Comments on: Planning multiple rounds of finance during the downturn – give yourself time http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/ Nic Brisbourne's view from London on venture capital and exploiting change in technology and media Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:08:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: rhhfla (Robert Hacker) http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-4693 rhhfla (Robert Hacker) Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:51:55 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-4693 Good post on multiple rounds of VC money http://tinyurl.com/dddyry Good post on multiple rounds of VC money http://tinyurl.com/dddyry

]]> By: AndyBeard http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-6518 AndyBeard Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:26:28 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-6518 One aspect that I never see discussed is where a percentage of the funding is earmarked for strategic aquisition of smaller projects with core technology (why re-invent the wheel) and strong developers. In such a case the funding might well be traunched and funding released based upon milestones or circumstances. I spent a lot of time in the games industry and traunched payments based on milestones were common place.<br>Within my current business plans I have a number of features/technologies that are desirable but not required that could potentially be fulfilled with much lower development risk by either licensing or acquisition, though acquisition is the preferable route.<br><br>In some ways just thinking about this reminds me of an old schoolboy joke<br><br>"Can you lend me $2M, but only give me $1M now - thus I owe you $1M and you owe me $1M so we are quits"<br><br>Ultimately the features could be attributed to "feature creep" solving problems with which I have been plagued for 2 years, though they now form an intrinsic part of the value proposition.<br><br>Is there a huge difference between $1M, and $1M + $1M traunched for acquisition purposes when considering valuations? It certainly doesn't seem the same from my limited experience as asking for a clean $2M, with the added value of IP / goodwill from any purchase.<br><br>Maybe food for another post. One aspect that I never see discussed is where a percentage of the funding is earmarked for strategic aquisition of smaller projects with core technology (why re-invent the wheel) and strong developers. In such a case the funding might well be traunched and funding released based upon milestones or circumstances. I spent a lot of time in the games industry and traunched payments based on milestones were common place.
Within my current business plans I have a number of features/technologies that are desirable but not required that could potentially be fulfilled with much lower development risk by either licensing or acquisition, though acquisition is the preferable route.

In some ways just thinking about this reminds me of an old schoolboy joke

“Can you lend me $2M, but only give me $1M now – thus I owe you $1M and you owe me $1M so we are quits”

Ultimately the features could be attributed to “feature creep” solving problems with which I have been plagued for 2 years, though they now form an intrinsic part of the value proposition.

Is there a huge difference between $1M, and $1M + $1M traunched for acquisition purposes when considering valuations? It certainly doesn't seem the same from my limited experience as asking for a clean $2M, with the added value of IP / goodwill from any purchase.

Maybe food for another post.

]]> By: AndyBeard http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-4389 AndyBeard Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:26:28 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-4389 One aspect that I never see discussed is where a percentage of the funding is earmarked for strategic aquisition of smaller projects with core technology (why re-invent the wheel) and strong developers. In such a case the funding might well be traunched and funding released based upon milestones or circumstances. I spent a lot of time in the games industry and traunched payments based on milestones were common place.<br>Within my current business plans I have a number of features/technologies that are desirable but not required that could potentially be fulfilled with much lower development risk by either licensing or acquisition, though acquisition is the preferable route.<br><br>In some ways just thinking about this reminds me of an old schoolboy joke<br><br>"Can you lend me $2M, but only give me $1M now - thus I owe you $1M and you owe me $1M so we are quits"<br><br>Ultimately the features could be attributed to "feature creep" solving problems with which I have been plagued for 2 years, though they now form an intrinsic part of the value proposition.<br><br>Is there a huge difference between $1M, and $1M + $1M traunched for acquisition purposes when considering valuations? It certainly doesn't seem the same from my limited experience as asking for a clean $2M, with the added value of IP / goodwill from any purchase.<br><br>Maybe food for another post. One aspect that I never see discussed is where a percentage of the funding is earmarked for strategic aquisition of smaller projects with core technology (why re-invent the wheel) and strong developers. In such a case the funding might well be traunched and funding released based upon milestones or circumstances. I spent a lot of time in the games industry and traunched payments based on milestones were common place.
Within my current business plans I have a number of features/technologies that are desirable but not required that could potentially be fulfilled with much lower development risk by either licensing or acquisition, though acquisition is the preferable route.

In some ways just thinking about this reminds me of an old schoolboy joke

“Can you lend me $2M, but only give me $1M now – thus I owe you $1M and you owe me $1M so we are quits”

Ultimately the features could be attributed to “feature creep” solving problems with which I have been plagued for 2 years, though they now form an intrinsic part of the value proposition.

Is there a huge difference between $1M, and $1M + $1M traunched for acquisition purposes when considering valuations? It certainly doesn't seem the same from my limited experience as asking for a clean $2M, with the added value of IP / goodwill from any purchase.

Maybe food for another post.

]]> By: scottrutherford (Scott Rutherford) http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-4694 scottrutherford (Scott Rutherford) Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:58:33 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-4694 Sage words from Mr Brisbourne http://tinyurl.com/dddyry Sage words from Mr Brisbourne http://tinyurl.com/dddyry

]]> By: brisbourne (Nic Brisbourne) http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-4703 brisbourne (Nic Brisbourne) Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:55:23 +0000 http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/02/04/planning-multiple-rounds-of-finance-during-the-downturn-give-yourself-time/#comment-4703 New blog entry: Planning multiple rounds of finance during the downturn - give yourself time http://tinyurl.com/dddyry New blog entry: Planning multiple rounds of finance during the downturn – give yourself time http://tinyurl.com/dddyry

]]>