Karen Ho

🚀 Thinking of launching a corporate venture capital unit? Here’s the secret sauce. From 13 top CVCs interviews, the blueprint for success gets uncovered. 🎯 Key insights: - Define crystal-clear objectives - Implement structured processes - Set measurable metrics - Exercise patience - Gain board/executive backing - Offer more than just capital to startups PS. check out 🔔 for a winning pitch deck the template created by Silicon Valley legend, Peter Thiel https://lnkd.in/ejp-Bhnu

19

1 Comment

There has to be a fair and transparent process to any change to taxes and a coherent plan for the future. Unfreezing fuel duty would raise £3bn to absolutely dwarf these taxes on ambition and value creation. And benefit the environment.

4

Startup decks vs Business plans. It's accepted that a startup needs a deck. Dax Dasilva of Lightspeed Commerce made an important point on 20VC. Writing a business plan - including financial projections - is an important step. It requires discipline. It provides a rigorous framework for thinking deeply about the problem you're trying to solve. Harry Stebbings countered that he doesn't even want to see a deck since it's all dreams. We spent a lot of time and energy on our business plan with the expectation that we would show it to no one ever. The business plan was part of our roadmap for the company. We researched customers - including having 50+ conversations. We wanted to understand them: their background, their interests, their presence on social media. We also wanted to understand how they were evaluated by leadership and how integrated they were with the business of the company they were protecting. We researched pricing both with potential customers and other products in our industry to find out if OpEx or CapEx was a better fit. How did they buy today? How would they like to buy? We did market research to understand the verticals and map the right entry point - we were wrong but that doesn't reduce the value of the research. We looked at competitors in depth to understand what they were seeing that we weren't. Dax is right. This is an invaluable document that should be updated every year - the company is changing, the market is changing, there's more feedback about price and ICP. It's not for sharing with the outside world. It's a map for driving forward. Decks won't get you investment - VCs invest in people. We make decks but we know they don't tell our story. The deck is a calling card. Dax and Harry are both right. https://lnkd.in/e25M82xY

15

This year is all about survival. I've seen enough data to call it. Multiple reports are showing Flat -> No growth. Wayflyer/Iris Finance report had Q1 overall growth at +4% YoY. Common Thread Collective Index has same store sales flat YoY. What does this mean? This year is about survival. The industry as a whole isn’t growing. We can blame this on whatever we want. But the outcome remains the same. Instead of obsessing about your topline growth. (Which is a steep mountain to climb.) Focusing on growing your bottom line. In a low topline growth year, spend time becoming more profitable. 100% YoY growth doesn’t do you any good if you’re out of biz in 2 years. The goal needs to be surviving to 2025. #shopify

72

23 Comments

I’ve never taken a job. But today, that all changes ✨ After years building my own products (and investment vehicles!), I’ve decided to join Contentsquare to work closely with Jonathan Cherki on Special Projects (yes, will explain). As with everything I do, I like when there’s a rationale that I can easily explain to myself and to others, so here are the 6 YOLO reasons that brought me to make that move: 🦁 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝗼𝗻 : I’ve known Jonathan since he moved to the US, and while his beautiful French accent will most likely never disappear, he has impressed me at every single step of the way. Delivering a new monster fundraise every year, hiring key C-level execs, signing splendid customers, acquiring top companies, etc. His power skill? He NEVER takes no for an answer. No matter what the topic. You can’t even say no to a tennis game with him, he will send you a nanny to take care of your kids while you’re playing if need be. I know I can learn a ton next to him, and our personalities complement each other, so it does feel like a strong match on paper. 📈 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲: Let’s be real, I’ve never experienced that kind of scale before ($1.4B raised, 1850 employees, installed on 1.3M websites) and potentially having a little impact on that big of a ship gives me goosebumps, and I hope / believe I can do it! 🔑 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴: I am a continuous learner, I never get stuck when it comes to new technologies, trends and opportunities. This represents a new sector, a new category of product, a new team. All of this makes me eager to dig deep :) 💎 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 : The potential outcome is massive, because Contentsquare is manipulating tons of data. And data is the new goldmine in the era of AI. We’re probably at 5% of where we can be. 🕺 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲: Being one of the hottest French / European startups, I’ve gotten to meet and work with some incredible people already in the team, and as we all know, it’s all about the people! Thanks for the warm welcome everyone 🙏 (Lucie Arnaud Cedric Anthony Stanislas Gabriel Mohannad Shiraz Victoire Constantin Melanie Gary John Jean-Christophe Marion Patrick Simon..) 🥷 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲 ;): This is a role with a founder-first approach. Taking new initiatives from zero to one. Moving from discovery to execution with a getting sh*t done mentality. The way I like to operate! 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀?  My main role is to work on some initiatives that can help define what the future might look like: Data monetization, Strategic AI projects, Bringing us closer to the US tech ecosystem, and more. All in all, working closely with John - and Pierre - will expose me to multiple aspects of running a Series F company, and I am sure, will offer many surprises. I am excited for this new chapter, it’s an updated version of me, and I think I like it already :) PS: pic of my first day at the office PS2: technically, I’ve taken a job before, but right after school, does that even count?

769

162 Comments

Finding Angel Investors - Part 1 - The Net Angel investment is a great source of initial capital for UK startups, especially with the increased SEIS limit meaning you can now raise £250,000 under the scheme. However, building a network of real Angel investors can take a long time, which is the reason most businesses start with some funding from family & friends. But what if, like majority of people in the UK, your family/close friends don’t have £100k to help get you going, what is the best way to find Angel investors? Having raised over £1m from Angels across two different startups, in my opinion there are three options: - The Net (wide outreach, trying to catch as many fish/Angels as possible), - The Speargun (hyper-personalised and hyper-targeted outreach) and, - Dynamite (expensive but highly effective introductions by individuals) When we raised for YASO we took in £800,000 of Angel money and I spoke to 600+ Angels during the round. I’ll tell you my preferred approach at the end because I do have one! The Net There are lots of generic investor lists online that claim to have the details of active Angels. Here is one I found from a quick Google search: https://lnkd.in/eXEtyaqT In the world of tools like ChatGPT, Hubspot and Zapier, most founders should be able to build a decent outbound outreach campaign to an email list of Angel investors. By doing this, you are casting your Net as wide as you can hoping that one of the Angels sees this generic cold outreach and decides to book a call with you. The issue with using these lists is that they mostly contain the same people, given that most of these lists have heavily overlapping data sets. So, even if the Angels' emails are correct, they will be constantly inbounded by founders so the reply rate you get from these lists is really low. As a founder, you may think that by using these lists you have emailed 1,000 Angels, and then get disheartened when only 2 reply, thinking you have done something wrong. Maybe you are getting no replies because your startup idea is rubbish, but more likely, you just have poor outreach data. Improving your Net There is a way to improve your “Net”, and this is to build up your own list of Angels and then cast out a cold outreach campaign with better data. There are two ways to do this: - Go on LinkedIn and search for people who say they Angel invest and use a tool like Hunter.io to get their email address. - Look up the Companies House records of seed stage companies and see who Angel invested in them This takes a bit of time, maybe 1 or 2 days to build up a list of 100+ people. But it will be more effective than using a generic list. If you are going to use the Net to find Angels and build automated cold outreach campaigns, try using both generic lists (just in case) and your own, personalised outreach lists. Part 2 - The Speargun, coming tomorrow.

31

4 Comments

How much can founders realistically raise in their first round? Antler has shared a cheat sheet to help founders assess their ability to raise capital in initial funding round - When it comes to fundraising, two factors can make all the difference: founder pedigree and traction. 1️⃣ Founder Pedigree: The less traction you have, the more your background matters. Investors look at your past to assess whether you can deliver in the future. It's about limiting execution risk. This isn't necessarily rational. Great founders get overlooked because they don't fit the typical pattern. But with thousands of similar opportunities, it's a real filter for investors. 2️⃣ Traction: Traction beats pedigree. When you present more than just an idea on paper and your product has gained some traction, your ability to raise increases. Lower-profile founders can raise funds when their idea becomes more than just an idea. Some factors can change the game. → "Levelling up cheats" move you one field to the right in the fundraising matrix, potentially increasing your chances. These might include factors like having a strong co-founder, industry expertise, or unique insights. → "Handicaps" move you one field left, possibly making fundraising more challenging. These could be factors like lack of relevant experience or a difficult-to-explain product. There are two must-haves without which you won't be able to raise, regardless of pedigree or traction: → Fundraising-ability: You need reasonable fundraising skills. Networking, sales skills, storytelling, and running a tight process are crucial. → Market attractiveness: Your market must be significant and attractive. At early stages, it's binary - either investors get excited about the opportunity, or they don't. Remember → Valuations are a function of capital raised. Assume 15-25% dilution irrespective of the amount raised. For example, if a team raises 800k, the valuation will likely be between 3.2m - 5.3m. → LinkedIn profile beats pitch deck in very early stages. Many investors will check your LinkedIn before deciding on a first meeting or looking at your pitch deck. When is this wrong? → Numbers are purely directional. They've been validated with experienced investors, but they're not exact. → This model is primarily for software startups. Biotech & Hardware companies play by different rules. → Copycat models are very binary. Experienced teams can attract large funding, while others struggle to raise anything. → Raising from a rich uncle or family/friends who aren't experienced venture investors follows different rules. Remember, great founders come from all backgrounds. If you don't fit the "classic" profile, you might need to prove more in the beginning, but there are countless examples of founders without traditional backgrounds building awesome companies. What's your thought on this? . #startups #funding #founders #investors #fund #vc #venturecapital #startups #entrepreneur #entrepreneurship

79

5 Comments

On 22nd Feb, Dan Siroker and I disagreed about funding round dilution on Twitter. In this episode we hash it out 🥊 ❌ Fundraising rules that are BS 🗣️ What VC’s really mean & want 💸 Getting Peter Fenton to invest for less than 10% My key lessons from winning this fight 👇 1. The Importance of Focus I worked on thousands of things at my first company & thought everything was important. In hindsight, there were only 3 or 4 things that made a difference. Founders need to distinguish between which tasks are truly important & focus on them. 2. The Big Secret When An Investor Asks How Much Are You Raising? They are actually asking how much you think you’re worth. Instead of giving a number, say you’re selling a certain percentage & letting the market decide the valuation. This annoys investors because they don’t get what they want. 3. Elad Gil on When and How to Pivot  The things that work tend to work really fast. Sticking it out & being perseverant doesn’t always work. You have to see some glimmer of hope in the early days. 4. Contrarian View on Selling Stock as Employees Founders should let employees sell their stock at any point. I’ve let my employees sell up to 25% when we were oversubscribed in our series A. My theory is more liquidity = more retention. 5. When They Bring up Title It Is a Bad Sign It shows you where their values are. The best people I’ve hired never brought up titles during the interview. They care about the problem & the company. 6. Why Always Be Raising is Total BS You need to have an on & off switch on fundraising. I have all my investor meetings in a week every two quarters. This removes any distractions when I’m building the company. 7. The Best Question Peter Fenton Asks Founders "What will excite you about being at this business in five years?" Great founders need to be perseverant. They have to stay in love with the business in 5, 10, or 20 years. (links in comments) #founder #funding #business #investing #vc #venturecapital #entrepreneur #startup #seed #funding #fundraising

64

16 Comments

So you missed the 83(b) election, which is holding you back from raising VC money? Here's what you can do: Unfortunately, you can't file a late Section 83(b) election because the Internal Revenue Code requires it to be done within 30 days from the Board consent approving the stock grant subject to vesting. There are no perfect fixes, but here are a few things you can try: 1. Cancel the Stock Grant and Issue New Stock: You can cancel the original stock grant and give yourself new stock instead. Just make sure to avoid any funny business like backdating the grants, and be careful not to raise any red flags with the IRS. To make the new grant different from the old one, you could give out stock options instead, change the vesting schedule, or adjust the number of shares. 2. Remove the Vesting Schedule: Another option is to scrap the vesting schedule from the stock agreement altogether. I like this option, but remember that when you're trying to get venture funding, they might want to put a new vesting schedule in place. That's pretty standard. But before that happens, there's a risk: a founder with stock that doesn't have a vesting schedule might just up and leave, holding onto their stock. It's a real risk especially when there are multiple co-founders. While missing the 83(b) election deadline does come with some tax risks, these options could help you minimize future tax problems. It's always a good idea to talk to a tax lawyer. #startuplawyer #startupfounder #83b

35

14 Comments

Don't Be Fooled By DAU/MAU - It Hides Your Real User Activity! When founders want to see how engaged their users are, they look at the (Daily Active Users) / (Monthly Active Users) ratio metric. While it only gives a single, blended average. It doesn't show where users fall across the activity spectrum. So instead of relying solely on this ratio, what should founders analyze? Analyze the Power User Curve. It's a 30-day histogram which graph the number of days per month users were active, provides a more detailed breakdown of user engagement to identify and understand power users. 1️⃣ When The Curve Smiles A curve that looks like a smile - with high bars on the left and right - it shows that users are highly engaged and returning to the app daily. As the product can create more power users, the curve will shift further towards the right side of the smile. Facebook has a very right-leaning smile curve, with more than 60% of its MAUs coming back daily. 2️⃣ A Left-weighted Curve When the curve is left-weighted, most users only have activity one day a month. By this activity metric, the product has very few power users. That's okay, not every product is built on daily returning users. An investing product like a professional network like LinkedIn is bound to have a more left-weighted Curve. Low engagement simply means the company must extract more value from each engagement and create revenue with a business model that isn't tied to daily usage. 3️⃣ Trends & Cohorts Seeing how the curve changes over time will show if a product getting more engaging and why. A positive shift towards the right means a cohort of users is finding value in the product. This can illustrate how a new release or feature is bringing users back more often. Likewise, products like Uber or Thumbtack would want to look at cohort trends by geographic location to see how their product is developing in different areas and building network effects. 4️⃣ Customizing Your Curve To get the most from your curve, customize it to your business. It doesn't need to be viewed on the 30-day scale. A SaaS/productivity product focused on the workweek and weekly active users might want to look at their power users on a 7-day histogram, and the activity doesn't need to be app opens or logins. The curve can look beyond visits by using a deeper action that is more likely to show users getting or creating value. A publishing platform might want to look at “posted content” activity to identify its small contingent of power users. This is how YouTube could look at its creators, or eBay at its sellers. There's no silver bullet for how to look at user engagement, However, the Power User Curve visualizes user activity distribution, helping identify power users and understand how to monetize the product around them, rather than relying solely on blended average metrics. . Source: Andrew Chen (Partner at a16z) #startups #metrics #users #activity #MAU #DAU #fund #funding

24

1 Comment

The Bad Apple? Today Which launched a legal action against Apple claiming it locked 40 million of its British users into using its iCloud service and is charging them “rip off prices”. This a a bold move by Which to champion consumers taking on a US tech giant like Apple. Is Apple becoming too big for its boots and taking advantage of its followers? I have been a fan and we’re an Apple household with 10 devices so very much locked in to them. Like many of you I’ve run out of storage on my iPhone and I pay this iCloud fee to Apple so on a positive would be set to gain if Which are successful in their lawsuit. However I worry that this could be a trend of the big tech moving toward being bad tech? Let me give you some examples so you can decide: Apple Mac Pro After a number of years it still looks great and works perfectly except I can’t get any more software updates from them. So it becomes obsolete when it doesn’t have to be not exactly environmentally friendly either! Initially, I go to a local tech store who finds a way around it and my Mac Pro lives again. However after a few more update I give in any buy a new Mac (not as good as my old one Apple iPhone The earlier models seemed to be made better and still have them today despite being made obsolete by updates that often bring marginal benefits. They may be designed in California but they’re made in China and cost consumers more so the savings made from this production move are clearly not being shared with users like us. Apple users Thanks to Which for being brave and stepping forward as it might just make Apple think twice or is could become a bad Apple in the eyes of its devotees not just in the UK but worldwide. Given we’re locked in to Apple how do we find our voice? And is Apple still good or becoming a bad Apple? https://lnkd.in/edxjixwd

4

Remember MLOps? An explosion of companies and VCs pumping into MLOps platforms in 2020 and 2021 and explainability companies then too. Enter today, mostly wiped out landscape, one company standing Weights & Biases (I’m not an investor) but this new LLMops market starting to look awfully similar. Instead of being pitched by 20 AutoML companies now it’s RAG. If you’re building and have a perspective how building with LLMs will shape up, I want to talk to you

35

10 Comments

Startups this should give you an idea of how you’re assessed. Ask investors questions about thier criteria and experience investing in your space.

9

A guide for founders on how much to raise in their first round... Antler has shared a cheat sheet to help founders assess their ability to raise capital in their initial funding round - When it comes to fundraising, two factors can make all the difference: Founder pedigree and Traction. 1️⃣ Founder Pedigree: The less traction you have, the more your background matters. Investors look at your past to assess whether you can deliver in the future. It's about limiting execution risk. This isn't necessarily rational. Great founders get overlooked because they don't fit the typical pattern. But with thousands of similar opportunities, it's a real filter for investors. 2️⃣ Traction: Traction beats pedigree. When you present more than just an idea on paper and your product has gained some traction, your ability to raise increases. Lower-profile founders can raise funds when their idea becomes more than just an idea. Some factors can change the game. → "Levelling up cheats" move you one field to the right in the fundraising matrix, potentially increasing your chances. These might include factors like having a strong co-founder, industry expertise, or unique insights. → "Handicaps" move you one field left, possibly making fundraising more challenging. These could be factors like lack of relevant experience or a difficult-to-explain product. There are two must-haves without which you won't be able to raise, regardless of pedigree or traction: → Fundraising-ability: You need reasonable fundraising skills. Networking, sales skills, storytelling, and running a tight process are crucial. → Market attractiveness: Your market must be significant and attractive. At early stages, it's binary - either investors get excited about the opportunity, or they don't. Remember → Valuations are a function of capital raised. Assume 15-25% dilution irrespective of the amount raised. For example, if a team raises 800k, the valuation will likely be between 3.2m - 5.3m. → LinkedIn profile beats pitch deck in very early stages. Many investors will check your LinkedIn before deciding on a first meeting or looking at your pitch deck. When is this wrong? → Numbers are purely directional. They've been validated with experienced investors, but they're not exact. → This model is primarily for software startups. Biotech & Hardware companies play by different rules. → Copycat models are very binary. Experienced teams can attract large funding, while others struggle to raise anything. → Raising from a rich uncle or family/friends who aren't experienced venture investors follows different rules. Remember, great founders come from all backgrounds. If you don't fit the "classic" profile, you might need to prove more in the beginning, but there are countless examples of founders without traditional backgrounds building awesome companies. What's your thought on this? . #startups #funding #founders #investors #fund #vc #venturecapital #funding #founder #investor

82

2 Comments

Minimal component projects Google continued to have this approach and it is hugely successful. No one bothered to look at the way the links and its content appeared as long as it served purpose Apple focused on sleek design and with a target of high niche consumers... Microsoft / SAP with its focus on B2B had many features embedded in menu etc Oracle even provided terminal commands to be executed directly.. Why some companies just cannot get minimal? The answer lies in the question itself.. What we wish from our product? Detailed information or Lesser information and leave to anyone's imagination to extract more out of that less information.. The more granular is our requirement, the more complex the UX will emerge.. The more minimal is our requirement, it is just a simple ask any question and just get the answer and figure out ways to beautify the content. How to resolve this? Ask Hard questions to self as to what exactly we wish to key in and what we wish to get as output? If we want too much output, input screens will get complex and if we want very less output, input screens will get simpler.. All LLMs follow the google approach of text box based communication.. They are hugely successful too... However there are many product companies who try to over simply things and then get caught with some missing objects... This happens in finance products which may be very popular but in process of no-code / less codification of items or finance heads... it creates a night mare for so many accountants figuring out on how they can trace things... This is where SAP or Microsoft type of ERP begin getting more takers and all are then fine with even complex UX designs.. We need to understand what type of clients we are going to cater to in long run... If Linkedin kept adding multiple features all over, it is because of client demands and from all those requirements, how we can make good screen design is where UX designers may need to challenge themselves... The company names mentioned all of them have great screen designs and over period of time with so many products built, reviewed and implemented, the key success lies in user trainings.. I remember way back in a remote village at mid night, was teaching bunch of villagers to key in mango data collection or in an Ashram where no one dared to touch computers least it breaks... and with great difficulty they would key in only what is needed.. Both projects were huge success as the developer has to sit with end-user for hours and keep discussing where the end-user struggles, modify the code there-and-then and ensure user enters at least 5 records themselves without struggle.. User peer pairing with programmer critical for user experience improvements for B2B projects

1

In my experience US pre-money valuations still tend to exceed most other jurisdictions together with a bigger appetite for risk.

3

Which UK #Fintechs are now profitable? £1bn OF PROFIT GENERATED BY UK FINTECHS The startup scene has been brutal the past couple of years. Redundancies are at an all time high, recruitment at an all time low, and startups are going bust or raising down rounds at an unprecedented level. BUT, some startups have shown incredible resilience and have achieved profitability, and deserve to be celebrated. Here are the 8 profitable UK Fintechs: Revolut: Founded in 2015, Revolut quickly became one of the UK’s top startups, are have recently confirmed a $45bn valuation. Their 2023 results were INSANE: 🚀 $2bn of revenue 🚀 $545m profit Monzo Bank: #Monzo released their latest annual results a few months ago and they are INSANE: 🚀 £15.4m of profit (vs £116m loss in 2023) 🚀 £880m of revenue (+147% YoY) 🚀 9.3 million users (+26% YoY) Allica Bank: #Allica is the UK’s only digitally-native challenger bank committed to providing a full-service banking relationship to established SMEs and entrepreneurs, offering them lending, savings and payments. It launched in 2019 and became one of the fastest UK fintechs to achieve profitability: 🚀 Revenue increased 141% to £191 million 🚀 Pre-tax profit of £16.1 million Starling Bank: Founded in 2014 the fintech first achieved profitability in 2022. Their latest results show them operating an an incredible 37% profit margin: 🚀£453m of revenue 🚀£169m of net income Zopa Bank Zopa began as the world's first peer-to-peer lending company in 2005. It has since expanded to broader fintech products and gained a full banking licence in 2020. It became a unicorn in 2021 when it raised £220m at a valuation of $1.03bn. Since then it has gone from loss-making to very profitable: 🚀 £222m of revenue (+44% YoY) 🚀 £16m of profit (vs £24m loss in 2022) ClearBank #ClearBank is a technology-enabled clearing bank that enables its clients to offer real-time payment and innovative banking services to their customers.
They released their FY2023 results which showed them operating on a 20% profit margin: 🚀 £111m total income (+91% YoY) 🚀 £18m of profit (+109% YoY) 🚀 £6.1bn in deposits (+103% YoY) Clear Junction Founded in 2016 by Dima Kats Kits, Clear Junction is a global leader in cross-border payments for regulated financial institutions. It's the only bootstrapped company on this list, and is very profitable: 🚀 £19m of Revenue 🚀 £8m of Net Profit OakNorth Oaknorth became a unicorn 2 years after being founded and their latest accounts demonstrate why they deserved it: 🚀 £466m revenue (+73% YoY) 🚀 £187m of profit before tax (+24% YoY) 🚀 30% net profit margin. Other fintechs, such as Freetrade, Moneybox, #Chip, Atom bank and Tandem Bank, have also all achieved profitability recently, but either on shorter time frames or after tax! #isapexchange #isapwallet www.isap.exchange iSAP Exchange FZCO iSAP Group Investments ltd Tino Herold

5