Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Open.com Navigation
Our special feature on forecasting sheds light on how to choose the right model, offers advice from Jack Stack and more.
Get startedMany 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
Guy,
Thank you for an inspirational article. The most inexpensive way of raising capital is through increased profits and thus retained earnings.
John Hamrock
http://www.ancestor.ie
john.hamrock@ancestor.ie
As an employee of a start-up that just survived the "too much money" issue, I can get behind this 100%. I sent this article to all of my associates, and hope we can use this bit of advice.
Great article!
As an employee of a start-up that just survived the "too much money" issue, I can get behind this 100%. I sent this article to all of my associates, and hope we can use this bit of advice.
Great article!
I believe its a matter of understanding how much you need to make things happen instead of how much you need to live king size and blame it on others later...
If you're a startup founder/ team, rule of thumb should be - no limos, no business class travel, no 5 star stays, no fancy-shmancy expenses at all, unless the startup makes money!
Guy, you're right with your writing. Money if implemented into a startup in an early phase (or even at successful companies) through funding by government or VCs keeps the lid on unsurfaced problems. This is also a metapher in the lean management context, where it is not directly money but the amount of SKU (stock keeping units) that makes the companies look safe.
Starting a startup in a leanstartup fashion as @EricRies and others (amongst them I am myself), bootstrapping step by step takes longer in the beginning and will enable for sustainable growth over time, especially when the obstacles and constraints can be overcome with innovative and creative ways (instead of being pushed away by money).
Best regards from Dresden, Ralf
This post reminds me of the story of the little boy who gets a hammer for his birthday. Suddenly, everything starts looking like a nail.
When a startup company gets too much capital, everything problem starts to look like a money problem -- as in a problem that can only be solved with money.
Harvard Business School in one of its few really practical pieces of work defines entrepreneurship as the ability to achieve commercial success despite the total absence of resources.
In other words, THE defining characteristic of an entrepreneur (as opposed to a corporate executive) is the trait of being resourceful.
Excess capital kills resourcefulness, which in turn kills entrepreneurship.
Victor Cheng
http://www.victorcheng.com/executive-coaching
Until the mid 80′s most solutions were proprietary and very expensive to design, engineer, develop, sell and support. There were therefore relatively few choices and few methods to disseminate information about them. This began to change in the late 90’s with the introduction and use of open standards. Prior to then it was difficult to build a product but relatively easy to market it.
There are now countless ways to get information about a solution or offering. The challenge now is identifying the right audience and then finding the correct messaging and medium to reach them. Prospective buyers are now bombarded with messaging from literally thousands of vendors. It is challenging for any company with a limited budget to get through all of the noise. Many great companies die on the vine because they can’t get through the noise and to their audience.
The capital investment it takes to create a successful enterprise has shifted from engineering and development to sales and marketing. Most B2B companies underfund and do an extremely poor job of marketing.
Why?
1) The best marketing people go to B2C companies with huge budgets and ‘interesting’ things to do. B2B companies tend to scrimp on marketing budgets – what really good marketer wants to work with that?
2) Typical career paths for VPs of Marketing in B2B companies are System Engineer-to-Product Manager-to-Product Marketing Manager-to-VP of Marketing. Typically, people performing marketing in B2B companies have little customer empathy, are not qualified and regardless, are under-funded. Oh, you want a good B2B marketing guy? Find one that came up through the ranks in sales.
3) Many entrepreneurs still have a “build it and they will come” mentality and have to go through a painful learning process to discover that this is not true.
There needs to be a fundamental shift in how capital is allocated to build a company. It needs to shift from development to marketing.
bill@design-works.com
Boy, does this article resonate with me. Spend always rises to the level of money, then exceeds it, unless you take a disciplined approach, something a lot of VC's discourage.
One of the reasons we have not taken money, here or at i2 Technologies (in the past), is that they always want to give us a lot more than we can intelligently use.
Guy, This is how it was put in a 2004 interview about our work on social capitalism
"The problem is that profit and money still tend to accumulate in the hands of comparatively few people. Money, symbolically representing wealth and ownership of material assets, is not an infinite resource. When it accumulates in enormous quantities in the hands of a few people, that means other people are going to be denied. If everyone in the world has enough to live a decent life and not in poverty, then there is no great problem with some people having far more than they need. But, that's not the case, and there are no rules in the previous capitalist system to fix that. Profit and numbers have no conscience, and anything done in their name has been accepted as an unavoidable aspect of capitalism."
Certainly we are short of money, though what we do have can claim to have some impact.
http://people-centered.net/Services.aspx
Guy, This is how it was put in a 2004 interview about our work on social capitalism
"The problem is that profit and money still tend to accumulate in the hands of comparatively few people. Money, symbolically representing wealth and ownership of material assets, is not an infinite resource. When it accumulates in enormous quantities in the hands of a few people, that means other people are going to be denied. If everyone in the world has enough to live a decent life and not in poverty, then there is no great problem with some people having far more than they need. But, that's not the case, and there are no rules in the previous capitalist system to fix that. Profit and numbers have no conscience, and anything done in their name has been accepted as an unavoidable aspect of capitalism."
Certainly we are short of money, though what we do have can claim to have some impact.
http://people-centered.net/Services.aspx
Guy,
Excellent article and advice for business owners whether they are using VC money or not. I've seen the ugly side of too much money during the dot com years. Massive waste.
Guy, I have met the Enemy, and She is ME.
This post was so powerful - I had to write up a whole shindig on my own blog in response. This is stuff that's tough to digest - but I agree wholeheartedly based on my own life, and on the businesses I watch.
To the commenters above -
Don’t be a hater – not all spending mistakes are due to executive stupidity, mediocrity, theft, or unfair practices. Some are simply unavoidable due to human nature. It has been shown that people do NOT make decisions based on careful evaluation of all the facts – they make them according to their own agendas and emotions, at every level of business and life. So embrace it, and move on.
Too little money is the best thing you may have going. And nobody likes to hear that!
Including me.
Leslie Guest
www.GuestVM.com
This is a great article. I believe that it can create a lot of inefficiencies and doesn't allow you to be as resourceful as you should be. Guess just like this economical downturn.
Yes, too much money may lead to too little leadership, planning, and innovation. But, like the others who have commented, I think the greater problem for start-up businesses is under-capitalization, either because the entrepreneur doesn't realize how long it will take to become a thriving business or because investors try to trim the sails too closely.
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.
Maybe Guy, I would like to test this theory, can you help me out with that?
John
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!
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
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
Earn 80+ IQ Points
From where to find them to how to hire them, get the experts’ insights into how to attract and assess the best candidates for your company.
Javascript is currently disabled. Please enable javascript for the optimal OPEN Forum experience.
?? ??? ?????? 8 months ago
This article gives a detailed knowledge on my perspective view of money used in business. Thank you! I learned a lot from this.
Ak Harith
The author of http://gunnersbrunei.com/ and http://journalio.blogspot.com/