Measuring Impact has become a major challenge for impact investors.  The main reason is that for all their good intents, organizations that develop impact metrics ultimately end up trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  Impact metrics systems struggle to compare apples and oranges in order to demonstrate that the social and environmental benefit can be measured in the same way that financial benefits can be.  As our Impact Landscape canvas shows, “impact investing” is not a vertical market. It is futile to try to compare the metrics for bringing education vs. clean water to a community. Both are important and someone will focus on each.  Ultimately, the metrics for both must be different. 

A lot of great work has gone into developing metrics for impact.  There are templates, sample measurements within various verticals, and thoughtful approaches to measuring impact without drawing too much energy away from the impact organizations whose outcomes are being measured.  

Our metrics thesis is not superior to nor a replacement of other metrics. We appreciate the values and intents behind GIIRS, B Corp Certification, IRIS, Guide Star, SOPACT (Actionable Impact Management), GRI and the SDGs, as well as gender lens metrics, diligence metrics, reporting metrics, performance metrics and others.  These are all great frameworks for a Rockies Impact Fund portfolio company to use in determining the best key metrics for themselves to use, along with their investors and stakeholders, to guide their actions.

Regardless of the metrics system used, one important principle is to think of metrics as something that happens on the front-end of a transaction, not just one of measuring whether the outcomes were successful or not.  Students of business process will remember the revolution that occurred in American manufacturing when W. Edwards Deming studied manufacturing process and found that in the 1950’s people were engaging in “quality control” by culling out the defects at the end of the manufacturing process.  He envisioned building quality in from the beginning of the process and greatly improved efficiency of American manufacturing.

What if we applied those same principles to impact investing metrics?  Instead of making investments and waiting to see if they produced the outcomes we had hoped for, we build impact metrics in from the beginning?

We view metrics in two ways.

Inbound Metrics – Is it an “Impact Investment” According to our Thesis?

Impact companies do not always present themselves with an “impact” label and it is important for us to be able to determine which companies from the flow of deals will qualify as “impact” investments. As such, we expect many companies approaching the Rockies Impact Fund and qualifying for investment will not need to present themselves as “impact companies”.  They may be focused on health, education, environment or other impact causes, but they present themselves primarily as a business enterprise. Because of this and because the Rockies Impact Fund will invest across multiple markets ranging from healthcare to education to agriculture, the Fund’s managers do not arbitrarily choose any one system to measure whether something is an impact investment or not.  Most existing impact metrics systems have a hard time telling us whether it is better to invest in a company that can provide education to one hundred students or to provide clean water to those same people. Instead the Fund’s Management uses a simple version of metrics based on Utilitarian Ethics founded by 17th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham[1] in which the moral choice was one that benefited “the greatest number of people with the greatest good.”  Rockies Impact Fund managers have added a venture capital twist to make it a three-fold metric that includes “…at the greatest financial return.”

The Rockies Impact Fund intends to measure each incoming opportunity against these three criteria of number, impact and return, each scored on a one to ten scale.  A company needs to have a score of 19 or greater, without a large standard deviation among the three scores to qualify for investment. For example, in the “financial return” category, potential for a 10X return in five years falls at “7” on the one to ten scale.

IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
SCALE
# of peopleDepth of ImpactFinancial
Return
(Multiple)
1UnknownNegativeNone
2TensNone0-1
3HundredsVery Low2-3
4ThousandsLow4-5
5Tens of thousandsLow Medium6-7
6Hundreds of thousandsMedium8-9
7MillionsHigh Medium10
8Tens of MillionsHigh20
9Hundreds of MillionsVery High30
10BillionsCritical50+

Rockies Impact Fund’s managers have evaluated their past investment portfolios and have found that approximately fifty percent of the portfolio companies under management in the Rockies Venture Fund I (32 investments) and Rockies Venture Management (40 investments) would qualify under these measures as being Impact Investments. The Rockies Impact Fund will invest in impact opportunities using these metrics where companies qualifying score at 19 points or greater.  Our goal is to create consistency in determining the amount of impact so that investors and Limited Partners can calibrate with a scale that is understood to all.

By “beginning with the end in mind” we believe that we can maximize social and environmental impact in the investments we make.  With a clear path to outcomes and pre-established metrics, we can create an “Impact Proforma” that we use just like the financial proformas that model future revenues and expenses for a Venture Capital Portfolio company.  By using the impact proforma we can help companies to adjust their strategies to maximize impact while also pursuing 10X investment returns.

Post-Investment Metrics – Is the Company’s Execution Creating Good in the World?

We develop post-investment metrics for each portfolio company based on their Primary Impact.  We use guidelines from existing metrics systems such as GIIN’s IRIS+ Thematic Taxonomy (Global Impact Investing Network) which provides suggested metrics for many, but not all impact types. 

We’ve struggled, as many have, to develop or select an existing single set of metrics for impact companies which we believe is impossible. One simply can’t use the same metrics for edtech and agtech and metrics that CAN be applied to both, would be Secondary metrics about how the company operated, thus ignoring the most import Primary impact output that the company creates. At the end of the day, we’ve determined that each company needs to set its own metrics for impact as a part of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that they measure on a regular basis as a part of managing their business. That being said, using a consistent set of metrics, when available, such as IRIS+ can be useful, ultimately, each company has its own outcomes that it tracks and by focusing on Primary Impact, investors will settle on investment metrics that are based on the individual company’s outcomes.

So, for example, a company that uses telemedicine to reduce the cost of healthcare by keeping people out of emergency rooms and to increase access to health care by underserved and rural populations might set about measuring:

●        Number of people diverted from the emergency room (and the cost savings because of that)

●        Number of people in rural communities served.

●        Number of other underserved communities who gain access to healthcare.

Because the Rockies Impact Fund focuses on Primary Impact, these mission specific metrics make sense.  Each company is creating good by what it does when it carries out its mission. Additionally, these company-specific metrics are also their commercial raison d’etre, and thus, should be measured as part of their commercial KPIs even if they are not demanded for by the Fund.

The Sustainable Development Goals categories, for example, provide a good framework for understanding the scope of most impact investments. The metrics that fall under these categories will be well understood among investors who are analyzing various investment opportunities.  The Rockies Impact Fund’s management finds these categories to be useful and comprehensive and therefore we strive to work within this framework, while measuring each investment individually.

At the end of the day, impact investors want both a significant social and/or environmental impact, plus market rate returns.  Impact investors who develop inbound metrics find that they are investing in companies that create significant outcomes which can be modelled using an impact proforma.  Others who invest based on passion and cause alone may find that the impact they create is not as great as they had hoped.

Most interns don’t expect to learn from the Executive Director or their CEO. Fewer get to. Fewer yet get to sit through a five hour seminar on financial strategy with said executive. This is what the analysts at RVC got on Tuesday as Executive Director Peter Adams walked a group of entrepreneurs and investors through a CFO’s role in acquiring funding. From how to build adequate proformas to when to schedule your raises, the RVC Financial Class Cluster threw us into the fire of financial strategy. Sitting in with a group of investors and entrepreneurs alike, here’s a look at what we covered.

Financial Strategy

Diligence is the name of the game at RVC, with every prospective deal getting a full diligence report drafted up for RVC members. For Peter, this means believability and accuracy in the numbers. In the case of financial strategy, this means clearly defining your major milestones, your key hires, when (roughly) you’re going to raise capital, how you’re going to raise it, and the nitty gritty of each of those things. Peter’s philosophy outlines all of these alongside clear exit modeling as fundamental to a success for prospective founders. What stood out in this densely packed granola bar of venture capital knowledge? The paradox of uncertainty.

Peter made clear that a company and its founders won’t have a clear date on which they will need to raise the next round, hire that new sales star, or sit down with their dream acquirer. Peter also made clear that a company needs to have an idea of what those events look like, and while precision is not present, they key came down to milestones. Bringing on new team members shortly after key product launches, identifying the scalability inflection point, and raising enough money to pave a long enough runway are his tips for a successful financial plan.

Valuations

Part of diligence is accuracy and reasonable goals, which for valuations means a lot things. One of Peter’s highlights is that while Angels would absolutely love it if their firms all became unicorns, unless that conversion happens in a fairly tight window, doing so isn’t best for the Angel. Rather than lofty goals that may provide a bigger sum after a decade, Peter instead argues for reasonable exit strategies. Acquisition by key distributors or large firms with histories of choosing the buy side of the buy-or-build dilemma, Peter argues, can result in faster turnarounds and safer strategies for both Angels and entrepreneurs.He defines clear ranges with key milestones for reasonable early valuations, and outlined a number of models used at RVC to determine those early valuations.

Peter also faced the audience with a thought challenge. Imagine an entrepreneur trying to raise their first seed round. As the omnipotent spectator, we know this company to have a specific valuation. The question at hand? Is it better for the entrepreneur if the company gets valued at double that valuation, or 10% less than its true value? While the company would be able to raise more money at the double valuation, the answer would be the 10% reduction. Less dilution and a slower, more controlled value inflation would prove advantageous for the entrepreneur.

Proformas

Proformas are integral to the other parts of this class. They are the bridge between your vision as an entrepreneur and the funding to get you there. It is the blueprint of your business and your plans, the pictogram by which you assemble a successful company. This means years of financials, forecasts, milestones and targets, key hires, and more. Good proformas are believable proformas, argues Peter, utilizing reasonable projections and honest numbers to justify their claims and valuation. He argues that VCs and Angels alike would rather see that entrepreneurs have reasonable expectations and goals they know they can reach. In other words, be honest. If your burn is running $15k a month, don’t try to hide it. Instead, highlight where that burn is resulting in growth and is driving value. Show how you can scale back to balance if you need to slow down while seeking funding. Tell prospective investors honestly whether or not you have plans for future rounds. What milestones lead up to it? There are no ruby red slippers to take you back to the quiet farm in Kansas, so build the yellow brick road that takes you to Emerald City of successful exit, no matter how treacherous it may be.

Denver, CO – Rockies Venture Club (RVC), one of the largest and most experienced Angel investing organizations in the country, led and closed 15 funding rounds over the past year. RVC has created a community of accredited investors who are passionate about helping early stage companies raise the capital that they need to grow.

This trend of early-stage investing in Colorado is encouraging considering the fact that there has been a downward trend in early-stage activity worldwide. A November 2017 report by TechCrunch shows that despite record levels of Venture Capital being raised, the number of funding rounds has been cut in half since 2014. This indicates that capital is being concentrated into larger, later-stage companies. With this being the trend, it would seem that Rockies Venture Club and more largely Colorado as a whole is providing its companies the capital they need to grow.

According to RVC Executive Director, Peter Adams, “One of RVC’s leading principles is to be as diversified as possible when investing in companies. We believe that investing in a variety of sectors allows our Angel investors to diversify their personal portfolios while having fun learning about industries they don’t have past experience in.” This is something that the Angel group truly puts into practice if their 2017 portfolio is any indication. Among the 15 new companies that RVC backed in 2017, there was industry representation within CyberSecurity, AgTech, FinTech, Medical Devices, and Consumer Products; just to name a few.

In addition to engaging local capital through its network of over 200 active Angel investors, Rockies Venture Club also syndicates many of these deals with other Angel groups from across the U.S. Dave Harris, RVC’s Director of Operations, states, “RVC has been working to develop strong partnerships with other Angel groups for several years now. This allows companies to more quickly and easily close their funding rounds, bring deal flow to other areas of the country, and ultimately results in a greater amount of capital being invested directly in Colorado companies.”

Among the 15 deals, RVC led the seed-round in the female founded, Fort Collins company, The Food Corridor (TFC). TFC is the first online marketplace for food businesses to connect with available commercial food assets. Food businesses can find and book commercial kitchens, equipment, commissaries, processors, co-packers, and food storage spaces. CEO Ashley Colpaart put together a $550k round through Rockies Venture Club, Rockies Venture Fund, and other Northern Colorado Investors. Peter Adams stated, “I believe that RVC investors were especially interested in this deal due to Ashley’s deep industry knowledge and the promising early traction they have gained with food entrepreneurs and commercial kitchen spaces.”

RVC Angels also invested in CirrusMD’s $7 Million Series A Round. CirrusMD is a company that gives patients immediate access to providers via secure chat so healthcare organizations can excel in a value-based care environment. This was the third round that RVC has participated in, having first invested in the company in 2014. Since then CirrusMD has expanded access to care to over a million of patients and formed strong partnerships with some of the largest health systems across the country.

Beyond closing the 15 deals, in 2017 Rockies Venture Club created the Women’s Investor Network(WIN), an initiative created to address the lack of diversity in Colorado’s investor community, launched the Rockies Venture Fund, an early-stage VC fund that invests alongside RVC’s Angel investors, and collaborate with the Colorado OEDIT to create the OEDIT HyperAccelerator, program that helps Advanced Industry grant recipients raise the necessary matching funds.

Looking forward to 2018, the club will be hosting the 11th annual Angel Capital Summit (ACS) in March. The Angel Capital Summit is the largest Angel investing event in Colorado, bringing together over 300 investors, entrepreneurs, and community members together under one roof. This year the conference will focus around current, past, and future waves of innovation that have had or will have lasting impacts on the venture capital industry. RVC is excited to announce that there will be two keynote speakers at ACS this year: Divya Narendra, and Colorado’s own Andre Durand. Dyvia is the Founder and CEO of SumZero, and co-founded ConnectU, the inspiration behind Facebook. Andre is the Founder and CEO of Ping Identity who lead the company through a $600M+ acquisition by Vista  Equity Partners in 2016.

It seems like a majority of pre-Series A deals are done with convertible debt these days and I’d like to point out a few reasons why this is a bad thing for entrepreneurs and investors alike.

Just to get definitions out of the way, we’re talking about the decision to raise funding for startups by either equity investment in stock of a company, or in a convertible debt instrument.  Equity is pretty straightforward – invest money, get stock.  Convertible notes, on the other hand are not widely known to those outside of startup investing.  Convertible debt works like regular debt in that there’s a promissory note and an interest rate.  The interest is rarely paid in cash for convertible notes though, and it’s usually rolled into equity when the note converts into equity.  There are usually a few “triggers” for h

RVC Convertible debt vs. equity

aving the note convert to equity, but the most prominent one is that there is a “qualified financing round” which is usually around $1 million.  The idea is that the professional investors at that stage know how to value the business and set the terms. The first early investors who invest will convert at the terms set by the VCs, but usually with a 20% discount in price to compensate for investing earlier.  Convertible notes today also have a “valuation cap” which is equal to what the equity valuation would have been if the deal had been a stock transaction in the first place.  So, when the qualified round causes the note to convert, it converts at the lower of the 20% discount or the valuation cap.

Ten Reasons to Avoid Convertible Debt

Reason 1:  Convertible Notes do not qualify for Section 1202 QSBS Tax Breaks<a href="http://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/business">Business vector created by Dooder - Freepik.com</a>

Angel investors get a 100% capital gains tax break if they invest in equity in early stage companies that meet certain criteria such as being a C Corp., being under five years old, under five million in revenue and they hold the 

 

 

 

investment for five years.  Convertible notes don’t qualify for this tax break, so if all things were equal, the investor makes 20% LESS on convertible note deals since they have to pay capital gains tax on the investment, whereas investors who invest in equity do not have to pay any tax at all.

Reason 2: Equity is cheaper than convertible debt

You may have heard that it’s cheaper, faster and easier to do a convertible note, but the fact is that convertible notes are going to end up costing the company approximately 25% MORE than an equity deal.  The reason for this is that when the note converts, then it converts into EQUITY.  That means that the company pays twice for the legal: once to do the note and another time to do the equity.  So if a convertible note cost $2500 in legal fees and the equity deal cost $10,000, then the convertible note all-in is going to cost the company $12,500.  Why not just do it right in the first place and put all that money to work for the company?

Reason 3) 80% of Angel Investors Prefer Equity

If you’re selling something to a customer, wouldn’t you want to sell them what they want and not some more expensive and inferior product?  The American Angel Survey shows that investors prefer equity and I suspect that if the remaining 20% of angels read this blog, they’d prefer equity too.

Reason 4) You can lose your company if you default on a convertible note

When you take out the note you’re confident that you’ll have a qualifying follow-on round within 18 months, but many times it takes longer and the note comes due and payable and you’ve already spent the money and can’t raise any more.  You’re in default and investors can take your company from you.  Most investors don’t want to do that, but why go through the heartburn and stress of facing the potential loss?

Reason 5) Investors have to pay tax on interest they earned but never got

As interest accrues on convertible notes, interest is due.  Investors need to pay tax on those notes, even though they didn’t actually get the interest in cash.  So, if someone invests $100,000 in an 8% convertible note, they have to pay $2640 in cash to the IRS on that income.  Nobody likes paying taxes on money they never got and also, BTW, there is no tax due for equity investments.

Reason 6)  You have to come up with a valuation for convertible notes just like equity.

Many people think that using convertible notes lets them “kick the valuation can down the road.”  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Every convertible note has a provision called the “valuation cap.”    The formula for calculating the valuation cap is as follows:

Valuation Cap = Equity Valuation

This means that when someone invests in a convertible note, they should never have to pay more than what the company is worth today.  If the valuation cap were higher than equity valuation, that would mean that note investors would have to pay more than the value of the company.  Just because it may convert at a higher valuation some time in the future does not mitigate the risks that the early stage investor has today.  In fact, the only way that the higher valuation comes about in the future is that the angel investor puts in the capital early, when risk is highest, so it doesn’t make sense that they should pay more than what the company is worth.

Many companies get confused about this.  One company told us that the valuation would be $5 million, but it would be $7 million valuation cap “because it’s going to convert at $12 million some day.”   It’s crazy to think that somehow using a convertible note makes a company worth $2 million more than one that uses equity. This kind of thinking makes no sense and hurts the startup community.

Putting valuations on early stage companies is something that is done every day and there’s no magic to it.  Seed Funds and Angel Groups have well established valuation methodologies that work well on pre-revenue companies.

Reason 8) Entrepreneurs get diluted with convertible notes

Entrepreneurs should be cautious about the cumulative dilution that paying interest which will be rolled into equity will create.  The longer the note goes on, the more startups will be diluted with the interest that they have to pay in the form of equity.  It would be better to preserve that equity for future growth.  Founders who chose equity over convertible debt don’t have to worry about interest accumulating and diluting their shares.

Reason 9) Equity creates better alignment between investors and founders

When convertible debt is used, there is a misalignment between investors and entrepreneurs.  Founders want to use high valuation caps or worse, no valuation caps, and prolong the amount of time before conversion, so that investors get the short end of the stick.  Some founders openly state that they want to use convertible debt to preserve their equity.  Those are founders that every investor should avoid – not because they want to build a strategy that preserves equity, but that they want to create unfair terms that preserve equity at the expense of investors.

Reason 10) Equity deals have all the terms defined

With a convertible debt deal, the conversion price is negotiated, but all the other terms which are extremely important to the relationship between the founders and investors are left open.  This represents a risk to investors and also leaves many matters unsettled.  One example is that there are usually terms about board representation which are not found in convertible notes.  Investors in early stage companies can offer much more to companies than just a check if they can serve on boards and help move the company along.  While there’s nothing to say that companies with convertible notes can’t have boards, in fact many don’t and that’s bad for both investors and entrepreneurs.

Last Words:

With all that being said against convertible notes, they can still be useful for the FFF rounds with friends and family who don’t know how to value a deal and who are investing primarily to support the entrepreneur.  Convertible notes can be better than some of the amateurish deals that get put together for early family investors who are often non-accredited that can make follow-on investments difficult or even impossible for the company, thus limiting its chances for success.

Visit www.rockiesventureclub.org to learn more.

 

Peter Adams

Managing Director, Rockies Venture Fund I, LP
Executive Director, Rockies Venture Club, Inc.
 Buy Venture Capital For Dummies on Amazon

 

It’s a common misconception that angel investing and venture capital is extremely risky.

But when best practices for investing are followed, tax breaks and portfolio returns can consistently outpace even the best mutual funds.  If you’re wondering how this can be true – read on!

Angel investing involves capital investments by accredited investors (people with a net worth of $1 million or more excluding the value of their primary residence, or with income of $200,000 or more per year/ $300,000 for a married couple).  These investments are in startups, usually with less than $1 million in revenue and less than five years old.  These startups have high growth potential and angel investors look to invest in companies that have a believable plan to be able to return 10X their investment or more within five years.  

Yes, some of these companies will fail, but let’s compare two investors.  The first one, Freddy Frugal, invests all of his money in mutual funds yielding a healthy 8% return. The second one, Andy Angel, invests his money in ten startups.  Both investors hold their investments for five years.  Let’s look at  their returns.

Freddy’s returns are 8%, but he must withdraw $2,640 in the first year, and more each year to pay taxes, so the compounding is based on his after tax returns each year.  After Freddy pays his taxes, his actual return is less than 5.93%.  Not bad, given the relative lower risk of a mutual fund and the liquidity it provides when funds are needed.

Freddy Frugal – $100,00 at 8% compounding
Year Investment Returns Failures Taxes Returns After Tax Portfolio Value After Tax
Initial Investment $100,000 -100000 -$100,000 $100,000
1 0 $8,000 0 $2,640 $5,360 $105,360
2 0 $8,429 0 $2,782 $5,647 $111,007
3 0 $8,881 0 $2,931 $5,950 $116,957
4 0 $9,357 0 $3,088 $6,269 $123,226
5 0 $9,858 0 $3,253 $6,605 $129,831
Total $44,524 $14,693 $29,831 $129,831
IRR Before Tax 8.83% $144,524
IRR After Tax 5.93% $129,831

 

Andy’s returns are a bit more complicated.  

First of all, because Andy is investing in a Colorado company he is eligible for state investment tax credits of 25%.  (many other states have similar credit programs)  This means that he gets $25,000 back immediately from the state government, so he actually has only $75,000 of his capital at risk.   We’ve shown this below by adding the $25,000 cash returned by the state to the value of his portfolio.

Also, Andy’s returns for his portfolio match the HALO report of thousands of Angel investing deals reported, so in the second, third and fourth years one company totally fails each year, resulting in a complete loss of investment and another is liquidated and returns $.50 on the dollar.  This results in a tax loss of $15,000 each year which he can take accelerated write offs against ordinary income thanks to IRS Code Section 1244.  This results in a cash benefit to Andy each of these years in the form of reduced taxes which we’ve calculated at $4,500 per year.

In the fifth year, the remaining four companies have exits ranging between four and ten times the initial investment amount, resulting in a $295,000 positive cash flow.  Because Andy made equity investments in early stage C-Corporate startups and held the investment for five years, he is entitled to a 100% long term capital gains tax exemption thanks to IRS Code Section 1202, so his tax bill for that year is zero.

 

Andy Angel – $100,000 in ten startups at $10,000 each
Year Investment Returns Failures Taxes Returns After Tax Portfolio Value After Tax
Initial Investment $100,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
1 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $125,000
2 $0 $0 1.5 -$4,500 $4,500 $114,500
3 $0 $0 1.5 -$4,500 $4,500 $104,000
4 $0 $0 1.5 -$4,500 $4,500 $93,500
5 $0 $295,000 0 $0 $295,000 $333,500
Total $320,000 -$13,500 $333,500 $333,500
IRR Before Tax 31.5% $333,500
IRR After Tax 31.5% $333,500

 

There is a lot of mythology about how many startups fail on average.

So, how risky was Andy’s Investment?

The statistics about how many startups fail on average can be deceiving.  Many of those statistics come from the SBA or local Secretaries of State who report failures of hair salons, restaurants and lawn mowing services along with other companies.  But, companies that receive venture capital investment have to reach a higher bar than just registering with the state.  They need to have gained significant traction and have gone through a lot of due diligence and had to jump the hurdle of convincing dozens of angel investors to write a check.  These companies are far less likely to fail than the general population of company formations.  In fact, HALO report data shows that about 52% of these companies will return less than $1.00 for each dollar invested.  Of that 52%, about 18% will be complete failures.  So, we’ve been a little hard on Andy Angel and had him with three total losses and three returns of less than a dollar.  On the upside, we’ve also been a bit conservative.  About 5% of venture backed startups will return 30X or greater, and there’s a good distribution of returns between 10X and 4X.   These winners more than pay for the losers.

Andy’s key to success was that he diversified his portfolio into ten investments.  Smart angel investors know the value of spreading out the risk so that the winners can more than offset the losers.

Another point to observe is that we’ve valued Andy’s portfolio at the value of the investment only until the returns came in.  Despite that conservative accounting, he barely dipped below his $100,000 investment amount in year four with a portfolio value of $93,500.  This means that if the four remaining companies had returned only 1X, his loss would have been limited to $6,500.  

But, his returns were a more typical 3X over the portfolio, resulting in a return of $295,000.  We can add in the $25,000 state tax credit and his $13,500 in accelerated write-offs  from the $45,000 loss, and his net cash return AFTER TAX is $333,500.

Andy was hardly more at risk than Freddy, and yet the internal rate of return on his investment was more than FIVE TIMES GREATER.

So, who is the smarter investor?  Freddy Frugal with a 5.93% after tax return or Andy Angel with his 31.8% return and $333,500 in cash after five years?  Angel investors have figured out how the system works and have been profiting handsomely from it for some time.  Accredited Investors should consider contacting their local angel group, preferably groups that are members of the Angel Capital Association, like Rockies Venture Club, and consider membership so that they can benefit from great deal flow, a community of smart investors, group negotiation and high quality due diligence.  

Visit www.rockiesventureclub.org to learn more.

 

Peter Adams

Managing Director, Rockies Venture Fund I, LP
Executive Director, Rockies Venture Club, Inc.
 Buy Venture Capital For Dummies on Amazon

There’s a lot to know about angel investing, but the one thing most people miss is how to syndicate a deal.  Almost every angel investment deal in an entrepreneur’s company is a syndication and there’s a lot more to it than just getting a bunch of investors together.   Read more

RVC hosted it’s first workshop on Strategic Planning for Venture Backed Business earlier this week and Kathleen McFadden, Senior Account Supervisor at McGregor Graham Advertising Agency attended and shared her notes with us. Read more

Rockies Venture Club recently launched a beta program for due diligence analytics, assembling a team of highly capable industry and academic individuals in order to streamline the time consuming process and assist angel investors with making the most informed decisions possible. This is an extremely exciting prospect because research shows that extensively researching a company at the onset of a deal pays off for angel investors. Read more

Presenting a great Venture Capital pitch is critical to getting the follow-up appointment and beginning due diligence.  Most teams never make it past this critical step.  Why? Read more

The crop of companies presenting to investors at this years’ Angel Capital Summit are truly outstanding.  Some people may believe that these awesome companies just fall into our lap, ready to pitch and raise capital, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  The selection process for the Angel Capital Summit is rigorous and the preparation companies go through is even tougher. Read more