<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Term Sheet Hacks: Get a Great Deal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks</link>
	<description>Advice for entrepreneurs.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richie "The BootStrapper"</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-1370</link>
		<dc:creator>Richie "The BootStrapper"</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:55:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-1370</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Best way to get good legal advice: make friends with a sharp lawyer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second best way to get good legal advice: refer clients.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Best way to get good legal advice: make friends with a sharp lawyer.</p>
<p>Second best way to get good legal advice: refer clients.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nivi</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-567</link>
		<dc:creator>Nivi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-567</guid>
		<description>A new CEO would get 5-10% of a financed startup. 

Since you're providing access for your new investors, engineering the deal, and generally making the deal possible for your new investors, you should probably receive what a CEO would get in an LBO. I understand that is in the 10-20% range.

Either way, this assumes that you are joining the company and vesting for 3-4 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A new CEO would get 5-10% of a financed startup. </p>
<p>Since you&#8217;re providing access for your new investors, engineering the deal, and generally making the deal possible for your new investors, you should probably receive what a CEO would get in an LBO. I understand that is in the 10-20% range.</p>
<p>Either way, this assumes that you are joining the company and vesting for 3-4 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-531</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-531</guid>
		<description>I'm looking for any general rules of thumb that may explain what is reasonable when it comes to determining the ownership for the Founder and ownership for the investor.  I've created one company fully finance by one VC, who in my opinion took advantage and 2 years into the business cheated me out of half the founders shares.  Now they have decided to sell the company. I have been approached by other investors to back a bid to buy the company.  Gross sales are $60 million per year.  EBITDA is $7.0 million. Original investors will more than double their initial investment (maybe even triple) they made 5 years ago.  Founders share is 5% (was 10%).  
I'm looking for idea of what to ask investors who back the purchase and further growth of the company.
Thanks,
AG</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m looking for any general rules of thumb that may explain what is reasonable when it comes to determining the ownership for the Founder and ownership for the investor.  I&#8217;ve created one company fully finance by one VC, who in my opinion took advantage and 2 years into the business cheated me out of half the founders shares.  Now they have decided to sell the company. I have been approached by other investors to back a bid to buy the company.  Gross sales are $60 million per year.  EBITDA is $7.0 million. Original investors will more than double their initial investment (maybe even triple) they made 5 years ago.  Founders share is 5% (was 10%).<br />
I&#8217;m looking for idea of what to ask investors who back the purchase and further growth of the company.<br />
Thanks,<br />
AG</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-431</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:51:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-431</guid>
		<description>Prior to Series A funding 'the company' and very likely the board is severally the founders.  So, prior to a series A closing and a board with external investors being formed you, Mr. Silicon Valley Lawyer, effectively and materially represent the founders who are the owners of the company.  Your argument in this case is nothing but an example of legal sophistry.  

Maybe dont have the guts, nor the moral fibre, to do your fudiciary duty and go to bat for founders because you know you'll be black balled in future by the VC firm concerned for being too founder friendly.  

Bottom line, you represent the interests of the guy/s that sign your engagement letter.   They count on you to represent them.  They are the incumbent shareholders of the company.   The company board, which is not a human being,  is nothing a representation of an aggregate of those founder shareholder  interests other prior to series A funding.  

You do not report to the board that is formed after closing but the one that exists before it.  The board prior to funding represents the founders.  Therefore, you represent the founders.  Kapish?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prior to Series A funding &#8216;the company&#8217; and very likely the board is severally the founders.  So, prior to a series A closing and a board with external investors being formed you, Mr. Silicon Valley Lawyer, effectively and materially represent the founders who are the owners of the company.  Your argument in this case is nothing but an example of legal sophistry.  </p>
<p>Maybe dont have the guts, nor the moral fibre, to do your fudiciary duty and go to bat for founders because you know you&#8217;ll be black balled in future by the VC firm concerned for being too founder friendly.  </p>
<p>Bottom line, you represent the interests of the guy/s that sign your engagement letter.   They count on you to represent them.  They are the incumbent shareholders of the company.   The company board, which is not a human being,  is nothing a representation of an aggregate of those founder shareholder  interests other prior to series A funding.  </p>
<p>You do not report to the board that is formed after closing but the one that exists before it.  The board prior to funding represents the founders.  Therefore, you represent the founders.  Kapish?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Naval</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-337</link>
		<dc:creator>Naval</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 00:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-337</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately this is one of those "it depends" answers. The major factors are time to liquidity, size of the fund, success of the VC, and success of the fund.

1) The faster you get to liquidity, the smaller it needs to be to count as a win. 3x in one year is a win. 3x in 10 years is not.

2) Biggest factor is size of the fund and how much the investment returns relative to that size.

3) The more successful the VC historically, the bigger the win they need (Sequoia may want 50x while no-name VC might be happy with 5x)

4) The more successful this particular fund is so far, the more anxious the VC is to get this fund done, closed, and move on to the next one. Late in a successful fund's cycle, the VC is looking to liquidate companies and move on to the next and usually larger fund...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately this is one of those &#8220;it depends&#8221; answers. The major factors are time to liquidity, size of the fund, success of the VC, and success of the fund.</p>
<p>1) The faster you get to liquidity, the smaller it needs to be to count as a win. 3x in one year is a win. 3x in 10 years is not.</p>
<p>2) Biggest factor is size of the fund and how much the investment returns relative to that size.</p>
<p>3) The more successful the VC historically, the bigger the win they need (Sequoia may want 50x while no-name VC might be happy with 5x)</p>
<p>4) The more successful this particular fund is so far, the more anxious the VC is to get this fund done, closed, and move on to the next one. Late in a successful fund&#8217;s cycle, the VC is looking to liquidate companies and move on to the next and usually larger fund&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nivi</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-336</link>
		<dc:creator>Nivi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 19:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-336</guid>
		<description>A few thoughts:

1. Ask the firm what they consider a win. See how aligned you are. Check this when you do reference calls on your investors.

2. Pare back protective provisions so the investors lose their right to veto a sale if the share price hits a threshold. We'll cover this in a future hack.

3. You can always re-negotiate with your investors if you have an offer to buy the company.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few thoughts:</p>
<p>1. Ask the firm what they consider a win. See how aligned you are. Check this when you do reference calls on your investors.</p>
<p>2. Pare back protective provisions so the investors lose their right to veto a sale if the share price hits a threshold. We&#8217;ll cover this in a future hack.</p>
<p>3. You can always re-negotiate with your investors if you have an offer to buy the company.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nattybumpo</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-333</link>
		<dc:creator>nattybumpo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 16:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-333</guid>
		<description>Thank you, fellas.  Another broader question on the VC process:  What is a win????
In other words, VC's like to say that they are looking for 10x their money.  Yet many know that if they make 3x their money, they are happy.

So....imagine that one has the opportunity to take $5M at a pre-money of $15M, or take $2M at a pre-money of $6M.  Arguably, the expectations from the VC firm are significantly different.  ie: in the $5M scenario, the VC expects a $200M liquidity event, whereas in the $2M scenario, the VC expects an $80M liquidity event.

From the entrepreneur's perspective, this is confusing.  On one side, for the same dilution, the more cash the better.  On the other, if the entrepreneur and VC are mis-aligned in terms of what constitutes a "win" I've heard horror stories in which the VC vetoes a sale and then market conditions  change.  ie: if a buyer comes along with a check for $50M and this is a win for the entrepreneur, but not for the VC, this could be a problem, that could potentially have been mitigated in how much money to raise.

Any thoughts, O' sherpas of the VC world?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, fellas.  Another broader question on the VC process:  What is a win????<br />
In other words, VC&#8217;s like to say that they are looking for 10x their money.  Yet many know that if they make 3x their money, they are happy.</p>
<p>So&#8230;.imagine that one has the opportunity to take $5M at a pre-money of $15M, or take $2M at a pre-money of $6M.  Arguably, the expectations from the VC firm are significantly different.  ie: in the $5M scenario, the VC expects a $200M liquidity event, whereas in the $2M scenario, the VC expects an $80M liquidity event.</p>
<p>From the entrepreneur&#8217;s perspective, this is confusing.  On one side, for the same dilution, the more cash the better.  On the other, if the entrepreneur and VC are mis-aligned in terms of what constitutes a &#8220;win&#8221; I&#8217;ve heard horror stories in which the VC vetoes a sale and then market conditions  change.  ie: if a buyer comes along with a check for $50M and this is a win for the entrepreneur, but not for the VC, this could be a problem, that could potentially have been mitigated in how much money to raise.</p>
<p>Any thoughts, O&#8217; sherpas of the VC world?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Naval</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-327</link>
		<dc:creator>Naval</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 06:07:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-327</guid>
		<description>Most VCs, especially early stage ones, hate it when you come knocking with an investment bank. You look too weak and unconnected to get an intro on your own, it looks like you have bad judgement paying the bank a % of the round to shop you around, they don't like their money going to the middleman, and the whole thing smells like a pure price auction (most investors like to believe that they and their money is special).

I wouldn't do it except for a very late stage company being shopped to purely financial or to corporate investors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most VCs, especially early stage ones, hate it when you come knocking with an investment bank. You look too weak and unconnected to get an intro on your own, it looks like you have bad judgement paying the bank a % of the round to shop you around, they don&#8217;t like their money going to the middleman, and the whole thing smells like a pure price auction (most investors like to believe that they and their money is special).</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t do it except for a very late stage company being shopped to purely financial or to corporate investors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nivi</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-324</link>
		<dc:creator>Nivi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 21:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-324</guid>
		<description>Nattybumpo,

On one hand, it makes all the sense in the world that entrepreneurs who need expert help should be able to hire somebody to help them raise money.

On the other hand, there's already tons of biased but still good advice from VCs on the web on how to raise money. My guess is that most of the placement agents you can hire are going to give you worse advice than you can get from a few blogs. For example, I constantly refer people to David Cowan's &lt;a href="http://whohastimeforthis.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-to-not-write-business-plan.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;How To NOT Write A Business Plan&lt;/a&gt;.

There there is the adverse selection signal you send by going to a boutique firm. e.g. if you are good you don't need the help, if you are bad you do need the help. (I hate adverse selection arguments but you should be aware of this signal).

I don't want to say that it isn't that hard to get intros to VCs but I will: "It isn't that hard to get intros to VCs." In general, they're looking for companies that are already succeeding in huge markets. Nothing succeeds like success and VCs invest in success. They're not entrepreneurs with a passion. If you're succeeding, you should be able to get the meetings.

Angels are more relevant if you are early or you are looking more for a passion investor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nattybumpo,</p>
<p>On one hand, it makes all the sense in the world that entrepreneurs who need expert help should be able to hire somebody to help them raise money.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there&#8217;s already tons of biased but still good advice from VCs on the web on how to raise money. My guess is that most of the placement agents you can hire are going to give you worse advice than you can get from a few blogs. For example, I constantly refer people to David Cowan&#8217;s <a href="http://whohastimeforthis.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-to-not-write-business-plan.html" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outbound/whohastimeforthis.blogspot.com');">How To NOT Write A Business Plan</a>.</p>
<p>There there is the adverse selection signal you send by going to a boutique firm. e.g. if you are good you don&#8217;t need the help, if you are bad you do need the help. (I hate adverse selection arguments but you should be aware of this signal).</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t want to say that it isn&#8217;t that hard to get intros to VCs but I will: &#8220;It isn&#8217;t that hard to get intros to VCs.&#8221; In general, they&#8217;re looking for companies that are already succeeding in huge markets. Nothing succeeds like success and VCs invest in success. They&#8217;re not entrepreneurs with a passion. If you&#8217;re succeeding, you should be able to get the meetings.</p>
<p>Angels are more relevant if you are early or you are looking more for a passion investor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nattybumpo</title>
		<link>http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-323</link>
		<dc:creator>nattybumpo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 17:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://venturehacks.com/articles/term-sheet-hacks#comment-323</guid>
		<description>Howdy.  What are your thoughts on hiring a boutique investment firm to help raise a VC round?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Howdy.  What are your thoughts on hiring a boutique investment firm to help raise a VC round?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
