6 Personal Sharing on Angel Investing

(Updated 16 December 2016)
This article shares the mindset I have as an investor. It does not represent what other investors think and all opinions are just one sample. So read it in the right light.

Since 2009, my wife & I have been angel investing in the area of internet businesses where we have some experience. The idea is both to give back what we learned and also to hopefully profit from it.

To date, we have invested in 14 startups SG/regionally and we will probably invest in another 5-10 startups over the next 3-4 years or about 2-3 a year max. In addition, we have invested/committed in 5 incubator/Series A funds as part of our diversification/lead gen strategy.

Here are some learning points we have :

1) Invest in things we know and enjoy.

All the companies we have invested in are B2C companies with the exception of one which is a digital animation firm. Reason? Our experience building up a job portal allows us to share meaningfully with the portfolio companies. In fact, two of the portfolio companies are job portals outside of SG.

Recently, we have decided that Fintech B2C is an area which is ripe and which I have a personal interest. So we started researching the startups in the space and have met with quite a few. In the end, we decided to invest in two - iMoney and DrWealth. One has done pretty well.

Investing in B2C businesses allow us to gauge whether the management team is doing a good job or not and allows to learn even more about B2C mechanics which makes us even more valuable mentors. Being able to value add to the entrepreneur is a big positive feeling for me.

2) Invest with early stage VC for diversification. Double your bet alongside for stories you like.

One way that we are still trying out is to invest in incubators and early stage funds. Then for the stories we like and which are book building, we can invest alongside them. That is also why we invested in 500startups/durians.

3)  Always invest in the person and the rough model. Motivation matters a lot!

We want to invest in people who don't give up easily. Business models are rarely correct at startup stage. Management will need to tweak and pivot and go through a lot of pain before they hit on the right model (if ever). As investors, the last thing you want is a founder that gives up within 1+ years of funding esp if money still not run out. For me, I would be ok if the business fails if the founder has pivoted at least 2 times and has spent at least 2 years trying to make things work and has been willing to put more of personal money in to keep things going,

From what I have observed, the best key founders are those that just want to get things done. They have a just do it attitude and will never blame others for their failure. Frequently, they are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and do sales or marketing work. Their ego is subordinated to the business goal which they are crystal clear about. 

4) Coachable founders are critical and I don't need to be the coach

Related to point 4. Some people learn fast (whether from others, actual experiences or even from books), some don't. A team that does not learn or which is slow to change when change is clearly needed will rarely succeed. I now always look out for founders who are willing to listen and absorb new practises and who are willing to agree when numbers tell that they are wrong. They don't need to listen to me, but they need to listen to someone!

5) Invest money that is not needed and with discipline.

I cannot stress this enough.  We plan ahead 4-5 years and use a portfolio allocation strategy that limits how much we can allocate (not more than 15%)  into startups and VC/incubator funds.  We understand that in worst case, we will lose all of it though I would not except the VC funds to lose it all!

6) Invest as a way to give back to ecosystem

This one is for all those who managed to exit your business or who have down wel in corporate job. We all know Singapore does not have many of us. So putting aside 5,10,20% to invest back in the area you know well is a good win win. Life can't be just about making more money, more fun for ourselves and helping only our loved ones. Doing some mentoring and coaching for companies you are vested in and which you are knowledgeable about is a great way to give back and still be aligned.

All about Angel Investing (Part 1)

This article has 2 parts. Below are general questions many people ask about Angel Investing. The next article will be specific experiences and learning which I absorbed over the past 5 years of actually doing it.

NB: While I have experience mainly in tech startups, I believe the principles mostly apply to non tech angel investments too.

1) What in Angel Investing ? How is this different from other Private Investments?

Angel investing is more specific. It is investing in startups in hope that they succeed and you earn back your money via an exit (trade sale, IPO, sale to next investor).  In non tech world, you can also earn back your money via dividends once the company turns profitable. Private Investing covers angel investing but also include later stage investments into companies that are already larger, profitable etc. Private investing also covers investments into VC or PE funds. Basically investment into any non listed company.

2) Can I afford to be an angel investor? How much to invest?

We invest money that we can afford to lose completely. If you look at most strategic portfolio allocations (this is the various asset classes that experts advice people to allocate their investible money in), most will have an alternative allocation that includes private investments, art, wine, hedge funds and commodities. This percentage varies from 0% to 20%.

So lets say it is 20% of investible assets (excludes own home and current business which you run if applicable). 20% is currently what some banks recommend for alternatives and also what some UHNWI (people with more than 30M USD investible) individuals in the USA are doing.  Of course, not all 20% is for angel investing. Probably 5% of that? The other 15% is for hedge funds, PE funds, later stage VC funds, commodities etc.

Now flipping to the other side, we need to spread our bets since we do not control the companies we invest in. We will make mistakes and invest in bad models or bad people. So lets say at a minimum of 25K per investment and at 10 investments over 5 years, this means 250K is 5% or we need an investible net worth of about 5M min.

3) Is 25K the usual quantum for Angel Investments and what does that buy?

From what I can see, most angels in this region invest anything from 25K to 200K. One mistake I made early on was to invest way above that. Doing so made it hard for us to diversify properly and spread our bets. If your average bite is supposed to be 25K and you are doing 12 companies, then you can allocate 50K for 2-3 exceptional stories that you feel strongly about.

In the current tech space, angel/Seed round valuations range from 1M to 2.5M and amount raised is usually 500K. So 25K buys you anything from 1-2%.

4) What kind of returns can I expect as an Angel investor and in what time frame?

We all read about the lucky guy who invested in the next FB or Google. But lets face it, most Angel Investors in this region will take anything from 2 years to 10 years or more to exit their investments. We have invested in 7 startups in SG and regionally so far. None have exited yet. Luckily none have failed yet too.

So the usual timeframe to expect will be similar to a early stage VC fund. Anything from 3 years to 10 years for exit and blended returns of above 25% annualized would be good.

5) How do I get deals?

This is critical for success. There are a 2 ways that have worked for me.

a) Spread the word that you do coinvesting alongside incubators for SEED and Series A rounds. This way, you follow the lead investor for deals. This method has an advantage in that the lead investor helps settle the terms. It helps if you actually invest in some of these VC/incubators too.

b) Value add when you meet founders. Don't just view founder meetings as potential investments. Rather try to help them with your experience and connect them to relevant people. After a while, people will see you as a good person to talk to regardless of whether you invest.

6) What is my role as an Angel Investor?

With a stake of 1%-2%, you are not expected to play an active role in the business. Experience sharing if you have it and can get along with mgmt would be good periodically. Connecting to relevant people too would be useful if you have such contacts.

Of course, if you invested a lot or very early and own >5%, then it is entirely possible that the management wants you to perform some structured role. All these should be decided before investment.

7) I don't have access to good deals or any good value add, I just want to invest. What else can I do?

Of course, another way is to outright invest directly into early stage/Series A funds. You will be called in LP (limited partner) if you do so. Usual quantum ranges from $100K (for small funds) to $5M for large funds. The expected returns for these funds range from 15-25%. Some names in this area include Jungle Ventures, Golden Gate, Walden, Monkshill, 500Durians/Startups and many more. They are all raising capital now.

You can then treat these investments just like a mutual fund but classify it under alternatives.

In my next article, I will share specific experiences and learnings we have from our own foray into angel investing.

Open Letter to all colleagues and alumni of JobsCentral

Today is my last day at work. I want to thank everybody for helping to build JobsCentral to where it is today. Over 14 years, we have grown from a 2 man startup into one of the largest regional job portals with over 150 staff in SG, MY and ID. We grew revenue and profit each year for 14 years running. Not many companies can achieve that.

Each of you have played a part in making this happen and I want to thank each of you for that effort and heart put in. It's always a team effort to make things happen.

I hope everyone continues to find alignment between what you want to do and achieve in life and what JC or your current employer is able to offer. Continue to stay true to our company values of honesty, teamwork, easy to do business and meritocracy. These are good values to have in any workplace. Keep striving to improve yourself as a person and professional. Have pride and set good standards for yourself. I hope to see everyone do spectacularly well in life. Don't settle for less.

Execution - Perception gap between investor and founders?

This article is triggered by recent exchanges i had where i realize that there is a gap in perception between founders and the investors who fund them. On one hand, i have the hardworking founder telling me that they dont think they executed badly and in fact executed well given the situation but from my point of view , they did not execute well. So who is right? After some reflection i realize both are right!

Founder point of view :

I have so much shit happening all the time. Traction takes longer to achieve. Staff are hard to hire and quit on me. Sales takes so much longer to happen and when it happens, clients buy less than projected.

And worst of all, market keeps evolving and changing!. So of course i cannot hit my projections. They are just projections. Surely the investors can see i am working crazy hours and obssessing about it all and trying my best!

Investor point of view :

You only execute well if you have achieved the metrics which you pitched and plan annually in terms of revenue, EDITDA, product development plan, marketing plan and HR hire plan. Anything less means execution could have been better.

Sounds harsh? Actually not really. After all the investment as made based on the premise founders will deliver. And don't forget i also need to make sure the investments realize a profit at the end.

Yes, i know startup is difficult. Marketing is hard. Hiring and retaining is hard so is growing revenues. So most investors discount what you pitch somewhat. But it does not mean we agree execution is good when founders fall short.

For me, i will only feel execution has been good if we meet all annual projected metrics and also feel the founder has the right attitude and mindset. Execution is great if we beat of course!

My comment?

Both sides are right. I do both right now and in the past. A little empathy and regular communication will go a long way. So the investor needs to express the worry they have that business not going to deliver on promised returns, founders need to agree they are not executing well and appreciate the other party's stress. And both sides meet. But who should do more in the communication department? I think the founder. Simply because you probably have more to lose and you own more of the company.

No simple solution right?

Startup Mistakes I made and Lessons Learned

This post is all about failures. I realize that some people prefer and maybe learn from other people's failures better than successes. I tend to prefer the latter as there are many ways to fail but fewer ways to succeed. So intuitively, it makes more sense to emulate and adopt successful behaviours and thoughts/mental models than to learn to avoid failed models and mindsets. But it is always instructive to see things from both sides i guess. Below are failures i have made in the past 14 years.

1) Failure to be transparent about cofounder committment & expectations

Problem : Did not initially spell out intentions and feeling about key topics like how to handle working shareholder departures. So when working shareholder decided to not to work full time, there was much difficulty in resolving feelings.

Result : Much stress and difficult conversations when trying to buy out minority shareholder. It took me some 1-2 months and much distraction to settle this issue. Also had to pay out a good 6 figure sum.

Takeaway - Always spell out various scenerios when contemplating a venture with  multiple shareholders. Make sure there is agreement. Don't fall into the temptation of taking the easy way to out and just glossing over difficult items like exit cases, valuation, roles etc. Then encapsulate it all in a written and signed shareholder agreement. If you cannot agree on tough points, it could mean your team has problems.

2) Failure to spearhead new venture & blind faith

Problem : Thought that it made perfect sense to venture out into a recruitment agency work back in the early days. Hired 1 manager & 3 pax and burnt through 40-50K of revenue in 3 months with little to show for it. Believed the manager that they can just start a new wing.

Result : Wasted mgmt focus on sideline and wasted  money pursuing it.

Takeaway - New ventures, even adjacent ones take longer than expected. Also in startups, new areas need to be spearheaded by top management. Seldom will an outside middle level hire be able to do it even if they seem to firmly believe it. Most middle (and some top) mgmt are used to having established brand and structure to help them, so they may actually believe they can start up something if only given the chance. Dont believe them and if you must believe them, still watch them like a hawk.

3) Failure to focus on sales & that Sales manager
Problem : A parallel of point (2) is believing that  hiring an experienced sales director/manager will help you settle sales while you focus on product. This is 99% pure bullshit. Founders must spearhear their own sales almost all of the time initially. I never fell prey to this but a portfolio company of mine has. They raised money, spent it on hiring sales team and sales mgmt then hands off!

Result : Total waste of money as the founder discovered that a hired sales mgmt will never be as dedicated to chasing down each lead, helping to get feedback and care as much as a founder. End result was 1 year wasted and damage so bad it may kill the company. Pain to me is also a possibly wasted 6 figure investment.

Takeaway - Always spearhead your own sales effort via a founder in the first few years. Not only will sell better but will also iterate product better since closer to client. You also squeeze the most out of your other sales hires since you are leading them. Did i mention investors also like sales driven founders?

4) Failure to plan for worst case.

Problem : When things are doing well, that is the best time to raise more money than you need. Another company i invested in had an opportunity to raise money that is equivalent to 2 years cash burn. Business was doing well and so there was also an option to not raise too but it required no mistakes and continued flawness execution. The founder chose not to raise.

Result : As usual, bad things happened and metrics did not grow as expected. Cash crunch started looming. Had to scramble to reverse the metrics. Work in progress.

Takeaway - Always do a worst case scenario and if in that scenerio, you dont need funding, then dont do it. Be paranoid!

Hope the above helps! Feel free to comment and add on.

Entrepreneurs - How to Manage That Windfall !

Entrepreneurs who have a liquidity event are often like lottery winners. They are not well equipped to know how to manage the money esp if they are not from a wealthy family and have always lived a more normal/middle class lifestyle. They can end up being too conservative or too risk taking and the worst part is that they may not even be aware of it. Entrepreneurs also have an added problem of usually having a big ego, always optimistic and wanting to make all the decisions ourselves. Good recipe for investment failure.

I am writing this article so share some learning experiences which i had over the years. Both from reading, own experience and from others. Please feel free to comment and add experiences.

1) Don't touch bulk of money for next 6-12 months

Say you suddenly now have X million in the bank after a trade sale. There is a further prospect of another Y million over the next 2-3 years. You feel rich and super liberated. At the same time, everyone seems to expect you to give back and to start showing the moolah.

I would suggest to just do nothing major with the money. Put 90% of it in FD or a few 6 mth super safe bond. Let yourself and your family get used to your new found wealth. By all means, go for nice $$$$ dinner, buy a cartier ring or hermes bag for your loved one. Or take a 5 star vacation with the family for once. But don't spend anything more than 1% max 2% of your new net worth on these extravagant purchases. For Singapore, it means don't go buy a sports car that costs $500K right away unless you have $25M or more.

Note i don't mean that we should not buy the sports car unless we have 25M or more. What i mean is that we should let the money sink in and let our brains adjust first. Then if 1-2 years later, you still think that 500K sports car or 100K luxury watch is worth buying, then go get it!

After 6-12 months is up, if you have been doing your homework below, you will have an idea how to invest or work it. Your sense of value will also have adjusted and you will be less prone to impulse buys or dumb financial decisions.

2) Admit you are not a financial planning expert. 

Entrepreneurs do well because we are experts in our own micro area. Whether it is software, internet, manufacturing, F&B etc. We need to admit we are not experts in the field of financial planning and portfolio management. So get a private banker(s) to help you.

Most private banks will let you open an account with min US$1M USD and especially if you show you have more to come or with other banks. Be discerning, there are private client solutions out there which is a sandwich tier between Priority Banking and Private Banking. Not so good because their fees tend to be higher. Go for the actual private banks and if possible get a referral so you start with a good relationship manager.

Apply your same determination to build your business to understanding the world of personal finance. Be patient and take the time to learn from others. For starters, learn indepth about the following terms :

Fixed income, equities, interest rates, private equity, hedge funds, portfolio allocation, rebalancing, yield, ROI, options, structured notes, dividends, commodities, gold, property, leverage, inflation.

3) Set Goals for the Money

Now that you have a lump sum, you need to decide what goals you have for it. Is it to preserve and grow this capital? Is it to take high  risks with it? This topic is frequently tied up to the actual number you require for financial freedom. For most living standards in SG, it is about S$3-5M range that will allow for retirement in your 40s to 50s. For people who live it up more, even $10M is not enough - skies the limit.

A good advice i got from a tech "qianbei" (older expert) is to build a stable property/bond/equity portfolio that generates cash flow that pays for all annual expenses. So if you spend $360K a year, then at 4% inflation adjusted real returns, this portfolio needs to be about S$9M excluding your residence. The extra money above this 9M can then be used for starting a new business or investing in startups etc.

One word about investing in startups. Be very careful and be prepared to lose all the money. A wise man told me before to spend not more than 10% of your net worth in such investments. Also, for this 10%, spread it out into 50K angel sizes and make sure you can invest in at least 10? Otherwise no diversification. If you can spare less than 500K, i think it makes more sense to be an LP with a venture fund.  I know readers may disagree on this. Feel free to comment and share.

4) Be aware of vastly higher mountains, maintain humility, give generously.

Don't let money change you. We are still the same people. We just have more responsibility since we are lucky enough to have exited our businesses. Continue to be useful to your family and people around, continue to learn and be generous. One method that has worked very well for me is to interact with people who are both a lot more successful and a lot less successful in terms of wealth or career. Listening to the both groups share their experiences and perspective and observing keeps me grounded.

We can't take our money with us. So give generously annually if you can. Many people lose out on the genetic/life lottery which you won. So give back to society and worthy causes in a sustainable way.

5) Spend within your means!

Be careful not to be seduced by the ever upward spiraling lifestyle which one segment of society espouses. If you are below 35 and have self-made millions, there is a tendency to think believe you can duplicate it again and be overconfident in your next venture or investments. There is also a possibility you may upgrade your lifestyle to beyond your income and wealth. Note, i am not advocating to be stingy, upgrade your lifestyle by all means just don't go above it. A good rule of thumb is that you should aim for total spending  <70% of total income per year.

You did not get to exit your business without brains, so apply it to model carefully what you can or cannot afford, use it to plan out your investment plans and act on it.

I hope the above 5 points help fellow fortunate entrepreneurs in terms of starting to think about what to do with  their new found wealth. Feel free to email me or add comments.

Analysis on Zopim acquistion by Zendesk

This deal is a great validation that it is possible to build a globally relevant business out of Singapore. I first encountered Zopim a few years ago and got JobsCentral to use their voice chat SAAS solution. They have a very simple and effective product and sold it on a freemium model which works great. I started hearing more about them and it is wonderful to know that they have negotiated a fair exit for themselves and shareholders. Here are some details and comments. For once, tech blogs have covered them pretty well :

http://www.techinasia.com/singapores-zopim-acquired-zendesk/

1) Revenue based on ACRA ending Mar 2013 is 1.8M in revenue as recognized properly. PBT is 362K. So it is quite safe to assume a continued 100+% growth rate and project revenue ending Mar 2014 is about min 3.5 to 4M with profit of at least 700K to 1M. My guess is closer to 1M since there is great economies of scale for SAAS.

Share table as shared by techinasia is accurate.

2) I particularly like this story because i know SAAS is the current highly valued wave. Zendesk is probably going to IPO at min 10 times sales of 73 or about 700-800M. They may even be able to do 1B IPO. So for players in the SAAS space, this is the best time to raise and to exit partially or fully. Zopim is also great because they are profitable.

3) Some have commented that exiting for 15.9M + 13.9M earnout is a little early since clearly Zopim is growing nicely and is profitable. So founders have time. I somewhat agree but i always feel outsiders do not know all the details and feelings which founders have. And anyway once the deal is done, founders should be happy with their decision. So ignore your detractors Royston and gang and enjoy the new found freedom.

Moveover, looking at the structure of the deal, Zopim is being valued 37M SGD. That is probably 10 times multiple to their revenue. Very fair as that is the IPO valuation likely for Zendesk. Of course, the devil is in the details of earnout.  This one only founders and zendesk will know. My guess is that is a proportionate tied to revenue/EBITDA mix and the 13.9M is the cap performance.

10 times sales is actually a very high valuation which currently only biotech and SAAS tech companies are given. But it is not the record for Singapore. That is held by the hungrygowhere guys who sold for about 12 times sales although a smaller total value.

4) The earnout structure of about 50+% first in cash and stock and later the rest over 2-3 years will allow mgmt team to ride the upside both in their business and also in the overall market valuation of SAAS companies. If the market values Zendesk highly in the next 2-3 years, mgmt may find that their 15-20M in stock could double or triple in value. So from this angle, i think mgmt did not sell early but rather is betting on being part of a bigger entity as a route to get better valuation for Zopim.

All in all a very nice deal. And i think as there are more exits that earn the founders 5,10,15M or more, there is room for an article next on how to handle a entrepreneurship linked windfall. The story and learning just started.... Stay tuned.

Towards Better Tech Reporting Standards?

(Added 11th April : This is an example of much better reporting :
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/10/zendesk-buys-zopim-will-add-its-live-chat-platform-to-its-cloud-based-helpdesk-solution/

Details given on S1 filing by zendesk to ascertain what was missing in press release. And to techinasia credit, they managed to get hold of share table and P&L for year ending Mar 2013 for zopim to put more flesh into the deal.

http://www.techinasia.com/singapores-zopim-acquired-zendesk/)

My last post on Grabtaxi was triggered because i read a techblog that stated they raised 10M for a Series A round. This number just felt wrong, because by definition Series A does not go to 10M USD. When i did some digging, this number was repeated it seems, simply because another blog said so and there is an e27 and SPH article where the founder was quoted as saying it is "8 digits". Based on acra share allotment report , it is about US$5M and about US$3M in most recent round lodged early march 2014. More importantly and the part where readers can learn from is that the funding was done mainly via family funds which is a great way to do it for 2nd gen. Below are some of the articles by popular tech blogs I refer to:

http://www.techinasia.com/grabtaxi-nets-funding-10-million-transportation-apps-sweep-asia/

(Made reference to this link below from TNW that just blindly said 10M)

http://thenextweb.com/asia/2014/04/08/grabtaxi-is-growing-a-taxi-booking-service-in-southeast-asia-using-a-unique-model/

To be fair to techinasia, they  quoted and attributed to the TNW. And below is an article by e27.
http://e27.co/grabtaxi-announces-8-figure-sum-funding-singapores-vertex-venture-holdings/

Again they repeat the 8 digit funding comment and this time attribute the quote to the founder Anthony. They also claim they are sure they heard it right. Can this be right? Or was he misquoted? There is really no way for us to know. But the ACRA reports on GrabTaxi holdings say the funding is not 10M. Of course it could be in tranches which have yet to be realized or injections into other companies not mentioned.

Even SPH has quoted Anthony saying 8 digit. Maybe he meant in RM.. Either that or future tranches... Anyway the key learning here for us is the use of family funding bargaining power not so much whether 8 digit or not.

One comment for tech writers and journalists, there is a reponsibilty to readers to get our facts right and to try to think deeper into the topic. And if we are speculating, we should say so. And we should always aim to uncover the details and if possible learning. BTW, tech blogs are definitely not the only ones guilty of this. There is still a SPH story about Beeconomics being sold for 24M back in 2009!

http://business.asiaone.com/news/brothers-remain-humble-after-groupon-buys-their-start

A simple ACRA search would have told the journalist that Groupon invested in beeconomic 2.6M if i remember correctly. Then Karl and brother had 2-3 years to really grow the business to desired metric and they got paid nicely each year in the form of an earnout for doing such a great job with Groupon SG. I am sure the Groupsmore people MY had the same deal.

There probably are many more such lapses. For example :

http://e27.sg/2012/06/07/breaking-propertyguru-secures-s60million-strategic-investment-from-immobilienscout24-for-further-regional-expansions

Its not 60M injected into company for sure. If there are tech writers reading this, I hope you will do more indepth forensic work and get hold of their ACRA report for allotment of shares and p&l etc

In summary, our community needs to start getting our numbers right! Not only is there a credibility issue, equally important, we owe it to our fellow entrepreneurs and wider business community to report the right numbers so that proper decisions and expectations can happen.

Comments on Grabtaxi funding so far

This story caught my attention for a few reasons. First, i have heard much about Uber and how it has taken USA by storm. When i was in USA late last year, read an article about how Uber is able to price discriminate and set prices that reflect real time demand. Economic theory put into action finally!

Second is that i read about Grabtaxi a while back. Founder is the son of Tan Chong Motor family fame.
Anthony Tan, studied in harvard and started app in 2012 in Malaysia with about 500K USD funded entirely by family. Makes a lot of sense as it leverages on both the resources and equally important the network that the family already has in malaysia. Without knowing Anthony personally, i think this is a great model for 2nd generation to follow if they are keen in technology. Leverage on family business knowhow and tech to disrupt a space. Funding is a less an issue and they can do what i advocate which is to fund out angel round themselves.

Now they just raised more money from vertex. Previous round was also funded by vertex. Now some will ask why not just fund it all themselves? I think bringing on board a VC is a smart move. It forces discipline onto the company and founder and will also lend more credibility for subsequent rounds or acquisitions. And in this case, it also helps give them a good valuation benchmark to work on for future deals.

From what i can see, the number raised is not 10M as some tech news blog has mentioned but rather, this round is a further 3M USD raised which is far more consistent to a Series A round. I really wish our reporters can get their facts right before publishing. It distorts the industry unnecessarily and the company and founder usually will not want to or cannot (due to NDA) comment and such matters.To set record straight, it seems that the company Grabtaxi Holdings pl has raised 5.281M USD to date where Anthony and Family have funded the seed round of 518K and a further 4.7M USD from investors which includes themselves. Of this 4.7M, 20% came from vertex. So to date, Vertex has invested about 1M in GrabTaxi. The rest is all family money.

Based on above, it also means GrabTaxi is being valued at US$12-13M (using latest round 15+ per share x 800K+ shares) USD based on this April round. Of course, some may argue since founders self funded 80% of this round, this valuation is not accurate. I dunno, but at least Vertex agreed to it...

My guess is that most likely, family just wants a VC for credibility and discipline and connections but is unwilling to give up too much at this early stage. This is a UHNWI family based in Malaysia so while investing US$4M sounds like a lot, it probably is something they can afford to take risk with and aim for a much later exit.

Of course, i think their revenues are probably neligible at this stage. So looks like the ball is squarely in Anthony;s court now. I am rooting for them so succeed as a local ASEAN company as opposed to Rocket or Uber!

NB: So where did that 10M investment figure come from? That is the topic of my next post. Straits times and e27 quoted Anthony as saying it is 10m. I guess if in RM it is correct. Or maybe there are more tranches coming.

NB : to be rigorous, there is a myteksi sdn bhd which is a malaysian entity which Anthony and family funded 600K RM. Logically, this entity should be owned 100% by the SG holding company which Vertex invested in. However, i am unable to verify this since malaysian ACRA is slower and share updates are shown only 1 full year later.

Entrepreneurs beware of DIY Investing!

I have  people who ask me this question. They think that because i started a business, sold it and because i make private investments that there is something special or unique about how i invest my assets. Let me be the first to say that the traits required to be a good investor are very different from those that entrepreneurs have. And i think i am still learning from the market and about myself all the time.

By default, entrepreneurs are high risk takers who control the risk by knowing everything there is to know about their business and industry. We deep dive into every aspect of our work so that we are able to control risk and maximize our returns. Even when our business has grown a lot, we continue to invest more into it and take further risk by going overseas or into adjacent markets. Frequently, the company we own is most of our net worth.

Furthermore, Entrepreneurs are also highly passionate people and you will hear many successful ones who advocate a combination of gut and metrics to make major decisions.

Good investors on the other hand, diversify. They minimize risk by not concentrating in one area and by proper portfolio allocation. And it is also humanly impossible for them to know with any depth any particular industry which they are invested in. They frequently outsource and use professional managers to help manage their money. Decisions are made based on numerical allocations and frequently a fixed methodology for deciding when to buy or sell. Investors who employ their gut tend not to do well. 

My personal experience is that the above descriptions are totally true and one can lose a fair sum of money if one does not understand the very different traits required. I lost close S$100K or 100% of portfolio during the 2000 dot com crash because i had over-concentrated my positions in technology stocks. Then more recently in 2010, i experimented with options without clear knowledge of how volatile they can be and lost another S$100K on these simply because i could not cut my losses and applied the dogged perseverance entrepreneurship trait to options!

From the above lessons, i learned that it is best for me and perhaps for entrepreneurs like me to stick to passive portfolio decisions and outsource the active selection decisions to good fund managers. 

What this means is that we should make the decision on how much to keep in cash, how much to invest in stocks, fixed income and properties. But when it comes to the actual stock or fixed income picks, either buy ETFs which mirror the market or buy a few different mutual funds. Use dollar cost averaging strategies if we get more cash and rebalance the portfolio periodically every 3 to 6 months. 

If the urge to take risk or to make decisions is too strong and if we have an interest in trading, then set aside a small percentage of assets - say 5% to make speculative trades on equities, options or bonds. The above philosophy has worked well for me and i hope it will work readers too. 

How to think about Revenues and Costs in a startup

Over the years, i have been both running internet business and investing in internet businesses. In both cases, management will always have a profit and loss projection for the year. I have seen enough internet P&Ls and tracked enough such P&Ls that i have come to some conclusions for our region. Here are 2 major  :

1) Revenue projections are almost always optimistic.

I have must seen and helped or tracked more than 100 internet businesses by now based in SG and MY. Of these, only a handful have revenue projections that are largely achieved. And these are usually achieved due to market conditions being extremely favourable. A good example is Groupon SG and MY which rode the adoption of ecommerce in a big way. Or job portals and property portals which rode the economic growth and property market growth. Of course execution matters equally too. Usually companies that achieve their projections are those who executed very well on a day to day sales and operations basis and which are also aided by market trends which added wind to their sails.

What about the rest? Most of the other startups fall short of their projections. A common mistake is to assume a certain conversion rate for platform plays without taking into account that as one scales up, the conversion rates could change for the worse. For sales team plays, a common mistake is to assume scalability of sales staff without taking into account the fact that it takes time to train up a sales staff and that attrition for corporate sales startups is pretty high. Also sales management is not something easy to get right from the start.

Another common mistake is to assume revenue from new markets based on old market assumptions. I have seen many business plans where SG makes X revenue and the assumption is to grow MY and ID at the same pace as SG. This is quite dangerous. Many reasons. One is that core team that made it work is still in SG and not the new country. Another reason is that SG core assumptions are significantly different from new market. Another close parallel of this is assuming in your projection that you can sell a complementary  product as easily as your core. For example, an ecommerce company thinking that it can branch out and sell to the same clients advertising media.

2) Costs are usually at projections or worse above projections.

On the other side of the income statement, most startups manage to spend what they say they will spend. Unfortunately, when coupled with (1), this means many startups fail to hit their EBITDA goals. While not damning if they are growing fast enough, some startups do get caught and run out of cash.

Implications of the above 2 observations.

If the above 2 are usually correct, then it means that startups should always have a ultra conservative plan which requires them to project revenue at the worst case scenario and then spend at the worst case scenario. And be reactive enough so that if revenue comes in as expected, then ramp up the cost to match it. But never let cost ramp up in anticipation of revenue.

Now i know some people will say that is extremely conservative and startups that practise what i just suggested probably cant scale up super fast. Also, some people may also wonder how such a startup will get funded. I have 2 answers for this.

First, use your average to optimistic scenario for fund raising but use your conservative one once you get funding. This will solve your funding valuation issue and investors usually dont mind if the entrepreneur is more careful with their money.

Second, it really depends on market adoption or revenue growth. If market are growing like crazy (read over 100% per year), then yes, by all means ramp up the costs. But if market is still those that require you to educate clients (like job portals during the 2000-2003 days)... then perhaps it makes sense to pace costs to revenues.

Feel free to comment!

Last of the ASEAN job portals exit, A New Era Commences

AMENDMENT : Read more about the deal. Jobstreet bought all minority stakes in PH, VN and ID before selling the entire 100% entities to SEEK.  Valuation ranges from 3+ to 8 times sales. Depends on market dominance and EBITDA margins i guess. Anyway good deal for everyone but it means my numbers below for key founders need to drop by about 7-8%. 

Also Seek has a clause to keep Suresh as employee. Wonder how that discussion went. With about 20M USD, Suresh can easily go retire too. Wonder how he will feel running a company that he no longer has a stake in. Maybe he is viewing the overall Asia job and compete with Adrian who is running JobsDB from HK.... even then, at most they pay 1M a year......about same as what his portfolio can return.....


Disclaimer : I am currently still working as a Regional MD with CareerBuilder which acquired JobsCentral back in 2011.

In today’s world of social media, big data, ecommerce and mobile plays, job portals sometimes feel pretty old school as they have been around since 1997 in this region.  However, looking back at this industry’s history, I find it is a good case study of how a disruptive technology grows in a blue ocean and how widespread adoption of the a business model changes the growth and expansion dynamics of the business.

The news of the week is that the last of my competitors – JobStreet has been sold  for about US$520M to SEEK and at a valuation of about 21.6 times EBITDA for 2013 and 10 times sales.  This is a fair valuation as it is 15-20% better to what SEEK paid for JobsDB just 2 years ago. This is a function of market bullishness now rather than anything else. Business wise, the merger makes sense since the JobsDB and Jobstreet business do not overlap much except in Singapore. Someone did ask me why pay 10 times sales for a relatively matured business. I would say that it is not so much 10 times sales but rather paying 21.6 times EBITDA. Jobstreet has a very enviable 40+% EBITDA margin and shown over the last 5-6 years that they can maintain that kind of profitability level. The worse they did was about 30% back in the GFC.

I have much respect for Chairman/CEO and main shareholder Mr Mark Chang who has a 9.9% stake in the company and who now gets to pocket about S$66M for a good job done over 15 years.  I respect him for his ability to manage costs well, share his capital gains with fellow management and to patiently plug at building the business so that it reaches it's current scale. His fellow management team will get a good exit that will allow them to retire if they want. Albert- CTO owns about the same as Mark, Suresh – COO about 3.9% and Greg – CFO about 2.7%. They are all on average 48 years old and up.  His institutional investors too must be very happy with this exit as one year ago their listed valuation on Bursa was only half what SEEK is paying now.

If I have to speculate why they decided to sell when it seems they still have a good 10 to 15 years to work if they wanted, I would say it is a function of things.

First, SEEK has been a major shareholder owning about 20+% of Jobstreet. This would have been fine until SEEK acquired majority of JobsDB. One can imagine how awkward their board of director meetings must have been.

Second, winds of change are coming to this industry. Job Portals in the USA are being challenged by social media players like LinkedIn and HR is exploring owning their own career sites and taking more charge of their own recruitment and branding. As such,  job portals are increasingly challenged to develop more products and services that go beyond the core portal platform to better address and take advantage of these new trends.

Third, globally job portals are consolidating with now about 6 players worldwide who are worth over 1B USD. Jobstreet as a middle sized player in the region will find it increasingly challenging to keep up technologically with the global players.

So what next? Job Portals are a formidable business. In the region, they are worth over S$200M in annual sales and make EBITDA of about 25-35%. This makes job portals probably the most profitable of internet companies in the past 5 years. And they are really an ASEAN industry with multimillion dollar market sizes in SG, MY, VN, TH, PH and ID. 

They have tons of valuable data on employment and candidates, have large reach into HR community and have the technological and marketing resources to bring them all together. It will be interesting to see how these global players morph themselves in the years ahead.  But one thing i know for sure, don't write them off! 

When to raise outside capital & what kind of dilution is ok.

Have been talking to quite a few entrepreneurs lately and i realize that many have very mixed views (rightly so) about raising capital from (semi)/ professional investors. Some also never seem to have thought about dilution and seem to have an almost ambivalent attitude about ownership.

So i thought i will pen down my thoughts on these issues both as an entrepreneur who tried to raise money before and as an investor in startups. DISCLAIMER : REGIONAL CONTEXT ONLY.

There is actually only 1 good reason why a tech startup raises money.

Company needs the cash to grow in SG or to expand into overseas markets which current organic cash flow projections cannot meet. Growing can be by organic or acquisition route. Usually your 5 or 3 or 2 year P&L projection shows great revenue growth but you need to spend money to get there and you are negative cashflow for a good period. Then you need funding to tide all that negative cashflow and then some. The extra is buffer.

So if you find that you are in the lucky situation where you are already profitable and cashflow positive. And you actually do not have a burning vision that you cannot execute due to lack of money, then perhaps you should not be fund raising. Even though usually, this is when VCs and investors and brokers will bug you the most to raise. They will tell you stuff like money in the bank is king, having a buffer is always good, you never know, how much network and strategic help they can give etc etc.

They are not wrong. But you need to weigh that against the distraction of fund raising, the distraction of dealing with investors, the value of network and also whether you actually need the money. I have known of at least 2 big internet companies who raised 800K and 1+M each and they actually almost did not touch the money at all until exit!

To be fair, I am not including the strategic help which a good investor can offer and that is valuable. This cannot be underestimated and i think if you find an investor who really helps and cares, then the story is different.  For these cases, i have seen people do convertible notes so that valuation is higher later or just raise less money. You still get the help and network but dilute less.

How about dilution? How much is too much or too little for our tech space today?

It really depends on each entrepreneurs goal. But by and large, most entrepreneurs are highly competitive people who benchmark a lot. I think they also want to win and there are many measures of winning. It can be to control the biggest company by revenue or profit or user traffic etc. It can also be a combination of those factors.

1) My first non-contentious observation in SG is that it will be best to bootstrap and skip the angel round. Lets say we have a 2-3 founder team. They run through  100K to build their prototype and a further 50K to market the prototype and raise money. At this stage they still own 100% of the company.

So they raise the Seed round to hire a few pax, market more, build out software more. Lets say they raise 500K at 1.5M premoney. So now, the founders own 75% of the company. With this 500K, they build out SG and after another 1 year want to expand overseas and drive to SG profitability. Now in SG, it is usually a 1.5 to 2.5M raise. So lets say 2M raised at premoney 8M, now founders are down to 60%.

Wait, there is now employee option pool which varies from 5-10% usually paid jointly or out of founder pool. So lets say founders down to 55%.

This is where we depart from USA since our ASEAN market is a lot smaller. With this 2M raised, the tech company needs to grow into exit event.   An exit event can be an IPO or a trade sale. There are some fewer cases of raising Series B to expand even further but most of the SG stories exit already - Hungrygowhere, Tencube, Brandtology, Groupon, Dealguru, sgcarmart, Travelmob, Asian food channel all exited after raising 1-2+M. The only ones i know who raise Series B or equivalent is Propguru and Reebonz. Maybe readers can add.

So back to the optimal stake. At 55% left for founders and average sale value of lets say 20M, that is 11M only for say 3 founders. Or about 3.66M each. Now imagine if this company raised a initial bootstrap round that took out 15%, they are left with 2.7M each for about 6 years work if divided evenly.

2) The 2nd observation i have is a lot more contentious. I have seen many teams where the 2-3 founders share the stake equally. While this feels right at the startup phase, it actually does not make sense. A company will require a CEO and driver. That person performs a role that is more stressful and more impactful than other founder roles. And in startup, pay cannot be used to compensate. So i would argue and indeed prefer configurations where the key leader has a much higher stake and plays a stronger role. So in the case of the 3 founders, maybe 50%, 30%, 20% or even 60/20/20. Of course, the founders should put in capital commensurate to their shareholding and i am all for equal or near equal pay among the 3 to show the solidarity.

On the flip side, i would not advocate any key founder having less than 10% equity from the start. Too little to feel any pain and to be aligned well. And after all the dilution, the person will be left with 5%. Too little for talent for our region. They will end up looking around and asking for near market rate salaries to compensate.

As an investor, one thing good about CEO owning the bulk is that we know even if the shit hits the fan, there is one clear person with the most to lose. And that is good alignment.