Monthly Archives: July 2011

Ecommerce cap. tables: Responsys, Salesforce and Broadvision

For different reasons, I’ve been looking at a few other ecommerce companies. No real connection except the field. It’s more a summer post for my archives but at the same time, there are interesting elements. These are

– Responsys founded in 1998 and IPO in 2011.
– Salesforce.com founded in 1999 but public in 2004.
– Broadvision was founded in 1993 and public before any of the two others even existed, in 1996!

They are all based in Silicon Valley. They are typical in their structure (founders, managers, VCs, stock options, directors. Now let’s have a look at them individually.

I studied Responsys because it was one of the early 2011 IPO. An old company (13 years!). Two founders with very little equity. It could be explained with the large amount of money raised ($60M) but this cannot be the reason. Just have a look at teh price per share of the rounds. $3, then $16, then $6 then $0.25. The terrible down rounds… of course this was extremely dilutive for many shareholders.

The two founders Ragu Raghavan and Anand Jagannathan were not active with responsys for some time.

Broadvision is the oldest of the 3. It was one of the stars of the late 90s. It’s still a public company but its market cap. is $50M only. Today Responsys has better revenues and profits… In a way, Broadvision and Responsys might be The Tortoise and the Hare of the fable.

Also of interest is the fact that id had a unique founder, Pehong Chen, who  was also (and still is) the chairman and CEO.

In between, there is Salesforce.com. The Hare and the Tortoise at the same time. Went public 5 years after foundation. Still had losses at IPO even with good revenues. A market cap. of $1B. But in 2011, it has a market cap. of $19B!!! Explained by revenues of $1.6B even if the profits are below $100M. Not typical in terms of investors though. Mostly business angels and very little ownership.

Four founders at salesforce, Marc Benioff, Parker Harris, David Moellenhoff, Frank Dominguez. The first is a star of Silicon Valley, the last one nearly unkwown to me at least. Apparently, they still all work there…

The Monk and the Riddle: a great book

Do not ask me why this book is entitled The Monk and the Riddle as I will let you discover it if you decide to read this “old” book (a more than 10 year-old great piece of Silicon Valley description). Its subtitle is clear though: The Education of a Silicon Valley Entrepreneur.

Not all agree on the fact it is a great book as you may find at the end of this post, from the comment by the Red Herring in 2000. Still, I loved reading this book and let me explain why. Randy Komisar, today a partner at Kleiner Perkins and former enrtepreneur, has written a book about passion and inspiration. He does not tell you how to do your start-up (but he tells you how not to do it). He also explains also very well what Silicon Valley is, the locus of risk taking, where failure is tolerated, where a start-up is more a romantic act than a financial endeavour. “Business isn’t primarily a financial institution. It’s a creative institution. Like painting and sculpting.” [page 55] Here are a more few extracts I scanned from Google Books.

First Mr. Komisar explains that an entrepreneur is a flexible visionary and why the business plan does not have to be strictly followed (or should not always be) [page 37]:

Of course, venture capitalists look for such people [page 38]:

But there is a danger with VCs: the down round which is the consequence of failed momentum [page 52]:

Mr. Komisar gives much more than basic advice. Even if he admits he may not have followed these when he was younger, he understands now how important they are. His book his about the meaning of life where he defines the Deferred Life Plan (that should not be followed) [page 65]:

He therefore considers that personal risks are more important than business risks [page 154]:
Personal risks include:
– the risk of working with people you don’t respect,
– the risk of working for a company whose values are inconsistent with your own;
– the risk of compromising what’s important;
– the risk of doing something you don’t care about; and
– the risk of doing something that fails to express – or even contradicts –who you are.
And there is the most dangerous risk of all – the risk of spending your life not doing what you want on the bet you can buy yourself the freedom to do it later.

[… page 156…]
If your life were to end suddenly and unexpectedly tomorrow, would you be able to say you’ve been doing what you truly care about today?

He also explains why Hard Work is a critical and necessary value of Silicon Valley [page 125]:

But People and Culture remain the most important elements [page 128]:

Another interesting concept is the fact that start-ups need 3 CEOS [page 128]:

But nothing replaces Vision [page 144]:

When I wrote above that Silicon Valley is about tolerance to failure [page 150]:

Obviously it means even success should be mitigated [page 151]:

I really advise you to read this great book, not only for the Riddle but also for the nice, funny and sad story of Lenny and Allison. Enjoy!

Here is what the Red Herring published. The analysis is not wrong, but even 10 years later, I am not sure Silicon Valley is so well understood as the RH thought…

You can still go public as a web1.0 company: Homeaway and Kayak

I just had lunch with a friend-entrepreneur and we were looking at the big high tech winners.

– the 60’s was the decade of the Semiconductor and gave Intel,
– the 70’s was the PC/SW, with Apple and Microsoft,
– the 80’s was the Network with Cisco,
– the 90’s was the Internet with Google,
– the 00’s will probably be the Web2.0 and remember Facebook.
Of course, there is more from Fairchild to Oracle, 3com, Yahoo, eBay and Amazon.

Now what about the 10’s? For me it is not clear, I do not beleive enough in green/clean-tech but I see the smart management of data and apps, with the Cloud. But no clue on who would be the decade winner.

Now you can still go public as a web2.0 company has I mentioned in my post The Z IPOs: Zynga, Zillow, Zipcar and … Zuckerberg. But even better you can go public as web1.0 company. here are just two examples, Homeaway and Kayak. So I give you my usual cap. tables and a few comments.

Homeaway went public on July 5 and the stock is doing great. Once again you can see the ownherships of founders, managers, investors, independant directors. What is obviously carzy again is that the company raised $400M and has no profit yet. But this helps be to understand why Index supports HouseTrip, a company in the field, out of Lausanne and now based in London.


(Click on image to enlarge)

Next is Kayak. A travel company. Can you believe you can still have new companies in the field? Well this is the proof. Similar comments: check the equity of various players such as founders, managers, directors and investors. A lot of money invested but at least profitable. This one reminds me of another very nice Swiss start-up that deserves much more visivilty: routeRank. (I have no personal interest in routeRank neither in HouseTrip!).


(Click on image to enlarge)

The Z IPOs: Zynga, Zillow, Zipcar and … Zuckerberg

I do not why 2011 saw three IPOs with companies beginning with Z. I thought that beginning with an A was what mattered (Apple, Amazon, not to say @Home). Maybe this is the Zuckerberg effect!

So I looked at the cap. tables of these three companies. Zipcar went public earlier this year, Zillow today and Zynga filed earlier this month. Zuckerberg might wait until 2011 though. They do not have that much in common, except they are all Internet companies with nice revenues (but not always a profit) and a lot of venture capital too. Zynga being apparently the current star, I begin with it. Of coure the price per share is a guess, as the company is not public yet, it just recently filed at the SEC.


(Click on image to enlarge)

As the fund raising included sales of existing shares, the following data is also of interest. But I still have to admit there are missing pieces in all this and it might still be a little confusing (in comparison to previous tables, sorry!) Zynga has only one founder, Mark Pincus (check his Wikipedia profile). As with Zillow (and Google in the past), founders have shares of a special class which usually guarantee more voting right.


(Click on image to enlarge)

Zynga has raised $850M, had about $600M in revenues and a profit of $90M in 2010. Nice! KP and IVP are the two famous VCs and Union Square is the new emerging player (Twitter, FourSquare, Etsy). As a sidenote, Fred Wilson is a partner and has a great blog, avc.com. Reid Hoffman was the seed investor (co-founder of LinkedIn, former VP at Paypal, investor in more than 80 start-ups).

Next is Zillow. Again the 2 founders (with about an equal amount of shares) have also special voting shares. The company is a little older but has raised less cash ($80M), has smaller revenues and not a profit yet. Another element of interest is the equity that independant directors own (you also have this in the Zynga and Zipcar tables). Zillow changed its price again up from $18 uin my table to $20.


(Click on image to enlarge)

And finally Zipcar. Again two founders, but not much info on them as they are not active anymore. A lot of money raised, good revenues but no profit. Much older (11 years old). Benchmark again is a VC (just as in Zillow).


(Click on image to enlarge)

A word of conclusion: Zynga will be the big winner if it goes public at the mentioned valuation until Zuckerberg goes out (you can still have a look at my “tentative” Facebook equity table).

When Wavecom was surfing

I just published a post on the French version of my blog about Wavecom, one of the European success stories. This is coming again from my reading of old Red Herring articles. You can at least check there the RH scan as well as my typical cap. tables. I do there something unusual, I also give the cap. table at the secondary which followed the IPO one year later. The secondary is an important event (even if lesser known than an IPO) where shareholders can find some liquidity. Just check here.

Robert Swanson, 1947-1999

This is again one of my recent readings from old Red Herring. I had already published a post on Bob Swanson, the co-founder of Genentech. This RH article is not that different and I thought it would be important to mention the story again of Boyer and Swanson and the beginnings of the biotech industry. Here it is.

The cofounder of Genentech also founded an industry.

ON THE OCCASION of their deaths, the founders of technology companies can take some satisfaction that they started something From nothing. The best will be able to claim they founded companies that changed the world, and a lucky few will have built organizations that lasted. But almost no one will be able say they founded a company that created an entire industry. Robert Swanson, who died from brain cancer at his home in Hillsborough, California, on December 6, would be very justified in claiming to have started the biotechnology industry.

DREAMS 0F GENIES

Mr. Swanson was a 29-year-old venture capitalist with the firm that today is Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers when he collared Herbert W. Boyer, a scientist at the University of California at San Francisco who was researching recombinant gene therapy. Recombinant DNA is formed when DNA from different sources is combined to create new DNA molecules. Dr. Boyer thought that combining DNA—or gene splicing—would allow scientists to design the proteins necessary to treat particular diseases, and would liberate scientists from trial-and-error methods of protein testing. In 1976, venture capitalists, and even most academics, did not believe in the immediate commercial value of such research. Dr. Boyer himself was uncertain when gene-splicing would be a business. Nevertheless, Mr. Swanson convinced Dr. Boyer to grant him a ten-minute interview. “Here cornes this brash young entrepreneur filled with enthusiasm and ideas and ready to go,” Dr. Boyer says today. “I recognized right away that he had the drive and the understanding.” They formed Genentech, which is generally thought to be the first biotech company, later that year. Twenty-three years later—and in the very winter of Wall Street’s discontent with biotechnology—it is difficult to remember how revolutionary Genentech was. In 1977, Genentech produced the first human protein by splicing a gene with bacteria. Later Genentech created human insulin, the first drug produced by genetic engineering, which it licensed to Ely Lilly for the treatment of diabetes. It was the first biotechnology company to sell a drug it had developed on its own: human growth hormone, for children whose bodies do not produce enough of the hormone. And Genentech was the first biotechnology company to offer its shares in an initial public offering—which, until the Internet boom, was among the most spectacular Wall Street had ever seen. Genentech’s example made biotechnology possible by demonstrating to venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and scientists that a sustainable business could be based on genetic engineering. Today, there are more than 1,000 biotechnology companies in the United States, and Genentech remains one of the most successful.

INGENEOUS

Mr. Swanson was born in Brooklyn, New York. He attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, receiving an undergraduate degree in chemistry and a graduate degree from MIT’s Sloan School of Management. Before becoming a partner at Kleiner Perkins, Mr. Swanson was a VC at Citicorp Venture Capital. He was Genentech’s chief executive from the company’s founding until 1990, and was its chairman from 1990 to 1996. After retiring from Genentech in 1996, Mr. Swanson formed K&E Management, a private investment – management firm. He was also chairman of Tularik, a biotechnology firm that was preparing to go public in mid-December. As an entrepreneur he was courageous, ingenious, stubborn, and slightly crazy. “If you told him that doing something violated the rules of physics, he’d tell you the law must be wrong and you’d almost believe it,” said Arthur D. Levinson, the current chairman of Genentech. Friday afternoons at Genentech were devoted to theme parties, called Ho-hos—on Hawaiian theme days, Genentech’s chairman would invariably don a grass skirt and dance the hula for his employees. Mr. Swanson wished to change the world by commercializing, and therefore making widely available, new drugs based on gene splicing. He got his wish. Last year new pharmaceuticals developed by Genentech scientists (that is to say nothing of established drugs still being sold) earned more than $4 billion in revenues, according to MIT, and saved countless lives—if not, sadly, Mr. Swanson’s own.

Write to jason@redherring.com.