Category Archives: Start-up data

Going public when you are not a US start-up – part 1/4: Transmode

I was studying recent IPO filings and discovered (more by accident than on purpose), that some of these companies were not US-based. I wanted first to know more about Chinese success stories, Baidu and Alibaba, and at the same time heard of Envivio’s filing and Transmode IPO. Envivio has roots in France (just as Sequans which I also studied a few weeks ago) and Transmode is based in Sweden.

I remember visiting Transmode during my days with Index. Transmode was and is a start-up in the Telecom sector, providing solutions for fiber-based local networks. The company just went public on the Stockholm stock exchange, 11 years after its IPO. The prospectus was in Swedish so that the data should be handled with care! An interesting element of information, if we agree high-tech is a global business.

The cap. table that you just discovered shows the history of the company has probably not been simple. Transmode has raised $45M since 2002 but this is the “new” Transmode, which is the outcome of the merger of Lumentis, another Swedish start-up with the old Transmode. At the time of merger the combined entities had raised $61M. There is money available in Europe, no doubt. They were 7 founders in each firm, but none appears in the Transmode IPO filing.

Investors owned 76% of the start-up before the IPO, 56% after the sale of 25% of the company to the public. With about 700M Swedish Kronas in revenues (about $100M), the company is valued 2x its annual revenues. Nice but not great. Still a sign that high-tech is viewed more favorably than during the last decade.

Next: Envivio.

The IPO fever goes on: Groupon files to go public!

The latest IPO filing is 3 year-old Groupon. After raising more than $1B from its (famous) investors, the start-up hopes to sell $750M worth of shares at its IPO. I quickly build the capitalization table which follows (hoping there are not too many mistakes). I will update it when the IPO nears including the shares sold by existing stockholders, if any.

Worth noticing is the crazy valuation some “savvy” investors such as KP, Greylock or Battery paid for their shares. The other winners, besides the Groupon founders, should be the German start-up CityDeal launched by the Sawmer brothers (from the European Founders Fund).

I assumed a price per share of $19M but this is just to accomodate the $750M the company wants to raise with a consistent number of shares. I made no assumption on existing vs. new shares. Some analysts claim Groupon value would be more in the $20B range (i.e. a price per share of $60.)

Final comment for today: Groupon declined to be acquired by Google for about $6B last December. We’ll see soon if they were right to do so…

When Google wasn’t (yet) Google…

A friend of mine just gave me a bunch of old Upside and Red Herring magazines. For those who are too young, these were the references in high-tech and entrepreneurship in the late 90’s and early 00’s! I plan to go through them and when something will attract me, I might mention it here. So here is the first example:

In May 2000, search engines were still nice internet tools that did not make that much money. Google was a hot start-up with two brilliant Stanford PhD students, and no real CEO. SO here is what Upside was saying:

Searching for profits. By John F. Ince, Upside Magazine, May 2000.

The pioneers had to expand to make money. Will the next wave fare any better?

During meetings, they bounce on huge rubber exercise balls. “It helps us to think better,» explains one employee. Between meetings, they blow off steam in the air hockey room, rollerblade; and ride bikes at the bay-front park, or go downstairs for a massage. At lunch and dinner, they dine on gourmet meals prepared by Charles le Chef, previously employed by members of the Grateful Dead and diverse upscale restaurants. Classical music from a baby grand piano will soon waft through the lobby. Welcome to Googleplex, home of a hot, new search engine that two Stanford Ph.D. candidates are riding like a cresting wave on an ocean off avorable publicity into a Never Never Land, where money is as plentiful as 3D-foot waves at Maverick’s, and nobody seems too concerned about wipeouts or ever having to turn a profit.

In November 1999, Fortune wrote, “Google seems to exhibit inscrutable magic.” But the biggest mystery is that the company seems to give such short shrift to the more mundane aspects of developing corporate strategy, penetrating new markets, and creating revenue. Nor does anyone in Googleplex have a clear timetable for when Google will turn search technology into profit. “Our number one priority,” says co-founder Larry Page, “is improving our technology and the user experience. We are insanely focused on that.”

In terms of pure technology, Google is getting the best reviews. According to a competitive survey conducted by NPD Online Research, Google came out at the top of the list in overall user satisfaction and loyalty. The survey included the top 13 search and portal sites and was commissioned by 13 major Internet companies, including America Online, Ask Jeeves, HotBot, LookSmart, Lycos, Excite, Go Network, GoTo.com, Netscape, WebCrawler, and Yahoo. What makes Google’s technology so cool? “It is a sophisticated next-generation search engine that uses complex mathematical algorithms to determine the importance and relevancy of Web pages,” says CEO Larry Page. Whereas most search engines use a keyword or metasearch technology, Google emphasizes making sure that the most important result comes up first. To do this, Google takes advantage of the expertise of millions of the “highly qualified editors,” out there who are creating, formatting and linking their Web sites. Google is hypertext-based and takes a gestalt view of information, analyzing all the content on each Web page. It considers such factors as fonts, subdivisions, and the positioning of all the terms on the page. It also factors in what’s happening in the site’s neighborhood. It looks at links and comes up with results that more often than not are superior to other searches in the critical category of relevancy. Google also provides searchers with an excerpt from the Web page with search terms highlighted in boldface type.

“I was very impressed, especially with their commitment to technological excellence,” says John Doerr of Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield, and Byers. Kleiner eventually invested and : Doerr took a position on Google’s board, as did Sequoia Capital’s Moritz.”People thought we were crazy, both investing and both going on the board of yet another search engine,” says Doerr. “But their search numbers kept going through the roof, and still do.” In a little over two years since the release of its beta site, Google’s capability has gone from 50,000 searches a day to more than 10 million. Half of those searches emanate from Google’s Web site, google.com, and half from co-branded Web sites that contract with Google to provide search.

“Google is a shining example of superior technology actually drawing traffic on the Internet rather than marketing,” says Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Watch. Can Page and Sergei Brinn, Google’s other 20-something founder, translate their technology into a profitable business even though they have no business experience? Will they eventually hand over the reins to a seasoned veteran, as Yahoo’s founders did with Tim Koogle? “We have had discussions,” says Brinn, “and when the right candidate appears we will hire that person.” Moritz isn’t sure the process will be so smooth. “When will we know when we have found the right candidate?” he asks. “We won’t. Jerry [Yang] and David [Filo] weren’t sure that Tim Koogle was the right guy at Yahoo. They asked, ‘How do we know that TK is the one for the job?’ We didn’t. You only find that out after.” Will Moritz and Doerr force the issue? “We are investors, not managers,” says Moritz. “We can argue our position, proffer advice, make suggestions, twist arms gently, but we can’t force them to do anything. This is their company.”

Is Google positioning itself for acquisition, like Direct Hit, or does it intend to go it alone? “We are constantly talking with the other portals and search engines about possible partnerships,” says Brinn cryptically. “It is a very small community,” he adds. According to IDC’s Parr, “If you’ve got the money to [remain independent], it’s a reasonable strategy,” He continues, “Build word of mouth, build a team, get product ready.” Google’s strategy is to make money via co-branded WebSearch, SiteSearch, and advertising. WebSearch offers commercial Web sites such as Netscape’s Netcentral portal and The Washington Post search capability for the Internet at large. Google has licensed its SiteSearch technology to other Web sites, such as Linux vendor, Redhat.com, enabling users to search for information contained only on RedHat’s site. But these contracts only provide compensation in the vicinity of S5 to $10 per thousand searches- not much of a revenue source. Google expects its new banner advertising program, highly targeted to specific users, to account for 60 percent of its revenues within two years. “When your customers are doing search, you know a lot about them,” says Page. “That knowledge base can be monetized in higher advertising rates.”

There are many lessons, but for me the most striking is that VCs do not seem to dictate what the founders will do. Of course, Google was and is an excpetion in many dimensions, but it shows that entrepreneurs are the real center of Silicon Valley. The second striking point is the fact that technology was Google’s main asset. There was a bet that their technology leadership would convert at some point into a profitable business.

Is There A Peak Age for Entrepreneurship?

My friend Jordi mentioned to me the TechCrunch article Is There A Peak Age for Entrepreneurship? where the author writes in conclusion: “Age is only one factor among many to predict the success of entrepreneurs, and anybody at any age can break any molds put forward by “experts.” However, it’s clear that the stories of a few “college-dropout turned millionaire” (or billionaire) startup founders have clouded both the mass media and the tech industry from reality. We have romanticized the idea of a young founder because, well, it’s a great story, but these stories are not the norm. In the end, classic biases of gender, race, and age need to be discarded for a real science of success.”

Well I am not sure I agree so that I reacted and put there the following comment: “It is clearly a recurrent question and I have humbly a tendency to believe that young is better than old. On slide 27 of the pdf you can find on my blog (https://www.startup-book.com/2009/12/16/start-up-the-book-a-visual-summary), there is anecdotal-only illustration that some famous Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (not all of course) were younger than successful European ones. Then, in a more systematic analysis of Stanford alumni, I looked at how many years after graduation people started companies (slide 23 in https://www.startup-book.com/2010/06/18/high-growth-and-profits). The average is about 9 years but of course it includes the multiple companies of serial entrepreneurs. Finally in slide 26, I show that serial entrepreneurs seem to do worse with time. I have more data that show that those who were successful initially tend to do well again and those who did less well do less well again. So?
A couple of additional comments:
– I believe that high-tech is special as uncertainty is higher because of the risky nature of the products and new/emerging markets.
– I agree with some previous comments that experience is to be balanced with energy, ability to take risks and not being too conscious of them.
– Of course age is only one parameter, and there is also wealth, education, energy, entrepreneurial personality.
– Final comments: entrepreneurs and managers are different. Eric Schmidt did not start Google, he was hired in 2001…”

A look back at equity and Cap. Tables

I have been producing many Cap. Tables in my book first and in this blog second. I thought it was a good time to give the full list up to now, classified by general fields, Internet, Software, Hardware / Computers / Telco /Networks, then Semiconductors, Biotech/Medtech. So here are the equity tables for:

Internet:

You should notice that this document is updated with the new cap. tables being added from time to time…

– Alibaba
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/06/09/going-public-when-you-are-not-a-us-start-up-part-34-alibaba/
– Baidu
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/06/14/going-public-when-you-are-not-a-us-start-up-part-44-baidu/
– eBay
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/
– Facebook
https://www.startup-book.com/2010/10/19/the-social-network/
– Google
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also in book Table 3-14
– Groupon
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/06/04/the-ipo-fever-goes-on-groupon-files-to-go-public/
– Kelkoo
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/05/06/cap-table-kelkoo/
– LinkedIn
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/05/09/linkedin-prices-ipo/
– Pandora
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/02/15/pandora-wants-to-go-public/
– Paypal
https://www.startup-book.com/2010/03/24/maxlinear-ipo-and-shareholders/
– Rediff
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/06/16/going-public-when-you-are-not-a-us-start-up-part-54-india
– Skype
https://www.startup-book.com/2010/08/16/skype-ipo-filing/ and https://www.startup-book.com/2008/04/17/cap-table-skype/
– Twitter
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/03/01/if-twitter-was-going-public-some-far-fetched-assumptions/
– Yahoo
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also in book Table 3-15
– Zillow
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/07/20/the-z-ipos-zynga-zillow-zipcar-and-zuckerberg/
– Zipcar
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/07/20/the-z-ipos-zynga-zillow-zipcar-and-zuckerberg/
– Zynga
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/07/20/the-z-ipos-zynga-zillow-zipcar-and-zuckerberg/

Software:

– Adobe
https://www.startup-book.com/2009/03/17/a-success-story-adobe-systems-john-warnock-and-charles-geschke/
– Business Objects:  in book Table 8-11
– CheckPoint
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/02/22/check-point-the-israel-success-story/
– Microsoft
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/03/30/the-deal-that-made-bill-gates-rich/ as well as in book Table A-2
– mysql
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/04/10/cap-table-mysql/
– Oracle Corporation: in book Table A-4
– Selectica
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/06/16/going-public-when-you-are-not-a-us-start-up-part-54-india

Hardware, Computers, and Telco/Networks:

– A123
https://www.startup-book.com/2010/02/26/a123-boston-and-atlas/
– Apple Computers:  in book Table 3-17
– Cisco: in book Table A-3
– Carbonite
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/08/04/ipo-again-carbonite-is-the-new-star/
– Envivio
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/06/08/going-public-when-you-are-not-a-us-start-up-part-24-envivio/
– Fusion-Io
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/04/05/wozniak-is-back/
– Gemplus: in book Table 8-12
– Isilon
https://www.startup-book.com/2010/11/17/a-typical-success-story-not-silicon-valley-though/
– Logitech, https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also in book Table 8-10
– ONI Systems: in book Table 3-8
– Riverbed
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also in book Table 3-16
– Sun Microsystems: in book Table 3-13
– Tesla Motors
https://www.startup-book.com/2010/03/24/maxlinear-ipo-and-shareholders/
– Transmode
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/06/07/going-public-when-you-are-not-a-us-start-up-part-14-transmode/
– Wavecom
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/07/01/when-wavecom-was-surfing/

Semiconductor and EDA:

– Apache Design
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/03/22/the-return-of-electronic-design-automation-apache-ipo-filing/
– Arm Holdings
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also Table 8-13 in book
– Atheros
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/01/14/success-is-management-of-failure/ and https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also in book Table 3-10
– Cambridge Silicon Radio: in book Table 8-16
– Centillium
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/01/14/success-is-management-of-failure/
– Intel  Corporation: in book Table A-1
– Magma Design Automation:  in book Table 6-3
– Maxlinear
https://www.startup-book.com/2010/03/24/maxlinear-ipo-and-shareholders/
– MIPS Computer:  in book Table 3-11
– Numerical
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also in book Table 3-9
– Rambus
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also in book Table 3-12
– Sequans
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/05/11/a-french-start-up-goes-public-on-nyse/
– Soitec: in book Table 8-14
– Synopsys
https://www.startup-book.com/2009/12/11/a-european-in-silicon-valley-aart-de-geus/ also in book Table A-5
– Virata
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/ also in book Table 8-15

Biotech/Medtech:

– Actelion
https://www.startup-book.com/2008/10/30/equity-split-in-start-ups/
– Chiron
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/03/09/biotech-data-part-13-chiron/
– Genentech
https://www.startup-book.com/2009/06/11/bob-swanson-herbert-boyer-genentech/
– Genzyme
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/03/14/biotech-data-part-23-genzyme/
– Intuitive Surgical
https://www.startup-book.com/2010/08/26/intuitive-surgical/

Misc:

– RPX Corp
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/01/27/is-there-something-rotten-in-the-kingdom-of-vc/
– The Active Network
https://www.startup-book.com/2011/02/18/when-a-cap-table-is-a-nightmare/

A French start-up goes public on NYSE

Sequans is a wireless chip company which went public last month. This is a rare enough event to be worth a post. All the more as the start-up is French and it went public on the New York stock exchange. It may not look like a great IPO but for a non-US company, it is a real achievement (there had been Ilog, Business Objects and a few other French start-ups). What is also interesting is that it did not have US VCs and the company was founded in 2003, less than 8 years to go public.

What else worth commenting?
– the company had raised more than €50M prior to IPO and $66M at IPO.
– the founding team had experience with another US company (Juniper)
– VCs come from France (i-source, SGAM) and the UK (Add Partners, Kennet). Later on, it added strategic investors (Swisscom, Alcatel, Motorola).
– All shareholders sold a little piece of their stake (about 3-5%)

LinkedIn prices IPO

After LinkedIn IPO filing, here is more: LinkedIn priced its IPO at $32-35 and some additional data are provided in the cap. table. The new stuff is in green compared to my previous post:

– the company will sell 4.8M new shares (with an option for 1.17M more) and 3.0M from selling shareholders raising $146M after fees (and more than $180M if the option is exercised).

– the list of selling shareholders is provided, which gave another piece of new info:

– two founders (Eric Ly and Konstantin Guericke) sell some of their shares so that we now know they own respectively 1.3% and 0.9% respectively. We know nothing about Allen Blue and Jean-Luc Vaillant.

Board members and equity in start-ups

I’m regularly asked how to share or distribute equity in start-ups. One related question is how much equity should be given to board members. I am not discussing here investors’ seats on the board as they represent the equity owned by the funds, but only the independent board members, those who have a specific expertise to help the company (industry expert, scientific expert, business expert). There is an implicit assumption: board members do not receive cash (except the reimbursement of out of pocket expenses).

As a general rule, I heard many times that the independent board members as a group should not represent more than 2% of the company, and individual board member not more than 0.5-1%. (As a comparison, I had mentioned in documents in the past (including Equity Split in Start-ups) that a CEO is about 5-10%, a VP between 0.5 and 2% and a technical director about 0.2%. The rule of thumb is dividing by 5 at each level, CEO 5, VP, 1, director 0.2).

I just had a look at my past cap. tables and S1 documents and listed below examples of independent board members. The table gives the company and board members’ names and then how much the director had just before the IPO, which is related to the founders’s specific shares. On average, they have 0.24% of the company and about 1% of what founders own. This is consistent with what I had been saying for years. 🙂

Wozniak is back!

Going through the higher and higher number of IPO filings, I was suprised to find Wozniak’s names among the officers of one the filing companies. Steve Wozniak, Apple co-founder, is the chief scientist of Fusion-io, a Salt Lake City start-up which has raised more than $100M with NEA and LightSpeed and made more than $30M in revenues in 2010.

Wozniak is neither a founder nor apparently a big shareholder. At least the S-1 filing does not mention his stake, which means that he has less than 5% of the company. My usual cap. table shows typical numbers. The two founders remain with 6.1 and 4.7% each, investors have about 50% of the company and the ESOP is 20% (25% if I include available options for future grants). All this assumes the company goes public and includes the future IPO shares.

One detail I will focus on in a post to come is equity given to independant board members (VCs are on the board but usually do not own equity personally). Here Ray Bingham and Dana Evan own 0.03% of the company and less than 1% of the founders shares.

The deal that made Bill Gates rich

I was having a chat with an EPFL professor who asked be if I had read the reprint of the Business Week article about Microsoft IPO. I had not even heard of it. It is a very interesting description of the IPO process so even it is a long article, you should read it.

I had included Microsoft cap. table at IPO in my book and here is a slightly improved version. It is interesting to notice that
– Microsoft had been founded 11 years earlier,
– Microsoft did not need to go public (just as Google a few years ago and Facebook today).
– There was very little venture capital money, so Gates and Allen were not much diluted.