Why an Inefficient Cap Table Can Hinder Startup Investments
When it comes to startup investments, having an efficient and well-structured cap table is crucial. A cap table, or capitalization table, outlines the ownership breakdown of a company and is typically shared during the diligence phase of investing. However, an inefficient cap table can pose serious challenges for startups seeking funding.
One Norwegian hardware startup recently discovered the consequences of an inefficient cap table. The company had given up more than two-thirds of its equity to raise $3.3 million, presenting a significant hurdle as they embarked on a $5 million fundraising round. TechCrunch reached out to several Silicon Valley investors to gauge their reaction to such a cap table, and the consensus was clear: the company was essentially uninvestable in its current state.
The problem with an imbalanced cap table is that it diminishes the founders’ stakes in the company. Leslie Feinzaig, a general partner at Graham & Walker, pointed out that in the case of this particular startup, the investor base owned twice as much as the three founders combined. This misalignment of incentives can be detrimental to the long-term success of a startup, as founders may become unmotivated to continue giving their all. Without motivated founders, the company may exit sooner than anticipated, leading to mediocre outcomes for both founders and venture capitalists (VCs).
The consequences of an early exit go beyond individual startups. VCs rely on high-risk investments with the potential for substantial returns to attract limited partners (LPs) who invest in their funds. If LPs see consistently low returns, they may seek alternative investment opportunities, resulting in a lack of funds for the entire startup ecosystem.
So, what can be done to rectify this situation? The first step is acknowledging the problem and understanding how it arose. In the case of the Norwegian hardware startup, the CEO explained that the team lacked experience in the startup world and underestimated the work required to bring their product to market. As a result, they accepted unfavorable terms in their initial fundraising round, believing it would be a temporary compromise. However, as the company faced delays and challenges, they found themselves caught between running out of money or accepting a bad deal.
To address an imbalanced cap table, investors and founders need to be willing to undertake a restructuring process. This can involve cramming down existing investors and returning ownership to the founders. However, implementing such measures can be risky and time-consuming. Finding a lead investor who is willing to navigate this process is challenging, especially in the competitive seed stage.
Some investors, such as Homebrew’s general partner Hunter Walk, emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal cap table from the seed stage. This means that investors own a minority stake in the company, while founders maintain healthy ownership. Hunter suggests that if a cap table requires significant restructuring, it is best to address the issue before raising more capital.
Mary Grove from Bread & Butter Ventures also highlights the importance of founders owning a substantial percentage of their company at the seed stage. She suggests corrective measures such as granting additional options to founders to increase their ownership. However, implementing these measures requires existing investors on the cap table to share in the overall dilution, which may not always be feasible.
Ultimately, the risk profile of a startup depends on its specific circumstances and future capital requirements. If a company can reach cash-flow neutrality with one more raise and sustain organic growth from there, the risk may be manageable. However, if a business is capital-intensive and requires multiple rounds of significant funding, the risk profile increases.
The challenges posed by inefficient cap tables extend beyond individual startups. In developing startup ecosystems like Norway’s, where access to good advice is limited, norms and practices can be influenced by individuals who may not fully understand the venture capital model. This can lead to exploitative terms and unfavorable outcomes for founders.
Nonetheless, there is hope for startups in developing ecosystems. Non-local investors have the opportunity to offer more reasonable terms to promising early-stage startups, attracting the best investments and leaving local investors to fight over the scraps. However, this also presents a potential drain on the local ecosystem, as wealth and talent may flow overseas.
In conclusion, an inefficient cap table can hinder startup investments by creating misaligned incentives and limiting the long-term potential of a company. Founders and investors must recognize the issue and be willing to undertake the necessary steps to rectify it. By maintaining a healthy cap table and ensuring founders have a significant stake in their company, startups can maximize their chances of success and attract the necessary funding to thrive in the competitive startup landscape.
If you have news tips or information, you can share them with Haje via email or Signal.