Analysis

What Happens When The Cash Runs Out?

There’s no denying that cash is king, and in the world of venture capital, start-ups tend to die when cash runs out.  In a recently published American Banker article I outlined a framework that described what it will take for newer lenders and originators to survive a shock to the system.  But what will happen if they run out of cash?  Are they destined to close shop or are there other possible outcomes?

Answering this question isn’t easy.  I wish I had a crystal ball (it would make my job easier), but what I can share is a framework that can be used to help think through the fate of these companies.  The framework is based on a concept that I call “Climbing the Relevance Curve”, and it has two simple questions at its core.

  • Will anyone notice? At the foundation of the concept of “relevance” is the notion that a business is either relevant or irrelevant through the lens of a counterparty.  And the simplest way of determining whether or not a business is relevant is to answer the question: “Who, if anyone, would be significantly hurt if the business in question were to go away tomorrow?”
  • How much money is being burned? The second piece of the framework is a simple set of calculations around how much money a company is burning in the current environment and how much total capital it will need to turn profitable if conditions worsen.  There’s a fine line between buying an asset and buying a liability and many entrepreneurs and investors are too optimistic about where that line is.

The result is a framework that exposes a list of potentially interested buyers and a rough idea of when a business becomes relevant to each of them.  In difficult funding markets, if a business has no deep-pocketed counterparty that deems them as “relevant” then the business has no choice but to rely on investors or free cash flow to carry the company while it continues to climb the relevance curve and wait out bad economic and/or market conditions.

Distance from relevance is very important because the great venture-backed fintech companies that emerged post-crisis have consistently delivered growth rates of 100-200% a year.  This implies that relevance is a function of time for the best companies.  Investors can always choose to infuse capital into a company if it isn’t relevant just yet but is climbing the relevance curve quickly.

But the converse is also true.  From both an investor’s and an acquirer’s standpoint, if a company isn’t climbing the relevance curve quickly enough then the capital outlay might turn into a liability rather than an asset.  A low growth company that’s burning cash will be seen as an albatross while the same might not be true for a company growing nicely that needs a well-understood amount of capital to succeed.

And many of you might be asking: “What about proprietary tech?  What about an embedded user base?  What about IP?”  While there always will be exceptions to the rule, my general view about the value of all these supposed assets is simple.  Value them at zero.  Assets owned by a money losing business with a complex cap table normalize to a valuation of zero.   And while acquihire situations are becoming more and more frequent and the tech might live on as part of a deal, the general price tag for these deals is pennies on the dollar relative to today’s current paper valuations.

While some may think I’m being overly harsh and too “black or white” in my thinking, I can point to real situations and real conversations that I know are happening right now.  For instance:

  • I asked the CEO of a prominent, well-funded lending platform whether his company was planning on being acquisitive if good opportunities presented themselves. His answer was a clear “no”.  Rationale: Cash and equity are precious in this environment so acquisitions don’t make sense.  Even at a zero valuation, he said he’d be reluctant to take on the challenges of integrating a new team/tech into the mix right now.
  • I asked a high level Executive at a top-20 Bank if his consumer lending organization was interested in acquiring any fintech originators if valuation expectations decreased. His answer was “yes” but with caveats that basically meant “no”.  He’d be willing to consider buying a company if the acquisition were immediately accretive, all competitive Banks could be kicked off the platform with no collateral damage, their Regulators signed-off on the deal, and the tech could easily be unleashed on their core franchise without significant integration.
  • I’ve made a concerted effort to build strong relationships with many of the next-gen lending companies and originators. As a result, I can point to multiple companies with solid traction and teams that have either recently been in-market trying to raise equity capital or are talking about raising in the near future.  A year or two ago many of these lenders and originators would have been funded quickly but based on what I’m hearing from the companies directly, the response in today’s environment has been one of skepticism.  A few of them having even confided in me that their current investor base is insisting on an outsider led term sheet because their partnerships want new, deep-pocketed sources of capital around the table.  And I also know that a few of these companies are being told that absent a successful raise they’re going to have to make a very small infusion of capital from their existing investor base last a long time and figure out how to sell the company or ride out the wave.  Not all founders will see eye-to-eye with their investors on what this business plan looks like so a few companies could run out of cash in the near future.

I’ve watched this climb many times across many different business models and the story is the same.  Becoming “relevant” is not just important, it might actually be the most important metric to track.  And in the case of a lending business or originator, the relevance curve needs to be climbed during good times because it’s difficult to continue the climb when market conditions take a turn for the worse.

Author: Frank Rotman

Frank is a Founding Partner of QED Ventures

Frank publishes regularly on his blog Fintech Junkie

About The Author

About the author

George Popescu

Serial entrepreneur.

George sold and exited his most successful company, Boston Technologies (BT) group, in 2014. BT was a technology, market maker, high-frequency trading and inter-broker broker-dealer in the FX Spot, precious metals and CFDs space company. George was the Founder and CEO and he boot-strapped from $0 to a $20+ million in revenue without any equity investment. BT has been #1 fastest growing company in Boston in 2011 according to the Boston Business Journal and the only company being in top 10 fastest in 2012-13 as it was #5 in 2012. BT has been on the Inc. 500/5000 list of fastest growing companies in the US for 4 years in a row ( #143, #373, #897 and #1270). After the company sale in July 2014 until February 2015 George was Head-of-Strategy for Currency Mountain ( www.currencymountain.com ), a USD 100 million+ holding company focused on retail and medium institutional currencies, precious metals, stocks, fixed income and commodities businesses.

• Over the last 10 years, George founded 10 companies in online lending, craft beer brewery, exotic sports car rental space, hedge funds, peer-reviewed scientific journal ( Journal of Cellular and Molecular medicine…) and more. George advised 30+ early stage start-ups in different fields. George was also a mentor at MIT’s Venture Mentoring Services and Techstar Fintech in NY.

• Previously George obtained 3 Master's Degrees: a Master's of Science from MIT working on 3D printing, a Master’s in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Supelec, France and a Master's in Nanosciences from Paris XI University. Previously he worked as a visiting scientist at MIT in Bio-engineering for 2 years. George had 3 undergrad majors: Maths, Physics and Chemistry. His scientific career led to about 10 publications and patents.

• On the business side, Boston Business Journal has named me in the top 40 under 40 in 2012 in recognition of his business achievements.

• George is originally from Romania and grew up in Paris, France.

1 Comment

Click here to post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Testimonials

default image

"Your daily letter is great!" , Ram , Founder and CEO, PeerIQ

default image

"Hi George - just want to tell you that you are doing a great work with Lending Times;-) Brgds, Kasper" , Kasper, Partner and Co-founder at Dansk Faktura Børs A/S

default image

"I've been following your newsletter for some time now and have been very impressed with the content." Charlie,Co-Founder | Bolstr

default image

"Hey George, I must say I really enjoy your site. It has inspired me to do some changes at our platform and we are the biggest consumer lender in Sweden." , Ludwig, CEO @ Savelend Sweden AB

default image

"Your daily email is very useful. It gives quick update on what's going in the market. Thank you very much for all that info." Yann Murciano, Head of Base Metals Trading at Morgan Stanley

Our daily p2p news digest