investment hell is paved by those who, through the simple law of averages, got lucky in predicting last month's price of gold, or of oil, or the Dow, or interest rates, or Las Vegas real estate, et al -- and then again, either naively or disingenuously, confused and/or promoted this luck with predictive ability. 
As Warren Buffett once famously noted, if there are a 1,000 stock pickers, the law of averages are such that, every year, 10 of them will show once-in-a-century return performance.  In short, take to heart that past performance is absolutely not indicative of future results and that big negative outlier events -- like the banking and real estate collapses of the past year -- can wipe out decades of investment return in just a few short months.

And to "get in the game" of startup and emerging company investing, approach it, as Taleb would say, with a "fractal" approach.  Expand your perspective beyond the usual investment suspects -- the Dow and big NASDAQ companies -- and look for the following qualities in your investment choices:  Companies with the aforementioned Peter Lynch "10-bagger" potential and ones which, because of the "micro" factors that determine their success, have return dynamics that are uncorrelated with the stock and bond markets as a whole.  Not a hard and fast rule, but the vast, vast majority of companies with these characteristics have high technology and intellectual property-based business models. 

Keep these few thoughts in mind and you will be head and shoulders above the average investor in doing the kind of deal-picking that puts a life-changing deal in your portfolio.

The People, or Execution Risk of a Business


Categories:

In my last column, I wrote about how to measure risk in a startup and/or emerging company.  In today's column, I go deeper into what is by far the biggest factor driving this risk - namely the "people," or execution risk of a company. 

It is extremely hard to identify a management team of a smaller company (or any company, for that matter) with the right combination of small business and corporate smarts, integrity, and work ethic to build and exit a company for themselves and their investors. 

In my 10 years at Growthink, I have had both the benefit and the misfortune of not only investing in and advising a lot of companies that were successful in executing their growth plans, but also a lot of them that weren't.  And it has been in the comparison between the two that has informed my thinking as to what to look for. 

Here are 7 managerial attributes that I have found present in virtually all of the successful companies with which I have worked, and which were lacking in those that failed:

7.  They are, in fact, a Team.  This may seem obvious, but all great companies are not simply the by-product of a visionary and/or charismatic founder and chief executive, but rather of a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted, and well-meshed leadership team.  Great companies have cultures of achievement.  The tone of this culture might be, and usually is, set by by a charismatic founder.  But its enduring success is dependent on how it can replicate and maintain that culture as the company grows, and as its founder's role becomes less pronounced.  

6.  It is clear who is in charge.  This may seem contradictory to the above, but all well-led companies have clear and final points of decision-making.  There are many effective styles of leadership, from greatly autocratic to fundamentally consensual, but all of them share the fact that in them there is one person at whose desk the "buck" truly stops.

5.  They have small business discipline.  To paraphrase Guy Kawasaki -- one of the most informed and battle-tested entrepreneurial commentators out there -- the worst folks to run a startup or an emerging company are a group of ex-Microsoft executives.   Entrepreneurial companies are first and foremost small businesses.  As such, their management must a) fervently guard cash flow and manage with a cult-like intensity and b) always make decisions with the mindset that they only have so many "arrows in the quiver" in terms of time and capital to pursue initiatives.

4.  They are risk-takers.  The proper goal of an entrepreneur with outside investors is not to run a small business in the common sense of the term. With the fear of sounding harsh, the best managers are minimally concerned with protecting their own "middle-class" lifestyles.  Rather, they understand that to achieve greatly requires daring greatly.  For investors, the worst outcome of an investment in a company is not necessarily a flame-out failure, but rather a muddling along driven by too conservative managerial decision-making influenced by the desire to preserve salaries.  Companies run this way in fact usually require MORE money to be invested into them, and thus perversely are actually riskier than their harder-charging brethren.

3.  They are Goldilocks-ish.  While there are certainly outliers in this regard, the significant majority of the best entrepreneurial managers are not "too hot" nor "too cold."  Again, not a hard and fast rule, but most venture firms prefer to back a management team where the key people are between the ages of 30 to 45, have had a few past successes and maybe a failure or two.   They are now in that sweet spot between experience and wisdom, between youthful hunger and energy.  They know what they know yet they still have the intellectual and emotional flexibility and curiousity to change and grow.

2.  They are technologists.   All successful emerging company investments are made in what are, at their essence, technology companies.  This does not mean that they are all what would be considered as classic "emerging technology" companies (though the majority of them, in fact, are).    Rather, well-run modern companies leverage technology -- from CRM and ERP to SEO and SEM to scenario-planning and simulation -- to "best practice" their business models.   Their managers understand that "IT" is not just the domain of a geeky guy to call when computers can't boot up, but is rather the crucial skeleton of the organism of their business.

1.  They are pig-headed, determined, and willing to sacrifice to be successful.  More than anything else, great, modern managers work hard.  As in very, very, very, very hard. They work nights.  They work weekends.  They take short vacations, if any.  They work when they're sick.  They work when they're tired.  They work and work and work and then to paraphrase the great (and famously hard-working) golfer Gary Player, "The harder they work, the luckier they get." 
Look for this quality above all others in leaders and managers -- it is almost always the best predictor of the presence of the other qualities on this list, and of entrepreneurs that make their investors a lot of money.

Sourcing Investment Opportunities via the Internet


Categories: