Follow-on Funding: A Dilemma for Angel Investors
In 2007, Professor Rob Wiltbank reported in Returns to Angel Investors in Groups that angel investors made follow-on investment in about 30% of their invested companies. It was surprising for me to learn that follow-on investments correlated with lower returns, that is, angels that made follow-on angel investments saw returns of 1.4X their investment, while those that did not make follow-on investments enjoyed 3.6X returns. The time to exit for both groups was similar.
Frankly, the conclusion that angels who make follow-on investments can expect lower returns is distressing to me. At a time when venture capital, on average, has moved to later stage investing, angels need to plan on making multiple investments to help startups survive to positive cash flow and eventually to exit. Fifteen years ago, angels typically invested $250K to $500K in startup companies while the average venture capital investment was $2-3 million. As we saw in Average Round Size in Angel Deals, the average angel investment is now about a bit over $300K but venture capital is now investing $7-8 million per deal. While it may not have been true in the past, angels now need to provide startups with enough runway to get to positive cash flow, to venture financings or to an early exit through several rounds of angel capital.
How does a “one and done” investment strategy by angels provide higher returns? I think there are several contributing factors, such as:
- There are a few angel funded deals that take off so quickly that the startup entrepreneur can easily raise $5 million or more in venture capital in the next round. These deals are likely to provide early investors with very high returns.
- On the other hand, too many of us angels “throw good money after bad,” that is, we don’t pull the plug early enough. We become convinced that our funded startup is just about to turn the corner…when they really aren’t. So, we fund the company a second or perhaps even a third time before we acknowledge that the company simply cannot be successful. These follow-on investments have a significant negative impact on portfolio returns for angels. And, candidly, this is an important area of improvements for angel investors.
- Some angels invest in only one early round of funding, strategizing that the early rounds provide the highest returns. Investing in later rounds only reduces the total return from any single portfolio company.
- Lastly, some angels choose to invest in more companies rather than multiple rounds in the same company. With a fixed amount of capital reserved for the angel asset class, these investors look for improved returns through a diversified portfolio.
Acknowledging the results of the Wiltbank study, the reality of angel investing today is that we can expect to provide multiple rounds of investment for new ventures. Without multiple angel rounds, startup entrepreneurs simply cannot hit the milestones necessary for either an early exit and venture funding. We angels need to be more diligent before providing second and third round funding to startups with little chance of success. More objective due diligence on portfolio companies prior to second or third rounds of angel investment has become a best practice for higher angel returns.
All opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of Gust.
Written by Bill Payne
You might also be interested in
Canada has not tapped its female angel investor potential – yet.
The female angel investor conversation has been discussed inside and out. From TechCrunch, BetaKit to the Financial Post, there have been more than a few arguments made about the lack of female representation in Canada’s early-stage investment community and the benefits of tapping into this financial resource.
One of the most common questions we get is: What are the biggest challenges and rewards of angel investing? High net worth individuals become angel investors for a number of reasons, but the opportunity to work with entrepreneurs and provide guidance to founders is typically high on the list. In this video, angel investor Chenoa Farnsworth explains why, interestingly, both the biggest
Entrepreneurs seem genuinely surprised to find that investors in Peoria or Little Rock are not willing to invest in startup companies at Silicon Valley prices. After all, they just read in TechCrunch that investors funded a company similar to theirs at an $8 million pre-money valuation!
The valuation of startup companies shouldn’t be impacted by location, should they? Guess again!
The first question you need to ask is “What country are you in?” and the second is “Are you an Accredited Investor by that country’s standards?”
If we’re talking about the US and you are NOT at the Accredited level ($1 million in investable assets, or $200,000 annual income), then for the moment you are actually not allowed to invest in privately held startups
First, it’s important to understand that the four platforms you list fall into two very distinct groups.
Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are project-based crowdfunding platforms through which anyone can contribute money, either as a donation or with the promise that they will receive a tangible ‘reward’ of some kind if the project is successful.
Gust and AngelList are equity-based platforms, used by Accredited Investors to facilitate the investment of money for an ownership interest in