VC Life

[abrown83]

So a couple people asked me to share some stories about the VC blood suckers, err VC companies that I work with.

This is going to have to be broken up over a couple days.

So let me first give you an overview of what I call the “Giving Somebody Else Your Business” business model that is Venture Capital.

So the first and most important thing to realize is that Shark Tank is not VC. VC is a sick and disgusting business model that is designed to make the mega rich richer at the expense of small businesses.

So let me take you through the beginning stages of how all this works.

You have a business and you have received some initial funding or boot strapped together an idea and you are now getting ready to take your product to market. This is really your first true round of Venture Capital. At this point you need money to hire sales people, marketing staff, operations staff and additional developers to take your product to market.

So you begin to talk to a VC firm. They tell you how amazing you are, how you have such a great idea that is going to revolutionize the world, blah blah blah. At this point they offer you money on some totally made up valuation that the VC comes up with based on really smart people that understand market capitalization of your entire industry and your businesses potential in that industry (this is really important so read that sentence again because it is laying the ground work for them being blood suckers).

You have no idea what your business is worth and somebody is offering you millions of dollars and says you are now going to be CEO and blah, blah, blah by time they are done your dick is so chaffed from cumming so many times.

Now in your excitement you are about to miss the first time the VC company is about to fuck you in the ass. They are going to offer you essentially two choices. A bigger percentage of the company or a smaller percentage for more spots on the Board. It’s a false choice, both ways the VC ends up controlling your business that you founded because if they control the Board they can fire you at any time. If they control the stock, they will eventually control the Board and they can fire you at any time.

Now you gladly take the money because you have just been told how they are going to make you a billionaire. So you sign the paperwork and all of a sudden you find out you have to move to the San Francisco valley and work out of their business incubator. Which you come to find out is their CEO bootcamp to turn you into a successful CEO because most likely you come from a technical background of some sort and have no idea what is involved in running a multi-million dollar business.

Here is the second time where you will begin to learn that the VC will anally rape you. While at the Business Incubator you meet Joe, Bill, Fred and Tom. You ask them what they do in passing and you begin to find out that their businesses are actually pretty similar to your business. So you ask the head of the VC about this and he just assures you that they are yesterday’s news and you are who he believes is going to make both of you rich (never mind that he is already rich and you are just a poor pleb). You get all excited again and get back to working on your product.

Now you are nearing launch of your product to market and you are going to need a much more significant round of funding. You worry because the VC gave you a couple million initially but now you are going to need 20-100 million to get the market saturation you are looking for to get profitable. You have a meeting with the VC Leader and they tell you not to worry that they have friends at other VCs and they are for sure going to want to invest in you.

Welcome to the third time the VCs are going violate your asshole repeatedly. They introduce you to four or five of their VC friends and after a fancy meeting or dinner they all come together to support you and your idea and they are each going to take a fifth of your $100 million funding and help you get to market. So you excitedly sign the paperwork again giving up another percentage of your company by this point you probably realistically own somewhere in the 20-40% range. In all your haste of organizing the deal and trying to get your product to market you didn’t look up the additional four investors.

A few weeks later you take the time to look up the other VC companies and you realize something odd, they also invested in those guys you met earlier Joe, Bill, Fred and Tom’s businesses. You now begin to realize what has happened. You are just one of their investment pawns in an industry and whichever one of the five of you make it, is going to make them rich. See the VC’s just have to invest in everyone and whichever company wins, makes them rich and they just stop funding the losers.

Speaking of stopping funding, launch day comes, you leave stealth, announce your 100 million in funding and begin hiring like crazy for all those new sales that are coming in. At some point you call the head of the VC and thank him for all his help and his tone has already changed. He says something like, “we are going to need to see profitability in the next six to twelve months or we are going to have to look at some changes.” You want to push back and talk to him about all the upcoming changes and investment needed to get the project to the second phase but you know if you step out of line you are going to be fired from your own company. So you let him know that is understood and your team is hard at work.

Welcome to the beginning phases of a VC launch. Tune in tomorrow when I explain how in the world I fit into this crazy mess and what happens next on the road to being broke.


TL;DR - LoL VCs are the Devil!

[DRK Star]

touch upon the business incubators as well, and how they are targets for poaching ideas and talent moreso than areas for growing the businesses.

[abrown83]

touch upon the business incubators as well, and how they are targets for poaching ideas and talent moreso than areas for growing the businesses.

Shhh stealing my thunder.

[Sanlmar]

The entrepreneur is at risk of losing control and this hurts. His company, his idea, his baby. Emotional stuff.

However, the entrepreneur is essentially selling his idea for a percentage going forward. He cannot make a viable go of it without funding, rendering the idea of limited value. This seems a fair trade.

Please keep track of the initial percentage the entrepreneur received as you continue.

Fantastic post.

[abrown83]

The entrepreneur is at risk of losing control and this hurts. His company, his idea, his baby. Emotional stuff.

However, the entrepreneur is essentially selling his idea for a percentage going forward. He cannot make a viable go of it without funding, rendering the idea of limited value. This seems a fair trade.

Please keep track of the initial percentage the entrepreneur received as you continue.

Fantastic post.

I use to think like this too but then I began to realize it is kind of short sighted.

Let's say there are 20 companies in a new industry. The industry is predicted to have a market capitalization of $20 Billion. (We use market capitalization because ultimately the goal is for these companies to go public and the VCs want to know what the value of their stock will be).

What the VCs are doing is unifying all 20 companies and eliminating variables. They are all managed, marketed and sold in very similar fashions. What that does is allow for the best performing product (from a technical stand point) to come to the forefront.

So with the logic you use above, yes it it is great if you are one of the two or three companies that make it. But if you in the 17 or 18 that doesn't, it doesn't seem like such a great tradeoff when you are out of business.

What if you would have had a niche or a portion of the market if you weren't forced to become like all the other startups in the same industry? You could have developed your own voice or marketed a bit different.

Question becomes do you want a 3 in 20 chance to be worth 6 or 7 billion or are you willing to maybe take a 50% chance that you could become a $600 million dollar company?

The problem isn't the funding because you are right at the end of the day lots of these businesses need cash flow. The problem is the owners are not well enough informed to understand what they are possibly giving up while taking that influx of cash.

Edit: Forgot the most important part. Also if you only own 20% of a 6 billion dollar company and maybe 90% of a $600 million dollar company you are saying a 3 in 20 chance to become worth 1.2 Billion versus a chance to become worth $540 million. That changes the whole value proposition around in my opinion.

[limitles]

Stop the presses. PFA is getting first dibs on this?
Not saying you have to exploit your story but wouldn't a bigger stage seem more appropriate.
Then again, you may end up in a Proctologist's office if you go big as someone will inevitably make you feel dirty.

[snake_in_the_ass]

hey abrown,

How do so many garbage tech companies go public? Like GRPN ANGI SALE Z YELP COUP BOX ETSY. Are they just ending up in 401k and pension plans via Fidelity? Never seen so many garbage tech companies go public since the dot com days. I also read a stat that up to 75% of all stocks end up being net losers in the long run. Does that seem right to you?

[MumblesBadly]

The entrepreneur is at risk of losing control and this hurts. His company, his idea, his baby. Emotional stuff.

However, the entrepreneur is essentially selling his idea for a percentage going forward. He cannot make a viable go of it without funding, rendering the idea of limited value. This seems a fair trade.

Please keep track of the initial percentage the entrepreneur received as you continue.

Fantastic post.

Agreed. Because remember that the two founders of Cisco Systems (a married couple) sold their stock right after they were pushed out of top management by the VC's, and gave up many billions of $s in value in the process, as the following passage from a 1998 WSJ article illustrates.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB900888636425536000

In 1990, Cisco's founders, Leonard Bosack and Sandy Lerner, were pushed out of management, and promptly sold all of their 35% stake on the open market for what then seemed like an impressive $170 million. That position would be worth $35 billion today.

[Dan Druff]

No more shitposting in this thread.

abrown. continue please...

[gimmick]

The entrepreneur is at risk of losing control and this hurts. His company, his idea, his baby. Emotional stuff.

However, the entrepreneur is essentially selling his idea for a percentage going forward. He cannot make a viable go of it without funding, rendering the idea of limited value. This seems a fair trade.

Please keep track of the initial percentage the entrepreneur received as you continue.

Fantastic post.

I use to think like this too but then I began to realize it is kind of short sighted.

Let's say there are 20 companies in a new industry. The industry is predicted to have a market capitalization of $20 Billion. (We use market capitalization because ultimately the goal is for these companies to go public and the VCs want to know what the value of their stock will be).

What the VCs are doing is unifying all 20 companies and eliminating variables. They are all managed, marketed and sold in very similar fashions. What that does is allow for the best performing product (from a technical stand point) to come to the forefront.

So with the logic you use above, yes it it is great if you are one of the two or three companies that make it. But if you in the 17 or 18 that doesn't, it doesn't seem like such a great tradeoff when you are out of business.

What if you would have had a niche or a portion of the market if you weren't forced to become like all the other startups in the same industry? You could have developed your own voice or marketed a bit different.

Question becomes do you want a 3 in 20 chance to be worth 6 or 7 billion or are you willing to maybe take a 50% chance that you could become a $600 million dollar company?

The problem isn't the funding because you are right at the end of the day lots of these businesses need cash flow. The problem is the owners are not well enough informed to understand what they are possibly giving up while taking that influx of cash.

Edit: Forgot the most important part. Also if you only own 20% of a 6 billion dollar company and maybe 90% of a $600 million dollar company you are saying a 3 in 20 chance to become worth 1.2 Billion versus a chance to become worth $540 million. That changes the whole value proposition around in my opinion.

Fucked up thing is that VC model is still almost always profitable to both parties from an equity stand point. Monetizing ideas/products without capital just doesn't really happen and even fair marketing can bury superior products.

Most of the time the business owner is looking at an equation of 20% of something vs 90% of nothing.

Oh and lets not forget the unsung hero that has a truly mediocre product that will never get to see the light of day but he still gets to shoot off some dumbasses coin solely because of the concept of diversifying investments.

[abrown83]

hey abrown,

How do so many garbage tech companies go public? Like GRPN ANGI SALE Z YELP COUP BOX ETSY. Are they just ending up in 401k and pension plans via Fidelity? Never seen so many garbage tech companies go public since the dot com days. I also read a stat that up to 75% of all stocks end up being net losers in the long run. Does that seem right to you?

Remember you don't have to be profitable to go public you just have to have reached a value based on sales or potential sales that your backers want to cash out.

As far as stocks go I am not sure not my area. As far as startups go way more than 75% fail.

[abrown83]

Stop the presses. PFA is getting first dibs on this?
Not saying you have to exploit your story but wouldn't a bigger stage seem more appropriate.
Then again, you may end up in a Proctologist's office if you go big as someone will inevitably make you feel dirty.

This is well known and understood throughout the Valley. It's part of the game though because all the employees at these startups are hoping to go public and become millionaires. Smart kids lottery

[BetCheckBet]

The entrepreneur is at risk of losing control and this hurts. His company, his idea, his baby. Emotional stuff.

However, the entrepreneur is essentially selling his idea for a percentage going forward. He cannot make a viable go of it without funding, rendering the idea of limited value. This seems a fair trade.

Please keep track of the initial percentage the entrepreneur received as you continue.

Fantastic post.

I use to think like this too but then I began to realize it is kind of short sighted.

Let's say there are 20 companies in a new industry. The industry is predicted to have a market capitalization of $20 Billion. (We use market capitalization because ultimately the goal is for these companies to go public and the VCs want to know what the value of their stock will be).

What the VCs are doing is unifying all 20 companies and eliminating variables. They are all managed, marketed and sold in very similar fashions. What that does is allow for the best performing product (from a technical stand point) to come to the forefront.

So with the logic you use above, yes it it is great if you are one of the two or three companies that make it. But if you in the 17 or 18 that doesn't, it doesn't seem like such a great tradeoff when you are out of business.

What if you would have had a niche or a portion of the market if you weren't forced to become like all the other startups in the same industry? You could have developed your own voice or marketed a bit different.

Question becomes do you want a 3 in 20 chance to be worth 6 or 7 billion or are you willing to maybe take a 50% chance that you could become a $600 million dollar company?

The problem isn't the funding because you are right at the end of the day lots of these businesses need cash flow. The problem is the owners are not well enough informed to understand what they are possibly giving up while taking that influx of cash.

Edit: Forgot the most important part. Also if you only own 20% of a 6 billion dollar company and maybe 90% of a $600 million dollar company you are saying a 3 in 20 chance to become worth 1.2 Billion versus a chance to become worth $540 million. That changes the whole value proposition around in my opinion.

Great post and I can't give it attention it deserves as on phone. But quick point.


I would argue that if vc has really cornered startups you have 0 chance to be successful without them. Any market that is so monopolized you pretty much have to sell your product and going alone is like trying to win lottery

[abrown83]

touch upon the business incubators as well, and how they are targets for poaching ideas and talent moreso than areas for growing the businesses.

I wanted to touch on this and a couple other things I thought of last night.

You have to get out of the mindset that startups are like Facebook, Uber, etc. While it is true that those exist, they are more of the B2C lottery you can't predict what will take off. What's much more common are new B2B industries like Big Data or Network Security. These industries are much easier to figure out from a VC angle and are much more common.

As far as poaching talent goes, California has a law that makes non-competes illegal. So you can jump between companies at will. Not sure where this came from, assuming to protect the employees or maybe it was funded by large companies wanting to steal employees from one another but it can create chaos in the VC world.

Idea poaching is the next level of fuckery. What I described in the first post is more idealistic than what ends up happening. Since people are human, certain VCs have certain favorite companies. So if you like Company A's leadership or style, you might feed them what Company B and C are doing on the down low. You wouldn't believe the depth that some companies will go to, to protect new ideas or features. After they become more fully aware of the situation the first thing that happens is the VC instantly becomes the bad guy, especially to the employees who have generally been through this before.

Speaking of that there is generally this idea that people get hired by a start up, work there a couple years, go public and either have a job or have made a few million and go fuck off for the rest of their life. While that absolutely does happen there is this incredibly sad side of the business. I call them the lost souls of startups. They are people that are on their 5th, 6th, 10th startup and none of them have taken off and all of them have failed.

I would say the average employment length for management (who are not founders) is less than 18 months at most of these companies. Either they realize they are not going public and are destined to fail or they jump ship to a more appealing startup.

VCs are ruthless they will make Founders layoff entire departments. Marketing is under performing? It isn't who isn't doing their job we have to let them go. It's oh there are 40 of you? Fuck it you are all fired! So what ends up happening is employees become loyal to leadership and move from company to company with the different departmental Chiefs.

[abrown83]

I use to think like this too but then I began to realize it is kind of short sighted.

Let's say there are 20 companies in a new industry. The industry is predicted to have a market capitalization of $20 Billion. (We use market capitalization because ultimately the goal is for these companies to go public and the VCs want to know what the value of their stock will be).

What the VCs are doing is unifying all 20 companies and eliminating variables. They are all managed, marketed and sold in very similar fashions. What that does is allow for the best performing product (from a technical stand point) to come to the forefront.

So with the logic you use above, yes it it is great if you are one of the two or three companies that make it. But if you in the 17 or 18 that doesn't, it doesn't seem like such a great tradeoff when you are out of business.

What if you would have had a niche or a portion of the market if you weren't forced to become like all the other startups in the same industry? You could have developed your own voice or marketed a bit different.

Question becomes do you want a 3 in 20 chance to be worth 6 or 7 billion or are you willing to maybe take a 50% chance that you could become a $600 million dollar company?

The problem isn't the funding because you are right at the end of the day lots of these businesses need cash flow. The problem is the owners are not well enough informed to understand what they are possibly giving up while taking that influx of cash.

Edit: Forgot the most important part. Also if you only own 20% of a 6 billion dollar company and maybe 90% of a $600 million dollar company you are saying a 3 in 20 chance to become worth 1.2 Billion versus a chance to become worth $540 million. That changes the whole value proposition around in my opinion.

Great post and I can't give it attention it deserves as on phone. But quick point.


I would argue that if vc has really cornered startups you have 0 chance to be successful without them. Any market that is so monopolized you pretty much have to sell your product and going alone is like trying to win lottery

I agree it's really a fucked situation.

If I needed cash flow I would look for a VC that doesn't usually fund my industry and see if I can get in front of them. It may contain it's own risks but I think it might give you a better chance to succeed.

[abrown83]

Okay so how did I get involved in this mess?

Well I work in Digital Marketing and a few years ago I got hired by a VC to do some side work for them.

They liked me so much and were having a problem with one of their startups that they asked me to look at what they are doing and give some suggestions.

They ended up using my suggestions and like within six months they went from like a $100 million valuation to a $1 billion valuation. It was a weird door into an industry at the time I knew nothing about. I just knew that I was getting to work with really smart and cool people and I could do it from home in the Midwest. I was such a pleb at the time.

Eventually they started asking me to look at other companies and giving suggestions on how they could improve their marketing. Sometimes this would happen through going to the company directly and sometimes I would do it all in the dark and the VC would present the idea as theirs.

I remember the first time I realized that what I was doing actually having an effect on these businesses. I had gone to a business and laid out about 10 ideas I thought could increase traffic and increase conversions. I went back like six months later and looked at them again for the VC and they basically hadn't taken any of my suggestions into account. Reported this back to the VC and like a week later the entire department was fired. I felt terrible, information I had given meant about 30 people had lost their jobs.

Eventually I would come to learn this is just part of the game and employees almost take it as a badge of pride how many times they have been group fired because of VC influence.

I started to form relationships with the different Chief Marketing Officers who were bouncing around from company to company. They knew I had been having success and I started getting job offers to come in and help their teams with strategy outside of the VCs. So now today I do way more work for the companies themselves and way less work for the VCs.

Today probably 80-85% of my revenue comes from working with startups directly and the rest is misc VC work that I still do.

Next, I will share some of the LoL stories that have happened working with these companies. It might be tonight or tomorrow morning.

[MumblesBadly]

Question becomes do you want a 3 in 20 chance to be worth 6 or 7 billion or are you willing to maybe take a 50% chance that you could become a $600 million dollar company?

The problem isn't the funding because you are right at the end of the day lots of these businesses need cash flow. The problem is the owners are not well enough informed to understand what they are possibly giving up while taking that influx of cash.

Edit: Forgot the most important part. Also if you only own 20% of a 6 billion dollar company and maybe 90% of a $600 million dollar company you are saying a 3 in 20 chance to become worth 1.2 Billion versus a chance to become worth $540 million. That changes the whole value proposition around in my opinion.

IMO, based on my finance background, this is the delusional part of the thinking of many entrepreneurs. Because for one person to have 90% equity of a $600 million company, he/she would have needed (a) most of the capital to bring it to the level, or (b) borrow heavily from banks to do so. And most banks in the U.S., only holding essentially unsecured debt (correction: in this kind of situation) wouldn't make those kinds of loans to start-ups. And investment banks wouldn't touch such a start-up, given the lack of track record.

In fact, from conversations I've had with bankers about this general topic over the years, their number one issue with entrepreneurs is how they have highly overly inflated valuations of their companies absent a track record, firm contracts with buyers, and/or seasoned/successful management partners. Because there are so many ways that a promising new tech company managed by someone with no material management experience could crash and burn before reaching level financial flight.

In other words, the "maybe" in front of the only alternative to the VC route mentioned above probably realistically represents 1-5% probability, with even 5% being quite optimistic.

[Jayjami]

FYI, non-compete contracts are legal in CA, but in very limited circumstances, such as the sale of a business, and even then they must be reasonable in scope (length of time and geographical area). The rationale is that they restrict competition in the marketplace. They actually favor the employees, allowing them to move from one job to another with the skills acquired at their previous employer.

[4Dragons]

hey abrown,

How do so many garbage tech companies go public? Like GRPN ANGI SALE Z YELP COUP BOX ETSY. Are they just ending up in 401k and pension plans via Fidelity? Never seen so many garbage tech companies go public since the dot com days. I also read a stat that up to 75% of all stocks end up being net losers in the long run. Does that seem right to you?

Remember you don't have to be profitable to go public you just have to have reached a value based on sales or potential sales that your backers want to cash out.

As far as stocks go I am not sure not my area. As far as startups go way more than 75% fail.

[Dan Druff]

garrett is going to see a post restriction for this. I am getting tired of these threads getting ruined.

DO NOT SHITPOST IN THIS THREAD