Venture capital funding should be “nice to have” not a “need to have” for most businesses. There are some really exceptional businesses being built these days.

However, there are more and more businesses that are being built predominantly with external capital. Venture capital can be used to accelerate existing growth but shouldn’t be used as a lifeline in itself.

How many startups are on a perpetual tour of gas stations? Going from one funding round to another with the dream of eventually getting acquired without ever becoming a self-sustaining business.

Arguably, there are two ways that you could look at building a business; 1) The Thiel way, and 2) The Rabois way.

Thiel’s approach suggests that you should focus on a small market, dominate, and then expand. This is prudent advice for first-time founders that are proving their mettle.

Rabois’ method is to go after a large market from inception and be willing to lose money until you’ve reached dominance. Once you’ve reached dominance you can exploit the economies of scale as well as pricing power that comes from owning a market.

This post looks at where external capital isn’t suitable, companies that have successfully scaled without external capital, and some of the issues that follow when startups take on too much external capital.

Also Read: How do you raise VC funding as a student entrepreneur? Find out the answers here

Stay away from subscale

Some startups are focused on applying the Rabois’ approach when acquiring a subscale market. This makes the unit economics that come with scale a distant mirage.

There’s nothing wrong with building a business in a subscale market. There’s a real niche for operators that are able to do it well and the returns on capital can be significantly higher than you could expect from other asset classes.

However, a lot of the time, these types of businesses don’t require external capital to scale. They just take time and effort.

Startups that weren’t reliant on external capital

There are a number of companies that have been successful and turned into billion-dollar companies without raising external capital, such as:

MailChimp — Ben Chestnut was running a design consulting agency and had a stream of clients who wanted email newsletters created. The company is now easily worth over US$2 billion without ever going through the VC fundraising process.
Lynda: Lynda Weinman built the product tutorial-by-tutorial before the company was acquired by LinkedIn for US$1.5 billion.
AdaFruit Industries and SparkFun: Two DIY kit companies that were able to find their market are now selling >US$30 million worth of kits each year.
Braintree payments: Braintree helped users exchange money online without worrying about being robbed by the other side. It eventually raised US$69 million in two rounds before being acquired for US$800 million.
Shopify: Went three years before raising its first round of external funding.
Shutterstock: Developed by a professional developer and amateur photographer, the company’s worth US$2 billion and never needed to raise external capital.
Tough Mudder: Will Dean was able to create a company that has US$100 million in annual revenue out of a small amount of personal savings.
Loot Crate: The company which creates subscription boxes for geeks, didn’t raise any money for the first four years and it was still able to generate US$100 million in revenue before raising external capital.
Mojang: The company behind Minecraft employed only 50 people and earned over a billion dollars before it was sold to Microsoft for US$2.5 billion.

The above companies either didn’t raise external capital at all or they didn’t raise external capital until they had found a successful business model that they could scale.

There are funding solutions available for entrepreneurs to prove out product-market fit but unless the market is there and it’s significant, venture funding might not necessarily be the right fit for a majority of companies.

It’s getting easier to go nowhere

It has likely become somewhat easier to raise capital over the last capital cycle because “startups are cool” and there has been a lot of press about the companies that have knocked it out of the park — although, less press about all the people that have tried and failed.

The lack of returns available through traditional asset classes combined with the hype has created one side of the marketplace — capital seeking a home. A switch in culture from wanting to work for large enterprises to “grinding it out in a start-up to change the world” has likely created the other side — people willing to try something new.

Largely, this will be beneficial for society as a whole as people get closer to realising their potential and no longer operate under the agency constraints of larger enterprises.

However, a lot of these businesses should be built organically and aren’t the typical candidates for external funding as a stopgap for real customers. It’s important to note that there’s a downside to taking on external funding.

Also read: Is your startup in need of funding? Let the e27 Pro Fundraising Highlight do the trick!

In the situation where there’s an exit, if there has been too much dilution and there’s an aggressive capital stack, there might not be that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the founders.

The founders of Get Satisfaction didn’t get anything when they sold the company after raising U$10 million at a U$50 million valuation — the sales price was undisclosed.

Capital stacks

But how could this be so? Let me walk you through an example:

It’s important to understand the capital stack when looking at the last valuation.

Assume that a company raises US$3 million at a US$10 million pre-money valuation using preference shares in the first round and then subsequently US$10 at a US$50 million pre-money valuation in a later round (total raised = US$13 million).
The later investors could have a two-time liquidation preference (let’s just assume that they were able to negotiate those terms).
The later investors might be willing to give the company a higher valuation because the headline number makes it look like the company is a rocket ship on a trajectory to the moon. This makes it easier for the company to secure future investors, customers, and employees — all important issues that need to be solved for a young business.
However, this also creates the issue of the overlords (investors) needing to be fed before the founders and employees are able to eat.
In the above example, US$23 million (US$3 million invested in the first round and US$10 million at a two-times liquidity preference) needs to be repaid to the investors who stand in front of the founders and employees.
The company is typically raising at a valuation that it will grow into, which could take months or years.
If the company is subsequently sold for US$30 million, then the other shareholders (not the investors but the founders and early employees who received equity) will receive US$7 million or only 23 per cent of the sales price.
If the company is sold at U$50 million (the last valuation), then the other shareholders will receive 54 per cent.
The company needs to be sold for at least US$50 million to ensure that the preferred shareholders have their liquidity preference repaid.
The important thing to note here is that while there was only 46 per cent dilution (30 per cent in the first round, which was subsequently diluted again and 20 per cent in the second round), the founders and early employees only receive 23 per cent of the sales price if the company is sold for less than the last valuation.

It’s difficult to understand capital stacks and early employees typically aren’t given that much visibility into the investment rounds and terms. They’ll typically only see the headline number, which doesn’t tell the whole story.

The businesses that could look for venture capital should be looking to tackle a large market, have proven operators that can execute, and be able to scale quickly.

A startup should have some idea about where the customers will come from and what they’re willing to pay before raising venture capital.

Companies that are reliant on external capital will lack the resilience necessary to survive an exogenous shock that could cause a rise in funding costs.

–

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing contributions from the community. Become a thought leader in the community and share your opinions or ideas and earn a byline by submitting a post.

Join our e27 Telegram group, or like the e27 Facebook page

Image Credit: Startaê Team on Unsplash

The post Does your startup really need to be externally funded? appeared first on e27.