« Buzz in the Rail: Comscore Files | Main | Using Scorecards With Your Board »

April 04, 2007

Comments

Disclaimer - I'm a business appraiser so please apply that to the context in which you read these comments.

With that put up front, I'd like to offer an alternative view from a technical perspective.

A couple of comments may be helpful. First, any honest practitioner of valuation will tell you that the valuation of any asset (including public securities) is imprecise. That doesn't mean the exercise is useless, only that you're putting a stake in the ground inside some "range of error". The hope is that the range of error is relatively small.

Second, a good valuation process uses multiple approaches to value the asset. Even with much more known quantities, there is no right answer. If multiple approaches give you more or less the same answer, then that provides some comfort. If the answers from multiple approaches diverge significantly, that should prompt a very useful thought process to understand why (for example) the income and market approaches diverge greatly.

Third, we apply lattice option pricing models to estimate the value of early-stage companies. For early-stage companies, this works fairly well because of the boom-bust nature of such investments. the framework is intuitively synchronized with the investment model. These also yield fairly convincing implied discount rates, and incorporate the inherent volatility of such investments rather well.

I won't offer an opinion on the merits or lack thereof of the reporting requirements because frankly, I benefit from them economically. (FAS 123R is commonly known as the Appraisers' Full Employment act)

I will offer an opinion, however, that the imprecision inherent in assessing the value of privately-held assets is not the reason to abolish the reporting rules. By that standard, most of GAAP goes out the window. You want to say they are a pain and divert your attention from managing the fund? Fair enough. Tired of paying $10K (or more) for a competent valuation? That's fair too. Your L.P.s don't care about interim value so if the consumers of the valuation don't care, why do it? That's a great argument.

I have some thoughts on why I think the disclosures make sense, but again, they will seem self-serving so I'll keep them to myself unless asked.

Whoever is assisting you with your valuation efforts should be able to give you an intellectually convincing argument to support the findings of value for your holdings, and they should be working as your partner and advisor, not as your adversary.

-- mike

www.startuplounge.com

The sad reality is that accountancy post-Enron has moved from a conservative methodology to an estimated accurate or else methodology. Its a shame because many items can't be reasonably estimated and are based on too many intangibles. If you receive an invoice in February for services received in December then its simple - accrue for that amount. But let's say you never receive that invoice. You know its out there so you see how much you spent on it last December and add small increase because you've seen a small upward trend in such invoices. Seems reasonable. Seems conservative. But that's when the questions start:

Why 10% increase and not 20%? Can I compare September last year to September this year to see a price increase comparison? How accurate was this estimate last year? Can you call the company for an estimate? Did you receive that invoice yet? and so on. The auditors bill their hours to justify their fee increase from last year and management wastes excessive time on its audits. And all because management believed that it was doing something simple, reasonable, and conservative.

All good points. Regarding your comments, Michael, I am a fan of transparency. However, this is a question around what is the benefit and what is the cost. Nobody knows a given company better than the investors themselves and even we struggle with a huge beta on how to value certain companies.

Example One:
If a company goes from $1.5m in revenue (burn $500k/mo) to $4.5m in revenue (burn $700k/mo), is it worth 1.5x, 2x, 3x what it was before? Depends...did Microsoft just enter into the space, did they land the key influencer in the industry, did the CEO just quit, are they continually missing budget, is the potential exit still $100m value or has reality set in? It is next to impossible to truly characterize these factors.

Example Two:
Appraiser come in for 409A purposes and puts a $15m value on the company to help set an appropriate option price. VC comes in one month later and does a $30m pre-$ valuation or a strategic buys it for $75m two months later. Did the value go up 5x in two months? These actually scenarios have taken play in the past two years. Venture redefines "imprecise"

Example Three:
Strategic makes an offer to buy the company. First, there is a 50/50 chance it closes. Second, it has 5 different earnout components including a revenue or royalty arrangement. It can swing the final value by 2-4x. However, the corporate will be burying the company into a division and running it (hopefully). How do you value the earnout? I have seen corporate kill new companies ($0 rev) and hit budget. No one I know can give any kind of % probability of success for Monte Carlo purposes.

In the end, it will simply increase the carry value of the portfolio as we already take subject, suppored write-downs. We just don't feel comfortable goosing ourselves up. So, this policy will lead to portfolio value inflation which strikes me as counter to what is desired. We will see...

Matt,

I'd love to see further valuation analysis done on macro factors such as liquidity of markets and where in the asset cycle (undervalued, bubble valued or nominally valued) the current markets are. I think we would find that all assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, private companies, commodities and precious metals) regardless of what they are tend to move up or down based on not only micro factors of their particular sector but also macroeconomic factors - particularly liquidity. What happend in 1999/2000 is likely to happen again at some point because asset bubbles now tend to inflate and deflate from one type of asset to the next. We went from tech stocks to real estate after 2001. Now that asset bubble is unwinding and likely will create a new one. Right now I'm guessing private equity is the next asset bubble.

We are unfortunately already there. Look at inflows into PE and VC (especially PE) as well as the average EBITDA multiple in PE. Goldilocks can't continue forever (low rates, record profits, low inflation) which allows the PE guys to borrow at very low rates. Average EBITDA multiple as of Q3 & Q4 of last year was north of 10x...

Seeing inflation on VC valuations in the expansion and late stage rounds but not so much on the seed/early.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

  • For many entrepreneurs, the venture world is needlessly opaque and confusing. Venture capital is both art and science with karma mixed in. With a synchronistic twist, this blog will try to shed light on the world "behind the curtain" as well as how key entrepreneurial lessons are mirrored in everyday life.

subscribe

  • Subscribe by RSS

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner