Suggestions
Dan Gray
Head of Insights at Equidam, the Startup Valuation platform | Crunchbase contributor
Dan Gray is a professional with a background in Game and Interactive Media Design, having studied at the University of Lincoln. Over the course of his career, Gray has held various roles in organizations such as Social Impact Capital, Crunchbase, Equidam, Luxembourg House of Financial Technology, RŪH, Dataconomy Media, Auran, MMOGuru, Curse, Twitch, T-RECS (Total Recovery Systems), and SAS: Into The Lions Den. His experience spans from Venture Partner to Community Manager, Marketing & Design, showcasing his diverse skill set and expertise in the industry.
Highlights
Over the weekend, Paul Graham published a new entry in his long running series of startup essays, titled "Founder Mode".
Before this falls into the hands of LinkedIn influencers and is transformed into "10 lessons for business leaders", it's worth emphasizing the central message:
Generic management wisdom is often fatal for startups.
Successful startups are outliers, and so their success is necessarily driven by exceptional behaviour.
That exceptionalism is rooted in the inherent advantage that startups have over incumbents: they can be unconventional. They are not bound by a playbook and can innovate in every sense — including strategy.
The more a startup distributes responsibility to mercenaries with 'standard operating procedures', the more they dilute that advantage, even if those hires look great on paper. This is the danger Paul describes in relation to the common logic of "hire great people and get out of their way".
I've written here before about the threat of generic wisdom, and applying averages or trends to entrepreneurial endeavour. It's a message worth emphasizing, and repeating.
If you work with startups in any capacity, as a consultant, an advisor, or an investor, always remember that the value lies in their unique characteristics. The more you try to shape their journey with generic wisdom, the more you push them towards being an "average" startup rather than a great one.
And the "average" startup fails.
"Valuation multiples are always a hack proxy."
A succinct summary of revenue multiples in venture capital, from the legendary (and frequently contrarian) Bill Gurley.
Crude pricing with revenue multiples — a stubborn remnant of the low interest rate period. Far too many investors still rely on this approach, and far too many advisors push founders in that direction. It is one of many areas in venture capital where standard practices do not align with reality.
Do you think OpenAI raised capital at an average revenue multiple? What about Anduril Industries, SpaceX, or Rippling? Of course not, averages are useless when you're trying to understand the volatile growth of startups building unconventional products. Indeed, the "average" startup fails.
Generally speaking, investors need to recognise that revenue multiples are an output of the valuation process, not an input. They're a tool to help you understand the context of a valuation, relative to the market. This is well put by Alex Immerman and David George of Andreessen Horowitz:
"While multiples are indeed often an input for valuing mature, slower growing companies, in the private, high growth tech market, entry multiples tend to be a byproduct of the valuation process."
The lazy thinking involved in using revenue multiples to price deals does a huge disservice to founders. It's also a procylical influence on an already cyclical market, making the 'sawtooth' rise and fall even more extreme and damaging.
The analysis of multiples below, by Michael Ho, is a good representation of the correct use of multiples: to understand market sentiment, and to put a valuation in context. Again, this purpose is well described by Alex and David:
"When the multiple is implied, investors will then compare it to others seen in the public and private markets to get more comfortable. Think of it like a gut check, a way to determine if the valuation feels 'reasonable'."
The next time you hear an investor pushing back on a valuation because it's too far off the "average" multiple, feel free to send them this post, or the full article(s) which I'll link below. It's bad practice, it misleads founders, it makes life even harder for startups in slow-to-revenue sectors like biotech or hardware.
I'll end with another quick quote from Bill:
"Silicon Valley has the crudest, least intelligent view of valuation. They always rush to price to revenue because it's easy, and quite frankly it's easy to be optimistic."
