3 ms·
This happens all too often. A firm would rush to a term sheet knowing that they haven't done all the work required and knowing that there is a chance they will
by nikcub 15y ago
This happens all too often. A firm would rush to a term sheet knowing that they haven't done all the work required and knowing that there is a chance they will pull out of the deal, only so that they can kill off the interest from the competition.
I think it is very likely that they hadn't done any real DD (on you, or the market) until after you signed, and during that DD found that the business/market was not as hot as they thought it would be.
I have been through a similar process twice. The first VC gave us a term sheet 3 days after the first meeting, only for them to drag through the DD.
and all VC's say that they have an interest in the market you are in. The only way to substantiate it is to see if they have made investments in similar industries. ie. has this firm previously invested in an enterprise SaaS company related to marketing or aimed at marketing departments? If this firm or partner had only invested in server software, or consumer, etc. then it should have been warning.
You should also look at how many deals that partner has done and what their decision making process is. There is no mention of this in the post, but it could be that he took the deal to his partners and they decided to turn it down. There is no mention of the other partners at the firm nor how they make decisions.
The solution is to go through DD with 4-5 firms at the same time before signing anything or before finalizing terms. Tell them straight up that you want to do DD with all these firms between date x and date y, and that by date z you want final committals, from where you can go over terms with those who are still interested.
Things were done in the wrong order in this case, and you said you didn't want to shop the deal -- the VC took advantage of that.
- suking 15y agoI think this is it as well. They probably felt the market for SEO SaaS is relatively small and wouldn't get to $100m+ within the next 5-7 years.
- webwright 15y ago$100m in value? With $12m in revenue (double from the previous year!), they are pretty close to being a $100m company NOW.
- suking 15y agoRevenue - if their post is around $85 they need to get to $500mm+ to be a home run the VCs want. That will require a HUGE amount of revenue, most likely $100+.
- randfish 15y agoThis is a good point. One interesting thing we found with the more growth-focused funds (and the growth-focused parts of traditional VCs) is that at high valuations and high dollar amounts in, they tend to look for 3-5X returns, rather than 10X. This was a big difference from the 2009 raise we attempted, when everyone was asking that question "how do you get us 10X our money?" vs. 2011, when it was "does this have a 95% chance of getting us 3X+ our money?"
- suking 15y agoYou don't have to name names, but I'd put $ on this being RRE :-).
- rumpelstiltskin 15y agoAnd RRE is an abbreviation of?
- suking 15y agoIt's a VC firm.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- drusenko 15y agoThat's our experience with quite a few growth firms as well. They're not looking for 10x, they say they want 5x but a high probability for 3x would still be great.
- 15y ago