Monthly Archives: March 2013

What’s Criteo worth?

Criteo is the latest European story. Not yet, some may say, but its numbers are impressive. How do I know? Well in France the Register of Commerce provides a lot of data if you are prepared to pay a small fee (about €10 per document you download). It is possible to know about the rounds of financing, about the revenues, about the founders. It was not as easy as I imagined and maybe I should have bought more documents. (The revenues are not what I had read, stockholders’ shares is probably not accurate as things may be missing. But it looks good enough to me.)

I also know people involved do not always like such publications. Wealth, money is still a taboo, in France particularly. What is important is the message of value creation that entrepreneurs and their investors contribute to create for others. As I copied from the Slicing Pie recently: “Entrepreneurs give security to other people; they are the generators of social welfare. The country needs entrepreneurs, the world needs entrepreneurs. Without them not much would happen. In spite of the exciting life and important role of entrepreneurs, most people never become entrepreneurs. To most people, life is too risky. Most people can’t handle the ambiguity. Most people are afraid of failure. Every entrepreneur fails more often than they succeed.”

So I publish here again, one of my favorite tools, the capitalization table of Criteo with its rounds of financing (€47M raised), its revenues (at least €74M in 2011), its investors and its founders. But the wealth is virtual, it corresponds to a €15 price per share, more than 3 times the price paid by the series D investors…

I do not think Criteo’s journey was easy and simple. When I first heard of the company, it was developing recommendation systems, not ‘personalized retargeting’. It had Plan B related Pivot. So here it is and my apologies for inaccuracies / frustrations.

Criteo-CapTable

Here are some more references.
Criteo Nabs $40 Million in Funding at $800 Million Valuation
Criteo Hires Bank for Imminent IPO

This last article mentions the IPO of Marin, which I had followed too. The comparison is interesting…

Marin-CapTable

Business Model Generation – never too late!

Last week, I attended a workshop organized by Raphael Cohen. He explained his IpOp process. You can read again the post I wrote a few months ago: Proven Tools for Converting Your Projects into Success (without a Business Plan). It’s really a good tool if you need to develop your own project. Cohen mentioned the famous Business Model Generation by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur; and he showed us again its 9 building blocks. It has become such a standard… I never mentioned it here. Better late than never!

bmcanvas_v4.indd

You can download the pdf canvas here.

The Swiss innovation model: is it the best?

Very interesting presentation by the newspaper Le Temps and Xavier Comtesse about innovation in Switzerland (compared to the USA). (Thanks to Pascal for giving me the link :-)). The article is entitled The Swiss innovation model is it the best? (Same document on Prezi)

Prezi-SwissInnovation

Before you view or read the content of the contribution by Comtesse, here is my reaction: it is indeed an excellent analysis, but the conclusion can be misleading! One could get the impression that the U.S. does not have large innovative companies like Switzerland has with Novartis, Roche or Nestlé. But I fear that it is a misleading view. The U.S. does not have that start-ups only and our are not growing. Not to forget, the topic of job creation, see Job creation: who’s right? Grove or Kauffman

Now here is a summary translated from Prezi: For several years, Switzerland has been at the top of the world rankings for innovation, this was not always the case especially during the 90s. So … Are we better than Silicon Valley?

Silicon Valley has developed a model in 8 strengths
– Excellent local university system
– Transfer of knowledge to the economy – technoloy parks, coaching, awards, etc..
– Powerful venture capital
– Start-ups that grow quickly and innovate in disruptive fields
– An effective IPO or M&A market (Exit Strategy)
– Large expenditures in R&D
– A high rate of patents per capita
– A strong entrepreneurial spirit per inhabitant

The 7 strong points of the Swiss model: Switzerland has a very different system of innovation from Silicon Valley but ultimately just as effective, especially for large companies.
– No federal masterplan for Innovation
– A concentration in life sciences
– A innovation driven by large companies
– Incremental innovation more than disruptive
– A quality education at all levels
– Framework conditions very favorable to the economy
– A high performance system of transfer of knowledge / technology

What are the strengths and weaknesses of Switzerland?
– Yes, our universities are excellent:
More than half of young Swiss university follow the one hundred best universities in the world, no country has such a result
– No, the Venture Capital industry is very low in Switzerland:
Switzerland underperformed largely in the area of ​​venture capital (investment in Switzerland in 2011: 737 Million for USA 29,500 million).
– No, our start-ups do not grow fast enough:
The excellent survival rate is suspect, this means that start-ups are protected by the academic system or federal funding
– No, there is little IPO in Switzerland:
A small number of IPO (Initial Public Offering) shows weak growth start-ups or SMEs in Switzerland
– Yes, private R&D is very important but for large firms rather than in SMEs:
The share of the private sector is very important in Switzerland, particularly in the life sciences (pharma, biotech and medtech, etc.).
– Yes, we file a lot of patents:
but again it is primarily large enterprises, the proportion of patents is very important in Switzerland, this is partly due to the strong presence of very large firms
– No, the Swiss create firms twice less than the US:
the ntrepreneurial culture is very strong in the U.S., more than double that in Europe,
– Yes, the general conditions of business creation are very favorable:
Switzerland does better than innovative small countries such as Finland, Sweden and Israel
– Yes, technology transfer takes place in Switzerland:
Switzerland has fifty incubators, TechnoParks or other transfer centers Switzerland Silicon Valley

These two models as we have seen are very different. They work well both but the objective differences do not make possible to compare them as is done ll too often, especially in the field of start-ups …

Slicing Pie (how to fairly split equity) – Part 2

Following my recent post (part 1), here is what I keep from the book without giving all details. Moyer probably needs to sell a few copies!

slicing-pie-funding-your-company-without-funds-mike-moyer-paperback-cover-art

Moyer introduces the Grunt Fund as a mechanism to allocate equity between founders. He is using the classical metrics I have used in the past (again see Equity Splits in Start-ups) but he adds one interesting point: a dynamic allocation based on future contributions such as time and cash, weighted with your value (reputation, experience, etc). His process is simple:
– Appoint a Leader
– Assign a theoretical value to the ingredients provided by the various Grunts.
– Keep track of the contributions and calculate the possible equity whenever you need based on the relative contributions by each Grunt.

A Grunt Fund makes some people uneasy. They like to know what they’re getting into and they like the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed. That’s fine. If this is you, then don’t use a Grunt Fund – get a job instead. [Page 50] Then be careful about who and what you need. It’s up to you to decide what you need, but be fair!

Moyer mentions on the following page Noam Wasserman’s The Founder’s Dilemma (which I have not read) as a theoritical validation of his approach.

Without entering too much detail, Moyer gives value to time (2x what would a normal salary be) and cash (4x the actual amount). This is subjective. The critical element is that all Grunts agree with the rules. It can change from one company to the other… “Remember, you need to compensate them for not only the work they did, but also for the risk they take.” [Page 64]

When it comes to ideas or intellectual property, Moyer has principles I am quite close to: “Don’t get me wrong, ideas are critical to a business’ success. But turning the idea into a reality is where the value is built, not in coming up with the idea in the first place.” [Page 82]

Sometimes you will need to remove someone. There are 3 possibilities:
– he/she resigns without cause. You need to reduce his slice;
– you terminate him/her without cause. The slice should be kept;
– you terminate with cause. He/she may lose the slice.
[Chapter 5 + Pages 141-145]

The Grunt Fund is for the early days only. When do you stop using it? When you have a predictable business model, or when you have raised $1M. [Page 114]

As a conclusion (and Moyer mentions it many times), “a Grunt Fund is a moral contract, not a legal contract. It tells us how to treat each other fairly. […] A Grunt Fund is the foundation of a trusting relationship.” [Pages 121-122]

Slicing Pie (how to fairly split equity) – Part 1

An EPFL entrepreneur had contacted me about equity split between founders, employees and investors in a start-up. I mentioned my experience and related blog post on the topic: Equity Splits in Start-ups. Then he came back to me with a book he advised me to read. I am half way through it and it has interesting (and new to me) lessons. So thanks Justin 🙂

The book is entitled Slicing Pie, and subtitled Funding Your Company Without Funds.

slicing-pie-funding-your-company-without-funds-mike-moyer-paperback-cover-art

I will probably go back when I am finished with this book, but already, here are some examples of what I liked:

The Gap

Somewhere between the inception of your earth-changing idea and the investor presentation to Andreessen Horowitz there is a gap. During that gap, you are expected to have actually built something that resembles a business enough that the gentle and kind venture capitalist will decide that you have your act together and write you a fact check. I call it “the Gap” because it’s during this time that you either fill the gap with behaviors that create a business or let is consume you and your wonderful idea. Most fledging businesses experience the latter.
The days of back-of-the-envelope deals are over. (In fact, they may never have actually existed.) Few investors are willing to provide capital to a company that is little more than a rough idea.
Nowadays, you need to have something worth investing in which often means a management team, a business plan, and, if you’re smart, a working prototype. For bonus points get a few beta customers who are actually paying you. Now you have something worth discussing. [page 2]

The need for Entrepreneurs

“Entrepreneurs give security to other people; they are the generators of social welfare.” The country needs entrepreneurs, the world needs entrepreneurs. Without them not much would happen.
In spite of the exciting life and important role of entrepreneurs, most people never become entrepreneurs. To most people, life is too risky. Most people can’t handle the ambiguity. Most people are afraid of failure. Every entrepreneur fails more often than they succeed. [pages 9-10]

Good and Bad Lessons

Failure is how an entrepreneur learns. Good lessons improve an entrepreneur chances for future success. If you created a product that nobody wants, if your employee leaves you, if a competitor comes out, if your marketing did not work, if you run out of money, you will learn.
Being an entrepreneur requires a lot of trust and confidence.
But if they get burnt by partners, they learn bad lessons. They spend more time covering their own butts. They learn to move more slowly and take fewer risks. They learn to be less like entrepreneurs and more like everyone else. [pages 10-11]

Grunts

Grunts are people who are willing to forgo cash compensation in exchange for a piece of the pie. Grunts do the work necessary to turn an idea into a reality. They will do the fun work and the dirty work. They are as comfortable licking stamps as they are building a strategic plan. [page 28] (I love grunts probably because in some aspects I am one, even if not an entrepreneur!)

As a conclusion to his first chapter, author Mike Moyer claims that an entrepreneur needs a method for slicing the pie that is easy to understand and
– rewards participants for the relative value they provide,
– provides motivation for them to continue to provide more ingredients,
– allows founders to fairly add or subtract participants to or from the company,
– is flexible in the face of rapid change.

More in part 2!

Technology billionaires in 2013

In 2007, I had made the same exercise, i.e. extract from the Forbes billionaire list, the ones who had a link with technology. I found by accident the 2013 Forbes list, and did the same exercise. Again the USA dominates and the word is weak. Europe has 8 whereas the USA has 63…

What’s new from the 2007 Technology Billionaires is the new comers, the web2.0 winners from Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and Groupon, not to forget GoDaddy!

2013-new billionaires-sma
Top: the Facebook billionaires. Bottom: founders of Linkedin, Twitter, Groupon, GoDaddy and finally Laurene Powell Jobs.

Also, average age is 57 but Internet billionaires’ age is 46!

# Name Origin Company Field Wealth ($B) Age
2 Bill Gates USA Microsoft Software 67 57
5 Larry Ellison USA Oracle Software 43 68
19 Jeff Bezos USA Amazon.com Internet 25.2 49
20 Larry Page USA Google Internet 23 39
21 Sergey Brin USA Google Internet 22.8 39
49 Michael Dell USA Dell Hardware 15.3 48
51 Steve Ballmer USA Microsoft Software 15.2 56
53 Paul Allen USA Microsoft Software 15 60
66 Mark Zuckerberg USA Facebook Internet 13.3 28
94 Ernesto Bertarelli CH Merck Serono Biotech 11 47
98 Laurene Powell Jobs USA Apple Hardware 10.7 49
122 Hasso Plattner D SAP Software 8.9 69
123 Hansjoerg Wyss CH Synthes Medical devices 8.7 78
123 Pierre Omidyar USA Ebay Internet 8.7 45
138 Eric Schmidt USA Google Internet 8.2 57
145 Patrick Soon-Shiong USA Abraxis Pharmaceuticals 8 61
154 James Goodnight USA SAS Software 7.7 70
156 Klaus Tschira D SAP Software 7.5 72
179 Xavier Niel F Free Internet 6.6 45
182 Dietmar Hopp D SAP Software 6.5 72
262 David Duffield USA Peoplesoft Software 4.8 72
316 Gordon Moore USA Intel Hardware 4.1 84
353 Dustin Moskovitz USA Facebook Internet 3.8 28
353 John Sall USA SAS Software 3.8 64
363 Jeffrey Skoll USA Ebay Internet 3.7 48
376 Barbara P. Johnson USA Johnson & Johnson Medical devices 3.6 76
437 Reid Hoffman USA LinkedIn Internet 3.1 45
437 Alain Merieux F Biomerieux Pharmaceuticals 3.1 75
503 Ronda Stryker USA Stryker Corp. Medical devices 2.8 58
503 Andy v. Bechtolsheim USA/D Google Internet 2.8 57
527 John Doerr USA KPCB Venture capital 2.7 61
527 Elon Musk USA Tesla Motors Hardware 2.7 41
554 Marc Benioff USA Salesforce.com Software 2.6 48
554 Jack Dangermond USA ESRI Software 2.6 67
554 Phillip Frost USA Key Pharma, Ivax Pharmaceuticals 2.6 76
554 David Sun USA Kingston Technology Hardware 2.6 61
554 John Tu USA Kingston Technology Hardware 2.6 72
613 Mark Cuban USA Broadcast.com Internet 2.4 54
641 Ray Dolby USA Dolby Laboratories Hardware 2.3 80
641 Ralph Dommermuth D United Internet Internet 2.3 49
670 Michael Moritz USA Sequoia Venture capital 2.2 58
670 Eduardo Saverin USA/Bra Facebook Internet 2.2 30
736 Sean Parker USA Facebook Internet 2 33
785 Romesh T. Wadhwani USA Aspect Software 1.95 65
792 Meg Whitman USA Ebay Internet 1.9 56
831 Hans-Werner Hector D SAP Software 1.8 73
831 Thomas Siebel USA Siebel Software 1.8 60
882 David Filo USA Yahoo Internet 1.7 46
882 Henry Samueli USA Broadcom Hardware 1.7 58
882 David Cheriton USA/Can Google Internet 1.7 61
922 Kavitark Ram Shriram USA Google Venture capital 1.65 56
931 Craig McCaw USA McCaw Telecom Telecom 1.6 63
931 Pat Stryker USA Stryker Corp. Medical devices 1.6 56
931 Peter Thiel USA Paypal, Facebook Internet 1.6 45
965 Irwin Jacobs USA Qualcomm Hardware 1.55 79
974 Vinod Khosla USA KPCB, Khosla Venture capital 1.5 58
974 Bob Parsons USA Go Daddy Internet 1.5 62
974 Jerry Yang USA Yahoo Internet 1.5 44
1031 John Brown USA Stryker Corp. Medical devices 1.4 78
1031 Steve Case USA AOL Internet 1.4 54
1031 Henry Nicholas, III. USA Broadcom Hardware 1.4 53
1107 Mark Stevens USA Sequoia Venture capital 1.3 53
1107 Jon Stryker USA Stryker Corp. Medical devices 1.3 54
1107 Nicholas Woodman USA GoPro Hardware 1.3 37
1161 Graham Weston USA Rackspace Internet 1.25 49
1175 Jim Breyer USA Accel Venture capital 1.2 51
1175 Robert Duggan USA Computer Motion Medical devices 1.2 68
1268 James Clark USA Netscape Internet 1.1 68
1268 Jack Dorsey USA Twitter, Square Internet 1.1 36
1268 Eric Lefkofsky USA Groupon Internet 1.1 43
1342 John Morgridge USA Cisco Hardware 1 79