The #1 Angel Investing Mistake
The list is of angel investing mistakes is an awfully long one, equally as long as the list for liquid investments, plus a bunch more. On the too-aggressive side: believing the hockey stick, ignoring the management holes, and overestimating product acceptance. On the too-conservative side: my favorite startup myth, thinking that because competitors exist, opportunity doesn’t. That logic is behind some of the biggest groans of regret ever, including the countless folks who said “no” to Google early on for that reason.
Despite all the competition, there’s a clear number one error in my book: failure to keep dry powder for the inevitable, yet somehow always unexpected, “re-opened” first rounds. My experience is that the best yielding exits come after a couple of re-ups at something right around the initial valuation. This isn’t surprising. After all, the early stage world’s favorite word these days is either “pivot” or “iteration.” We know that there will be dramatic twists and turns, which is why the “bet on the jockey, not the horse” mentality is so prevalent. And yet, somehow, many angels don’t plan accordingly.
Sure, you’ll always have your stake in the company that needs just a bit more capital to get going. But, obviously, you’ll get diluted in the process, and sometimes very badly. Some of the most successful early stage investors are exactly those who look for cash-strapped but promising companies, and then come in with heavy-preference money the entrepreneur can’t refuse.
Obviously, this doesn’t mean that you should pony up new cash every time you’re asked. And it doesn’t mean that you have to play at every subsequent stage of the company’s development. But it does mean you should have the resources and patience to stay in the game when that bootstrapping startup misses a ship date, or has an early customer go out of business. It also means you need to stay informed enough about the company along the way to make an informed gamble on which companies have hit the inevitable bumps in the road, and which are actually in the ditch beside it.
Nothing is more frustrating than having been “right” about a company, taken big risks to support it, and winding up with almost nothing on the exit. Don’t let it happen to you.
All opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of Gust.
Written by Bob Rice
You might also be interested in
When entrepreneurs come to me with that “million dollar idea,” I have to tell them that an idea alone is really worth nothing. It’s all about the execution, and investors invest in the people who can execute, or even better, have a history of successful execution. Execution is making things happen, and for startups it usually means making change happen,
I’ve always wondered who started the urban myth that the best way to start a company is to come up with a great idea, and then find some professional investors to give you a pot of money to build a company. In my experience, that’s actually the worst way to start, for reasons I will outline here,
If you are a new entrepreneur, or entering a new business area, it’s always worth your time to assemble an Advisory Board of two or three executives who have travelled that road before. You need them before you need funding, and if you select the wrong people, or use them incorrectly, no
Helpers do what you say, while good help does what you need, without you saying anything. People who can help you the most are actually smarter than you, at least in their domain. Top entrepreneurs spend more time putting the right team in place to accomplish their objectives than they spend on any
The traditional mode of starting a company has been to plan a serial process, where you complete once all the steps, leading to the “big bang” launch of the company. I strongly recommend a dramatic departure from this model, called “planned iteration” or Lean Startup methodology, where you assume you won’t get