Why Too Much Money is Worse than Too Little

Why Too Much Money is Worse than Too Little

Jul 19, 2010 -

Many entrepreneurs believe that the lack of capital is their primary problem. If only they had a fat bank balance, they could kick butt. As a venture capitalist, I’ve seen what happens when companies raise substantial capital. It’s not pretty—in fact, my theory is that too much money is worse than too little. Here’s why.

 
1.  Expenses expand to the level of funding.

Funny how this works: companies create projections that use the money that they have. The availability of money makes them think of ways to spend it, so there’s less emphasis on doing the right things the right way. The logic becomes, “Our investors gave us this money to invest, not to collect interest in the bank. They want us to scale up and go for it, so we should spend it. We know we’ll meet our milestones, and our competition is a joke, so we’ll always be able to get more money.” 

2.
  Money creates a false sense of security.

Companies divide the amount of money that they have by their monthly expenses. This figure is a company’s “runway” or the number of months that it can survive. There are three problems with this calculation: first, expenses always rise, so the number of months decreases. Second, products are always late, so that any revenue that company counted on to extend the runway don’t materialize. Third, just because a company has the money doesn’t mean that investors won’t ask for it back. Trust me: I’ve seen it happen, and no one was more shocked than the management of the company.

3.
     Money makes companies hire “proven” people.

When companies don’t have money, they hire unproven people who are young, inexperienced, cheap and smart. When companies have money, they hire proven people from existing companies who are old, experience, expensive and lucky. These folks are accustomed to secretaries, first-class travel, and staying in the Four Seasons. You read it here first: proven people are over-rated. Oh, their resumes are great, and they look great on your website, but they didn’t cause the success of their former companies. They just happened to be there when these organizations succeeded. 

4.
     Money makes companies buy people with salaries.

No matter what kind of people you hire, when companies have money, they use it to hire them. This is instead of reality distortion (aka, “evangelism”) and stock options. The thinking about stock options goes like this: “Options are the most expensive form of compensation since the company is going to be bigger than Google and Apple combined. Let’s use money. It’s cheaper.” When a company doesn’t have money, it has to use evangelism and options, and this is better for everyone because these types of compensation attract the right kind of people for a startup. 

5.
     Money causes dependence on experts and vendors.

When a company has money, it looks outside for “world-class” experts and vendors
after all, “the investors gave us this money to build the best company possible in the shortest time possible.” This is when the consultants and agencies start charging the company $200/hour for the Asian art-history major who’s been out of Princeton for a year. If a company doesn’t have money, it figures out cheap ways to get results. It develops the aforementioned young, inexperienced, cheap and smart people because it has no choice but to make them effective. 


6.
     Money makes entrepreneurship look like a serial process.

When companies have money, their thinking is serial: first they raise money, then they create the product, then they sell it, then they collect revenues, and then they meet with Goldman, Sachs for their IPO roadshow. The reality is that entrepreneurship is not serial—it’s a parallel process in which companies must raise money, create a product, sell it, collect revenues, and not have time to meet with Goldman, Sachs at the same time. Companies that work in a serial method are doomed because most markets move too fast for that approach.

 

If your company is short of money, I hope that you feel better now. The factors that ultimately make you successful may be in place. On the other hand, if your company has a boatload of money and investors who say that they “really believe and support your management,” keep your resume current.

 

Photo credit: Fotolia 

Tags: financial management, google, entrepreneur, guy kawasaki, hiring, management, money, apple, how to change the world

80 16

Article Comments (16)

  • President & CEO

    (Jul 20, 2010)
    Guy -- great article, thanks.

    Sounds like a lot of cautionary tales from entrepreneurs you've seen who jumped the gun once they raised money.

    My main concern with the article for the entrepreneurs who read this is that they come away thinking that they don't need any money to build a great company. I just don't believe that's true. Companies that don't raise enough capital have a hard time coming out of the shadows. They don't need tens of millions, especially not anymore with so many elastic factors of production, but they still need capital to build a great marketing effort, to build out their sales channels, and to rapidly engineer and modify their products.

    Also, your article doesn't leave room for those entrepreneurs who raise money but who still find a way to remain disciplined on their spend, focused on hiring hungry undeveloped yet "A" player talent, and avoiding the many pitfalls you list. I believe those entrepreneurs are out there.

    All the points you raise are fantastic, but I believe it's worth pointing out the value of raising sufficient capital once a young company has validated the value of their product and created a repeatable sales process. These companies, once they're at that stage of the business, can move must FASTER and seize a lot of opportunity without always having to worry about making payroll.

    Thanks Guy for all your contributions to the worldwide entrepreneurial community.

    Best,
    Peter

    CEO I AxialMarket
    www.axialmarket.com
    t: @petelehrman
  • Carol Roth

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/carol-roth/b/376/653
    linked in badge

    Partner at Intercap Merchant Partners;…

    (Jul 20, 2010)
    Guy:

    Very interesting article and I think it helps to illustrate the significant differences between tech and vc-fundable companies vs. "Main Street" entreprenuers. While vc's often encourage bigger capital raises that can turn into spend-fests, the majority of "Main Street" entrepreneurs (which as you know account for the majority of new business starts each year) are incredibly underfunded.

    Most of these entrepreneurs (many who are one-man bands or few-person shops) don't realize that it can take 1.5-2 years for a business to get its legs underneath it and that they need to have enough money to start the business, sustain it AND to live on during that period. So many of these entrepreneurs don't get a chance to stabilize their businesses because they don't capitalize their businesses properly from the beginning.

    For the truly small business, I think that not enough money has proven to be a much larger problem than too much, leading to the majority failure rates.

    For the high-flyers, you are dead-on- just because you have access to the capital, doesn't mean you should spend it.

    But for the everyday entrepreneur, too little money is one of the biggest issues out there.

    Thanks for another thought-provoking piece.

    Carol Roth
    www.CarolRoth.com
    t: @CarolJSRoth
  • Kam Rezvani

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/kamrezvani
    linked in badge

    Mobile Software Maven

    (Jul 20, 2010)
    Guy,

    Thanks for this informative article. The larger issue that encompasses your observation is prevalence of what I have seen described as "uneducated" or more colloquially put as "dumb" money. If the capital that enters the venture lacks a detailed knowledge of the technology it is investing into, then the amount of money (too much or too little) becomes irrelevant.

    In today's capital markets, few if any projects are evaluated based on merits. Mostly, it is who is vouching for whom which demonstrates "uneducated" money at work which basically means a lot of failures.

    The venture business has taken the form of a high stakes roulette in which there are only few winners with high returns. Entrepreneurs are mostly beggars in this high stake game who are looking for crummy million here or there to get themselves off the ground. The capitalists, on the hand, blow untold millions seeking the glory of next Google or Facebook.

    What is missing is the lack of realization that success is mostly a complex interaction of life experience and deep understanding of what motivates human beings to innovate.

    Failure, on the hand, is a function of bloated egos and a whole host of unrealistic expectations that originate from lack of experience coupled with, as Guy puts it, too much money!
  • Founder

    (Jul 21, 2010)
    Maybe Guy, I would like to test this theory, can you help me out with that?

    John
  • Mike Sporer

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/msccmike
    linked in badge

    Owner, Empowerment Enterprise Solutions

    (Jul 21, 2010)
    Great article, Guy. In my job, I meet many salespeople. The best ones have 3 things...1) They believe in their product, 2) they believe in their customers and, most importantly, 3) they make it "religion". Having religion always trumps a too big ban account. I love the term you use...evangelism.