Venture Capitalism and Enterprise Revolution in Nigeria

The African Capital Alliance (ACA), a private equity fund manager in western Africa, announced the raising of $200 million from investors in July last year. The third installment of the Capital Alliance Private Equity (CAPE) fund will target important sectors such as power, oil and gas, communications and financial services in Nigeria and across the sub-Saharan region. The ACA is confident of eventually raising a total of $350 million for the fund from aid agencies, international banks and Nigerian institutional investors. The development reflects mounting confidence in Nigeria’s resurgent economy, considering the country’s fist such fund that started out in 1998 with a capital of just $35 million.

While there is no conclusive data on the size of the Nigeria equity market, estimates for the whole of Africa put it over $6 billion in 2000; South Africa, the continent’s largest economy, accounting for half the share. High economic growth fuelled by an enthusiastic reforms programme has seen Nigeria’s growth scale to almost double the figure for developed markets in recent years. The country’s GDP growth rate in 2006 stood at 5.6%, significantly higher than the US (3.2%) or the UK (2.8%)1. Although the private equity market is still in its infancy here, increasing opportunities to invest in high-growth businesses have succeeded to some extent in eroding the conventional insistence on public equity and debt. However, there continue to be significant risks attending investment in Nigeria due to unhealthy policies, a volatile security situation and massive infrastructure shortfalls. Much of this holds true for the continent at large and explains why it receives only a fragment of global foreign direct investment (FDI). Out of the estimated $250 billion in global FDI to developing countries in 2001, Africa received only $11 billion2.

For many international investors, venture capital and private equity in Nigeria are risky propositions because of political instability, violence, social unrest and corruption. Progress in this direction has been impeded by several other reasons as well:

* Poor corporate governance and lax regulatory mechanisms.

* Red tape, legal restrictions and hostile investment policies.

* High trading costs in the primary market for equities.

* Market volatility and the resulting high-risk perception.

* High exit risk for investors because of low liquidity.

* Difficult and often confusing ownership and property rights.

Over the last decade, Nigeria has displayed a steady commitment to reforms. The Investment and Securities Decree was passed into law soon after the return of civilian rule in 1999, opening up the economy to foreign investment. The government of former president Obasanjo also established the Investment and Securities Tribunal for speedy resolution of disputes arising out of investment deals. More recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission slashed transaction rates for equities from 6.9% to 4.2%. International venture capital investors have shown increasing interest in Nigeria after the liberalisation of several important markets like telecommunications, transport, and oil marketing. The fact that fresh policies have persuaded at least some investors to overlook the high cost of doing business in Nigeria is a significant achievement in itself.

Its large population and market size bestow tremendous potential on the Nigeria economy – Africa’s third largest and among the most rapidly growing. The country’s ambitious Vision 2020 programme and the UN Millennium Development Goals together represent considerable challenges in terms of economic revival. Past experience favours strongly against big businesses, which have had a dismal track record and a high-failure rate under both private and public operation. Undeniably, the fate of Nigeria’s long term goals rests on rapid proliferation of SMEs and their ability to drive an enterprise revolution that will sufficiently diversify the economy away from oil and reverse decades of stagnation. The objective is to use SMEs to deliver sustainable development, employment creation and most importantly, poverty alleviation.

This is where venture capitalism derives its significance in the context of Nigeria’s long-term ambitions. Private equity investment has been responsible for some of the most notable economic success stories across the globe. Entrepreneurs starting out with angel loans turned India around into the largest software exporter in the world. In South Korea, booming small high-tech businesses bypassed larger firms to lead the country’s recovery from the Asian economic crisis. Equity funded enterprises have likewise recorded high growth figures in developing countries from Asia, across Europe and in South America. The global experience with venture capitalism throws up a number of important considerations in terms of providing the right environment for rapid growth. The following are some of the most important challenges and considerations facing Nigerian policy makers in this regard:

* Establishing a venture capital technical assistance programme to enhance SME performance in diverse economic sectors.

* Institutionalising tax benefits for equity investment to attract foreign investors.

* Providing risk guarantees to create strategic venture capital industries that improve self reliance and curb import quotas.

* Enhancing venture capital capacity to stimulate and promote the industrial expansion.

* Focusing equity investment on SMEs that optimise resource utilisation and assist local raw material development.

* Promoting innovative business ideas, processes and techniques that boost both productivity and profitability.

* Hastening industrialisation through equity infusion in high-growth areas like telecommunications and tourism.

Nigeria’s reforms process prompted a unique voluntary initiative at the turn of the last century when the Nigerian Bankers’ Committee launched the Small and Medium Enterprise Equity (SMEEIS) scheme. Billed as an attempt to promote entrepreneurial expansion, the scheme required all locally operating commercial banks to earmark 10% of pre-tax profits for equity investment in small and medium enterprises. Even though more than Naira 18 billion had been set aside by 2003, utilisation of the funds remained abysmally poor at less than 25%. The Nigerian Central Bank owed it to a lack of viable projects and general reluctance toward equity partnership. If poor managerial and business packaging skills are areas of concern, the prevailing mindset against venture capitalism in both existing and emerging enterprises is even more so.

To quote former Central Bank governor Joseph Sanusi (29 May 1999-29 May 2004), accelerated economic development is not possible until Nigerian entrepreneurs learn to appreciate that “it is better to own 10% of a successful and profitable business than to own 100% of a moribund business”.

AIG, Private Equity and Venture Capital

AIG: Maurice Greenberg’s piece in today’s Wall Street Journal nearly provoked an attack of apoplexy. I’m not sure if I’ve read such a slanted, self-serving editorial in a long, long time. I’m pretty shocked that the WSJ would publish such pandering drivel. Be that as it may, we all know that the Big Mo controls gobs of AIG shares both directly and through his management of CV Starr, so let’s just say that we know where he is coming from. When he starts out with the bailout-inconsistency argument, he kind of had my ear. But when he went on to praise the Citigroup package while chastizing the AIG deal, I couldn’t help but call bull$hit.

To date, the government has shown everything but a consistent approach. It didn’t give assistance to Lehman Brothers. But it did push for a much-publicized and now abandoned plan to purchase troubled assets. The government also pushed for a punitive program for American International Group (AIG) that benefits only the company’s credit default swap counterparties. And it is now purchasing redeemable, nonvoting preferred stock in some of the nation’s largest banks.

The Citi deal makes sense in many respects. The government will inject $20 billion into the company and act as a guarantor of 90% of losses stemming from $306 billion in toxic assets. In return, the government will receive $27 billion of preferred shares paying an 8% dividend and warrants, giving the government a potential equity interest in Citi of up to about 8%. The Citi board should be congratulated for insisting on a deal that both preserves jobs and benefits taxpayers.

But the government’s strategy for Citi differs markedly from its initial response to the first companies to experience liquidity crises. One of those companies was AIG, the company I led for many years.

********************

The maintenance of the status quo will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, lock in billions of dollars of losses for pension funds that are significant AIG shareholders, and wipe out the savings of retirees and millions of other ordinary Americans. This is not what the broader economy needs. It is a lose-lose proposition for everyone but AIG’s credit default swap counterparties, who will be made whole under the new deal.

The government should instead apply the same principles it is applying to Citigroup to create a win-win situation for AIG and its stakeholders. First and foremost, the government should provide a federal guaranty to meet AIG’s counterparty collateral requirements, which have consumed the vast majority of the government-provided funding to date.

********************

The purpose of any federal assistance should be to preserve jobs and allow private capital to take the place of government once private capital becomes available. The structure of the current AIG-government deal makes that impossible.

The role of government should not be to force a company out of business, but rather to help it stay in business so that it can continue to be a taxpayer and an employer. This requires revisiting the terms of the federal government’s assistance to AIG to avoid that company’s breakup and the devastating consequences that would follow.

Hank, you’ve got to be kidding me. The U.S. taxpayers saved Citigroup’s life, and for that we may get up to 8% of the company. THAT is called a “punitive program” in Hank’s parlance for the U.S. taxpayer. In my world when you save a company you own ALL the equity, not 1/12th of the equity. The fact that the taxpayer gets up to 80% of AIG – now that starts to make sense. I agree with the Big Mo’s contention that “The purpose of any federal assistance should be to preserve jobs and allow private capital to take the place of government once private capital becomes available.” But that has nothing to do with post-restructuring equity ownership. He then pulls on the heartstrings by saying “The maintenance of the status quo will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, lock in billions of dollars of losses for pension funds that are significant AIG shareholders, and wipe out the savings of retirees and millions of other ordinary Americans.” Well, Hank, that is 100% on you. YOU should have thought things through before building a company and a culture that gambled it all – and lost. You tell that retiree, that pensioner how you screwed them. That’s called integrity. This thinly-veiled call for personally getting bailed out is both insulting and offensive. And I’m not buying it. I’m sure that my fellow U.S. taxpayers aren’t, either.

Private Equity: The daisy chain of secondary sales of PE L.P. interests will almost certainly accelerate. It is one of those slow-motion train wrecks that is painful to watch. The calculus is easy to understand: public equity values plummet, PE values are stickier and fall more slowly, PE as a percentage of overall assets rises to unacceptable levels, precipitating a wave of sales of PE L.P. interests. An interesting feature of this dynamic is autocorrelation, where PE values are slow to adjust notwithstanding the public market comparables that are available. If industrials are down 40%, then don’t you think a portfolio of PE holdings in the industrials sector should trade well beyond 40% down due to illiquidity? This isn’t the way many PE funds choose to see the world, however. Regardless, the secondary market is just that – a market – and the discounts being placed on marquee funds like KKR and Terra Firma reflect this reality. Pensions and endowments have to dump stuff, and are trying to do so at a fraction of their basis. But even at fire-sale prices it is hard to move the merchandise. In the next few months we’ll see just how desperate these investors are. Might we see KKR trade at 30 cents on the dollar? It’s possible. And frightening.

Venture Capital: I attended an interesting brownbag today with my pals at betaworks. A big part of the discussion was around funding in today’s hostile environment. Here are a few of the tidbits that came out of the dialogue:

  1. Be prepared to live with your current investment syndicate.
  2. If possible, have a deep pocketed investor as part of your syndicate.
  3. Raise 18-24 months of capital, no less. This can be done through a combination of capital raised plus a reduction of operating burn.
  4. Restructurings are getting ugly. Investors, whether inside or outside, are demanding both haircuts from the last round plus and a priority return of capital such that they are fully repaid before anyone else gets anything. Looks, smells and feels like a cram down. This is why having 24 months of capital in the bank upfront is so important.
  5. In these down times coalitions get formed between Management and New investors vs. Old investors. This mis-alignment of interests can lead to gridlock and push a company to the brink.

There was much more but these were the high points. Even with today’s difficulties there was still a lot of excitement about new companies and new ideas, with the confidence that money would come to those that truly deserve it. In short, there’s hope.

By: Binaryoptionstradingsignals

Rethinking The Oil Change Business Venture

Annual quick lube survey, is it still viable?

I wish to comment on the Fast Lube Business and the annual survey done by Auto Laundry News, one of the few Industry Magazines for the car wash industry. In this 2001 survey, we see an increase on the number of locations out there. Yet the leader of the Industry is by far Jiffy Lube. We see variations on theme, but we can safely say that Jiffy Lube has adapted best to the American public and their desires when it comes to oil changes.

This survey showed the average customer would drive 5.7 miles to get an oil change. If 50% of the customers would drive 5.7 miles and 80% of the customers usually come from a three-mile radius to get a car wash, I see additional synergy. These car washes with oil lube centers are getting a further reach than the industry average. This is great news for those carwashes adding oil lube bays, but also it takes up space and if not marketed correctly it will not work. The survey was quick to show that oil change facilities do best in middle class areas, not high-end areas. They do poorly in low-income areas. This all makes sense. Free standing car washes were the most likely to have oil lube facilities on there properties. Interesting too is that minimum wage was not prevailing, normally the companies pay $8.00-10.00 per hour. Makes realistic sense and I believe good help starts in this country at $10.00 per hour in most metros and $8.00 hour in rural.

Only 23% of the fast lubes had a website. Only half had internet access in the locations. Average employees were 5 full time and 3 part timers. Luckily for the image of this industry 74% had specific uniforms. The average shop had 3 bays, not enough to do the volume if adequate blitz marketing and community based marketing were taking place. Average revenue was $32.00 per car. That is an awful lot of upselling since the average advertised price that I have noticed is around $19.99. Less than 30% were open on Sundays? Bad mistake since there is no time to change oil and wait in line for most Americans. Average monthly gross was $2,400.00 per month per bay?

This is shit, this is not even a viable business, these people are wasting their time. Think about it, you have cost of oil and filter too and labor? Forget that news. I question the viability of the entire oil change industry. The largest Jiffy Lube franchisee in the country with 180 units was de-listed from NASDAQ and so was another prominent auto care and lube company recently. I like the Kwik-Lube Company and feel they are doing it right, but also question the ROI of such an endeavor seeing these results and the cost to build the building and time to build it. One good thing that the oil lube bays have going for them is the up-sell, but as the consumer dollar gets tighter and the credit card debt gets higher and the fall out rates increase where will this extra impulse revenue and up-sell cash be coming form?

The Industry is still expanding and new entrants to the market place are hurting existing units and I question the saturation point, not on need, but on desire. No one wants to spend money on oil changes, they need to. People buy what they want, satellite TV and beer. Not what they need, so I see a frequency problem issue brewing and people waiting 5-6-7 thousand miles between changes. So I believe that if an oil lube bay is not already attached to another reason to frequent the facility it will soon be in desire straits. The survey also showed that 93% OF THE OIL LUBE BAYS USED ADVERTISING TO GET THEIR CUSTOEMRS? WHY? We do not advertise, word of mouth and happy customers advertise for us. There you go again more cost.

Also 60% of the surveyed said that competition was discounting. HMMM? You have labor costs that are high, frequency is down, new car technology on the horizon, cost of oil going to the big guys and throw in a price war? I see problem as the non-savvy operators leave facilities for sale and exit the market place. By eliminating the facility and going mobile with the existing customer base of let’s say a mobile truck repair business which can co-band and fleet services available you could beat these other companies since they running redline over saturations of mailer coupons and phone book ads and no web sites. Many companies are not watching the changing demographics at their locations and lease or property costs and unable to sell or borrow more due to their lousy profit margins. And what can you convert and Oil change bay into? Cover up the hole for a tire shop? What happens when Hydrogen cell comes and no one changes oil. Can you convert to filter type operation? Not really since often the tires and wheels are offset and will land the modular car into the lube bay hole. We have the solution and we can beat them in almost every aspect. Some consultants have said; “Bunch of dummies copying each other.”

Listen to this part of the survey, advertising dollars were spent on, here is where the respondents said they advertised; TV 15%, Direct Mail 51%, Radio 38%, Newspaper 35%, Bill Boards 18%, Yellow Pages 53%, other only 13%. Scary, all that costs money and everybody is running redline copying each other. This is what happens when people cannot think any longer and cannot adapt and do business at the speed of thought,

[http://www.speedofthought.com]

81% of respondents said they would honor competitor’s coupons? Whatever, why print them then. Let everyone else spend the money and take theirs? 80% said they have tried to use discounting to lure customers from other lube places to theirs. Boy this sounds like the carpet cleaning industry to me.

Breakdown in costs per job. 10% rent or property, 3% maintenance of facility, 26% labor, 30% materials, 4% utilities and many reported expecting that to double and some have already in the west experienced a tripling. Insurance 4% and that to expected to keep rising and some said 8%, Customer claims for damage 1%, this is in-excusable, Advertising 10%. Want to add those up for me. Why are they doing it?

Average new facility costs were; Land $206,000, Improvements $505,000, New equipment $36,000. WOW all that for little or no return? Average number of competitors within 10-mile radius? 36% said 3, 19% said two, 19% said 5, 7% said 5 or more. How can anyone invest this kind of money per location when we can build a couple of units for a total of $65,000 and nearly equal the number of potential vehicles to service? Also with AAA building oil change facilities and Wal-Mart getting into things, the competition will be bloody and that is a lot of money to invest in a business with an uncertain future. Not a good bet, if you were a betting man.

We are very much liking this Industry because we know things the Industry does not and we can slam them because they have missed the boat. We have seen a few companies which are looking into ways to change the oil on the water for yachts. What is even better is that they all missed the boat at the same time and are fighting on shore for a few little boats to get to the ship that is leaving the harbor. Who will survive this oil change war. The one who bests services the customer, they way the customer wishes to be serviced.

Faith in a Seed, Investment in the Roots: Cultivating the Garden of an Entrepreneurial Venture

Henry David Thoreau once stated, “Though I do not believe that a plant will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a seed. Convince me that you have a seed there, and I am prepared to expect wonders.” While I appreciate this quote, I think that it perhaps puts too much emphasis on the seed (or idea) alone. While a seed is necessary, I feel that attention should turn towards the roots (processes, goals, human capital, etc.) that single seed can lead to developing.

In fact, this observation reminds me of the recent Western Carolina University Leadership Development tour of the Cradle of Forestry in Western North Carolina, where I learned of the approach to life (and development) that an oak tree will adopt. Interestingly, in its first approximately 20 – 25 years of life an oak tree will spend ~70% – 80% of its energy and resources developing a robust and pervasive root system. In this example, while the seed is the starting point, it is the root system of a future, mighty oak that serves as the real genius of its development.

I think it is important to reflect on the oak tree’s approach to life. Instead of growing tall and strong first, the oak tree stays small and chooses initially to grow deep, deep into the earth. An oak tree grows with their long or end game in mind, not for the instant gratification and short-term results. This approach to life carries a lesson for all of us as human beings, but takes on a particularly relevant lesson for those of us who, as Machiavelli stated, “choose to take on a new order of things” in the form of innovation and entrepreneurship.

For example, when you think about an entrepreneurial venture, what you see standing above the surface is but a fraction of the energy and results of the effort invested in that organization or idea. For the purpose of this article, the primary components of a start-up’s root system are as follows:

• Value Proposition – identifies an aspect of your product/service that makes your offering appealing to potential customers and helps sell and market that product. This serves as the cornerstone to your venture.

• Talent Development/Cultivation – a basic strategy for bringing in, developing, inspiring, and maintaining the best talent associated with your venture with the greater goal of sustainability. Additionally, talent development can help maintain consistency, trust, and more exceptional customer service or product development, while aligning with the application of your value proposition.

• Strategic/Business Plan – frames your venture in a standard way by providing objectives and methods/strategies for reaching them. This is a recognized document that potential funders can relate to and it serves as a more accurate and robust expansion of your idea/product, the value proposition, and the stakeholders involved.

Finally, as an entrepreneur, the most valuable lesson to take away from the mighty oak is to remember to stay true to your roots. By doing this, you will invest your time, energy, expertise, and resources into your roots. If you nurture your roots, they can support you as you continue to grow to new heights and new depths!

Getting Your Venture Lease Approved

Each year venture capitalists fund more than 2,500 start-up companies in the U.S. Many of these companies try to conserve their equity capital by approaching venture-leasing firms to secure equipment financing. By obtaining lease financing, these savvy firms are able to use their equity capital for high-impact activities like recruiting key personnel, product development, and expanding their marketing efforts.

What are the qualities that make some start-ups more attractive than others to venture lessors? Here are ten factors that most venture lessors evaluate to decide which start-ups to finance:

Caliber of the Management Team

Most venture lessors consider the start-up’s management team to be the most critical success factor for the venture. Though it can be challenging to quickly evaluate management talent, there are several qualities that venture lessors consider. They look for experienced managers with high integrity and a proven history of business performance.

Quality of the Venture Capital Sponsors

Another important factor for most venture lessors is the quality of the start-up’s venture capital sponsors. Venture lessors look for experienced venture capitalists with successful investment performance over a number of years. The venture capitalists should also have good reputations for dealing fairly with creditors serving their portfolio companies. Before entering new lease arrangements, most venture lessors verify that the start-ups’ venture capital sponsors are actively supporting them.

Soundness of the Business Plan

Successful start-ups usually have compelling, well-articulated business plans. Lessors look for signs that the start-ups have promising market opportunities, clear and credible projections, and reliable financial statements.

Cash Position /Monthly Burn Rate

A yardstick used by many venture lessors to measure risk is the start-up’s projected cash consumption rate. The ratio of available cash to the start-up’s monthly burn rate is a useful measure. It crudely determines how long the start-up can last before a new equity round is needed. The lessor views a transaction as less risky if the start-up can make full payments during a significant portion of the lease term without raising additional equity. Most lessors look for a ratio that supports at least 9 – 12 months of the start-up’s operation.

Equipment Quality

The quality and intended use of the equipment is an important factor for most venture lessors. Most lessors look for transactions involving equipment that is essential to the start-up’s operation. Additionally, the equipment should have acceptable collateral value and be readily re-marketable in the equipment aftermarket.

Product Prospects and Revenue Track Record

If the start-up is in the development stage and has yet to sell products, venture lessors generally look for products capable of establishing a strong market position. If the start-up’s product is already in distribution, lessors look for strong monthly or quarterly revenue growth. A poor reception of the product in the early stages, when measured against the business plan, can often signal a faulty product launch or faulty product concept.

Valuation History

A valuation history records the share prices of stock sold to investors by the start-up. Unless there is a good explanation, most lessors look for significant share price appreciation over successive offering rounds. The assumption is that the start-up is making steady and significant progress in its development, which will be reflected in rising share values.

Balance Sheet Strength

Venture lessors usually evaluate a start-up’s working capital to ensure that the start-up can make payments when due. Along with an analysis of the start-up’s burn rate, lessors use traditional working capital measures like the current and quick ratios. Lessors also look for other signs of balance sheet strength, such as: low to moderate leverage; positive tangible net worth (inclusive of subordinated debt); and minimum paid-in capital of $7 – $10 million.

Outside Professional Involvement

Most venture lessors view the involvement of reputable and successful outside board members as a positive factor for start-ups. A reputable CPA firm, law firm, institutional partners and/or service providers are also viewed by lessors as positive. These professionals can bring valuable expertise and contacts that can help the new venture to succeed.

Payment Performance

As with more traditional lessees, venture-leasing companies frown upon poor lessee payment histories. Most venture lessors expect lessees to have satisfactory payment histories, unless good explanations can be offered. Like other vendors, satisfactory payment of bills by customers is where the rubber meets the road. Whether the lessee is a start-up or a Fortune 500 company, most lessors view prompt payment as sacrosanct.

While venture lessors use additional factors to make their credit decisions, these ten factors seem to be used universally. Though most of these factors are subjective, they have stood the test of time for venture lessors in making informed and reasonable credit decisions.

Ways to Raise Venture Capital to Start a New Business

Centuries back there was a time when people used to exchange goods for their livelihood and there was no money to buy things, known by the name of, “Barter System”. There was no buying or selling during those days. If you want “Wheat” and you had “Pulses” you could very well exchange the same with the vendor who had “Wheat” by negotiating a deal with him for exchange.

Then came an era when people starting working for others to earn money to run their livelihood. This further developed into Jobs from Government and Private Sector.

Now is the time when everyone enchants to open his own venture owing to establish something of his own and develop an empire which manifolds into a profitable venture as said “The Best income is even when you are sleeping the investment grows”.

An Idea of yours in today’s scenario can create a ripple effect which can change the lives of many. Very live examples are organisation like Facebook, Whatsapp, Google which started with a very small idea and from a room and have created an empire which inspires the Entrepreneur’s to create a Value Addition not only for them through Profit but for the Society too.

Many Starts up have started mushrooming in India now with many business ideas but they lack the rock bottom things and fail even though the business idea is too great. Inspite of the fact that they have best of people, knowledge, resources, ideas available to them but still they have tumbled. Very Live Example is Organisation like Snapdeal etc.

An Idea Flourishes when you have the Business Idea pitched to the Right People with Right Knowledge with effective and strong persuasion skills to invest money with the returns they would be getting. Firstly the Entreprenuer himself needs to be convinced that it is a great and a profitable Venture.

Second Important Thing which Start up lack is Hiring the Right and Suitable Candidates. Branding Institutes like IIM /IITs do bring in good resources but they cost very heavily to the organisation. Its always essential to hire people with experience rather than branding institutes. Experience people turn around organisation as they know how to manage crisis, success of an idea comes with experience and experience comes with learning, you know how to turn failures as these people have already experienced it.

Maintain Low Cost and Invest heavily in your people is the Right Idea for the Start ups.

Wanna Know do get in touch with me at gaggan_sahni@hotmail.com

The Complete List of Things to Evaluate Before You Open or Invest in a New Venture

Do you have an innovative idea you wish to market? Are you planning on opening a new business? Are you investing on somebody else’s idea?

If you said “yes” to any of these questions, don’t do it just yet!

Starting or investing on a new venture can be an emotional process full of anticipation and excitement. You need to keep a cool head and treat the process with the utmost objectivity.

To help with that, I’ve put together a complete list of questions you NEED to answer before you even think about putting a business plan together. This will help you make sure that no overlooked variable makes you incorrectly go forward or not. Make sure you don’t skip any part of the process and end the exercise with a very honest yes or no decision based on the answers.

You will find it difficult if not impossible to answer some of the questions. It is very important to understand the sureness of each response and the risk that each unanswered question implies. Handle this risk by analyzing scenarios with the different possible answers.

Write down a simple comment to each question, doing this formalizes your analysis. You can also think about each question in a SWOT analysis context identifying each one as a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity or Threat.

The Dos and Don’ts to keep in mind:

Do this all the time

  • Be methodic, analyze completely. Understand the need, competition and constrains, then tailor and differentiate.
  • Be on the lookout all the time for the fatal flaw that will make this fail.
  • Lots of questions can’t be answered or are too vague, check the risk of not knowing them.

Don’t Do This

  • Don´t follow the classic idea method: “I have an idea, let me think how to shove it to the channel or customer”.
  • Don’t focus on the features of the product, focus on the need you are trying to fulfill.
  • Don’t get tempted to skip a full analysis.
  • The most frequent mistake is to think everybody in the market is like you. If you like the product, everybody else will.
  • It is common to confuse a good idea with a good business opportunity, they are not the same.
  • Thinking “We have no competition” is only for naive entrepreneurs.
  • Don´t obsess with first mover´s advantage, most of the time funds prefer second movers because the idea is already validated.

The questions you need to answer:

Product or Service

  • Can you describe the business idea in 25 words or less?
  • Is the idea scalable? Is it limited to your time or something else?
  • Can your offering later change / adapt?
  • Risk of not being able to develop / manufacture the product?

Market or Customer

  • Can you do formal market analysis or only informal? (Interviews, observations, focus groups, surveys, market experiments, etc.)
  • Who is the customer? How precisely can he be defined? Location, profile, etc.?
  • What problem are you solving? Why would the customer buy? Does he want to?
  • Commercial risk, no willingness to buy?
  • How big is the market? Growing or shrinking?
  • How penetrated is the market by the industry? What share can you get fast? Later?
  • What price is he willing to pay? Based on what? How important is it?
  • How price-conscious is your customer?
  • Risk of change in consumer behavior?
  • Can the target market later be changed? Can you later attack other levels in the value chain?

Industry

  • Can you do formal analysis or only informal?
  • Is it thriving? Shrinking?
  • Do suppliers have power? Risk of supply shortage? Change in price?
  • Barriers to entry:
  • . Contractual? Patent or trademark?
  • . Lead time in tech development? Innovation?
  • . Management? People?
  • . Location?
  • . Regulations and government?
  • . Other barriers?
  • Can barriers change easily?
  • Do you have relations in place?
  • . Customers?
  • . Suppliers?
  • . Partners? Talent? Investors?
  • Experience in industry? Yours? Other management?
  • Risk of regulatory or other government related changes or intervention?
  • Technology risk of obsolescence?

Competition

  • Can you do formal competition analysis? If not, what informal analysis can you do? Is it good?
  • Who else is attacking the market? How? Successfully?
  • What is your competition´s pricing strategy?
  • What is the closest thing in the target market to your product? Are you a first mover? Second? More than that?
  • Strategic advantages / differentiators. Clearly visible to consumers or only in your mind? Sustainable? True, important and provable?
  • . Function? Design? Quality? Uniqueness? Innovation?
  • . Delivery? Channel? Availability? Location?
  • . Cost? Marketing? Sales?
  • . Ignorance of buyers?
  • . Customer service?
  • . Other?
  • Are you taking advantage of a certain opportunity, situation or advantage?
  • How fast can competition catch up?

Channel

  • Which options do you have?
  • Which one is the ideal? Why?
  • If the first choice does not work, does it make sense to try others?
  • What channels does your target market prefer?
  • Which ones are your competitors using?
  • How much integration do the channels have?
  • Will the channel change with customer habits or tech?
  • Risk of no access to the correct channel or consumer?

Sales and Advertising

  • How will you get customers?
  • How will you retain customers? Is it important?
  • Describe the necessary salesforce?
  • Can a salesperson of ordinary skills sell it?
  • Do you need advertising? Which kind? How much? Is it important?

Economics

  • How clearly can you model the basic economics of the idea? (Costs, sales, margins, required capital, ROI, etc.)
  • Will there be economies of scale? Are they important?
  • Accounts receivable? Can it become a problem?
  • How will you finance initially? Later?

Management

  • Do you have or can get the necessary management team?
  • Do management / leadership / organizational capabilities make a difference? How big a difference?
  • How valuable is intellectual property?
  • Does it make sense to do this solo? It normally doesn’t.

Other

  • Validation:
  • . How fast can you know if the business can work or not?
  • . Can you define the variables to know it? How fast can the data flow?
  • . Do you need product development to know? Dangerous!
  • . Do you need a long selling process or many tries to know? Dangerous!
  • Can you diversify? Not easy on new ventures, but can it be done?
  • Give me the biggest drawback / risk (fatal flaw) of the idea? The one that will make it fail?
  • Enlist the seemingly fatal flaws that can be fixed.
  • Does the idea fit your life objectives? Workload?
  • Do you feel passionate about the idea? Enjoyable? Are you doing it only for the money?
  • Give me the upside / best case scenario?
  • Give me the downside / worst case scenario?

Small Business Venture Capital Strategies

When launching a new small business, often the entrepreneur will consider venture capital as a source of funding. Here are 3 tips to ensure that venture capital funding can be secured when sending out your business plan:

  1. Send your business plan to the right people
  2. Venture capitalists tend to specialize in certain kinds of businesses. Some will specialize by industry, only investing in new energy companies, for instance, while others look for a certain size of company to invest in. It is worth doing the research to determine who the venture capital backers are for your industry, before you start sending out your business plan. Venture capitalists who are not specific to your industry can provide recommendations to make your plan more appealing to other venture capitalists. However, it would naturally be a mistake to send your plan to potential investors who will not even consider it.

  3. Make sure your business has the potential to be profitable enough
  4. Most venture capitalists look for a return of about 5-10 times their initial investment. For example, an investment in a company of $2 million should yield a return of $14-20 million after about five years. To satisfy these requirements, it is generally necessary to have a business which has the potential for a high rate of return on the amount invested. If the rate of return can reasonably be expected to be lower, such as for a clothing retailer, then it is probably better to look for an alternate source of funding, such as an investment or commercial bank.

  5. Remember to include an exit strategy for your investor
  6. Venture capitalists generally do not want to be involved with a new venture for an indefinite period of time. Most will plan to leave the new venture after about five years, so you should offer a clear explanation of how this may be achieved. There can be a variety of reasons for this; some venture capital managers require that the holdings periodically be sold off to acquire other offerings. Nonetheless, by demonstrating that you understand the limited time frame for many venture capitalists, you automatically make your plan more appealing than those which do not.

In summary, by sending your business plan to the right people, by recognizing what rate of return is necessary for venture capitalist involvement, and by including an exit strategy, you can improve your odds of securing venture capital funding for a new and growing business.

Exit mobile version