Speaking to tens of funds every month, one thing that stands out is the difference of opinion on the impact of follow-on funding for their portfolio. Some believe that doubling down on winners is the thing that'll make their fund a success, whilst others believe that the initial investment is key. To understand this a bit more, I've looked at three different scenarios: 1) Fund A - £50m fund, 20 companies, £2.5m investment per company, no follow on funding. 2 "winners" (20x return), 6 middle (3x return), and 12 losers (no return). 2) Fund B - £50m fund, 20 companies, 50:50 initial investment:follow on funding ratio. Initial funding of £1.25m, and due to the fact that only 40% (8 companies) will receive follow on funding, the follow on funding per company is £3.125m. 2 "winners" (20x return on initial investment, 10x on follow on investment), 6 middle (3x return on initial investment, 1.5x on follow on investment), and 12 losers (no return). 3) Fund C - £50m fund, 20 companies, 50:50 initial investment:follow on funding ratio but with slightly less successful follow on investment. 2 "winners" (20x return on initial investment, 10x on follow on investment), 3 middle (3x return on initial investment, 1.5x on follow on investment), 3 flat (1x initial investment, 0.5x on follow on investment) and 12 losers (no return). For all three scenarios, I've made the assumption that the fund in question is a top quartile seed fund in terms of Seed to Series A graduation rates (40% as per Dealroom.co report). You can see from the DPI calculations, the key of follow on investment, unsurprisingly, is how successful the companies that receive the follow on funding are. If they are a strong, consistent cohort with some stand out winners then it can enhance returns; however, if some of the businesses that receive follow on funding are not successful, it can really hurt returns. For any fund manager, the question is where your strengths lie, and with the information received from being on the cap table of the company, are you able to make great decisions on follow on funding, or is a more mature company not within your remit.
Great post Richard Abrahams across our Blackfinch EIS/VCT portfolio of circa 30 companies, more than half have had follow on funding. By taking a seat on the board and appointing a venture partner, we are able to work very closely with the company which makes our follow on decisions a much simpler process. It also of course, means our investors aren't diluted away! its easy to double down once you have made initial investment decisions but being so close to the company's metrics helps get an inside view of their future trajectory
Fractional COO at Pay As You Go COO. I can help your growing company get more sh!t done. Serial startup COO. MBA. ex-Amazon.
5moThis is really interesting Richard Abrahams thanks so much for sharing. As a Fractional COO I work with a lot of companies in that gap between initial funding and growing to a place where follow-on is possible and I think Mark Brownridge's point below is super interesting to that re: appointing a venture partner and taking a deeper interest in the company's operations. Zafar Kanani, CFA, ACMA, CGMA I think you'll enjoy this - it follows on from our conversation yesterday about where Fractional partners can be most useful.