Angel Investment Criteria

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Angel Investment Criteria JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS STRATEGY ANGEL INVESTMENT CRITERIA Richard Sudek Claremont Graduate University [email protected] ABSTRACT Start-up businesses often need external financing to grow. These new ventures frequently turn to business angel investors for capital. Angels, who are often wealthy individuals, provide early stage financing, called seed capital, for these start-up ventures. This study examines what a group of angel investors in Southern California consider when reviewing an investment opportunity, and how they prioritize their investment criteria. The study utilizes a two-phase approach consisting of a qualitative first phase and a quantitative second phase. The results of this study show that trustworthiness of the entrepreneur, quality of the management team, enthusiasm of the lead entrepreneur, and exit opportunities for the angel are the angels’ top criteria. INTRODUCTION estimate the exact size of angel investment due to its highly fragmented nature, in 2004 This study examines what business angel it was reported to total $22.5 billion (Sohl, investors consider when reviewing an 2005). This estimate puts total angel investment opportunity, and how they investments higher than formal venture prioritize their investment criteria. Angel capital investing for 2004 (Sohl, 2005). investors, who are often wealthy individuals with experience building a business, provide Angel investing has provided seed capital for early stage financing, called seed capital, for some famous U.S. businesses such as Bell start-up ventures. Venture capitalists (VCs) Telephone in 1874, Ford Motor Company in typically provide later stage financing, after 1903, and Apple Computer in 1977 (Van the angels’ investment. Osnabrugge & Robinson, 2000). Entrepreneurial ventures dramatically affect Many start-up businesses need external the U.S. economy and are the primary job- financing to grow (Tyebjee & Bruno, 1984; creating engine of our economy, providing Hisrich & Jankowicz, 1990). If these new three out of four new jobs (Ojala, 2002). To ventures anticipate quick and aggressive put this in perspective, it is estimated that growth, they often turn to angel or venture new business start-ups averaged capital investors for capital. Angels invest approximately 550,000 per month between more funds in more firms than any other 1996 and 2004 (Kauffman Foundation, source of outside financing (Freear, Sohl, & 2005). The Small Business Administration Wetzel, 1992). Although it is hard to estimates that 51 percent of private sector 89 Journal of Small Business Strategy Vol. 17, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2006/2007 output is from small business (Van of the due diligence process (Van Osnabrugge & Robinson, 2000). Between Osnabrugge & Robinson, 2000). Since angel 1995 to 1999, the Inc. 500 (the 500 fastest investors invest their own money (Benjamin growing privately held companies in the U.S. & Margulis, 2000), they are less accountable reported by Inc. magazine) created 6 million than VCs, and their lack of rigor can lead to of 7.7 million new jobs (Van Osnabrugge & poorer investment decisions. Robinson, 2000). Clearly entrepreneurial businesses are a powerhouse in the U.S. Angels and VCs also differ in their motives, economy. their entrepreneurial experience, and their expected involvement (Van Osnabrugge & LITERATURE REVIEW Robinson, 2000). In general, angel investors are much more involved with the companies Most of the literature which addresses the in which they invest than VCs, and are often start-up investment decision process has involved more in day-to-day operations than focused on how VCs make investment VCs (Benjamin & Margulis, 2000). In the decisions. (Elitzur & Gavious, 2003; Mason U.S., 87 percent of Angels have operating & Harrison, 2002). There has been little experience (Freear and Wetzel, 1991), while attention given to angel investors in the a typical VC has little or no operating literature due to its private fragmented experience (Van Osnabrugge & Robinson, nature. In fact, to the author’s knowledge, 2000). Angels typically have more this is the first empirical study addressing entrepreneurial experience than VCs; U.S. Angel investment criteria. It has been research has shown that 75 to 83 percent of difficult to locate and survey angels (Mason angels have start-up experience as compared & Harrison, 2002). However, since the late to approximately 33 percent for VCs (Van 1990s, angels have started to form Osnabrugge & Robinson, 2000). Often, organizations that help coordinate their angels will work part-time, with periods of efforts (Kauffman Foundation, 2002). Also, full-time commitment, to help entrepreneurs we can draw from the venture capital through challenging issues (Van Osnabrugge literature for angel investors due to some & Robinson, 2000). In fact, some angels are similarity of the investment process by looking to work on a regular basis at their angels and VCs. However, let us start with investments, whereas VCs rarely have the the differences between angel and VCs. intention of being involved in operations (Benjamin & Margulis, 2000). For these An important difference in the process reasons, the angel investment often becomes between how angels and VCs invest is that more personal to both the investor and the VCs perform more due diligence than entrepreneur. An angel investor is typically angels: “a recent study found that 71 percent motivated beyond return on investment of venture capitalists, but only eight percent (ROI) (Benjamin & Margulis, 2000; Van of business angels, take three or more Osnabrugge & Robinson, 2000), while VCs references, with the two groups averaging primary reason for existence is ROI. VCs are around four and one respectively” (Van in business to return a profit on the partners’ Osnabrugge, 1998). Angels perform less investment, while angels enjoy helping professional due diligence than VCs, invest another entrepreneur build a business and more opportunistically, rely more on giving back to the entrepreneurial instincts, and do not calculate internal rates community (Benjamin & Margulis, 2000; of return (Timmons, 1990; Baty, 1991; Van Osnabrugge & Robinson, 2000). In Mason & Harrison, 1996; Van Osnabrugge summary, VCs are more objective with & Robinson, 2000). VCs may have a staff of regards to financial return, less emotionally people to perform due diligence or may hire attached, and more interested in ROI. professional firms to perform all or portions 90 Journal of Small Business Strategy Vol. 17, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2006/2007 The literature suggests that the entrepreneur Carter and Van Auken (1992) found that out is the most important factor when evaluating of 27 investment criteria, VCs found a start-up (MacMillan, Siegel, & entrepreneur’s honesty ranked first, and SubbaNarasimha, 1985, MacMillan, entrepreneur’s commitment ranked second. Zemann, & SubbaNarasimha, 1987; Van Van Osnabrugge and Robinson (2000) Osnabrugge & Robinson, 2000). Arthur performed a study of European start-up Rock, a legendary venture capitalist, once investments that showed enthusiasm and said, “Nearly every mistake I’ve made has trustworthiness were ranked first and second, been in picking the wrong people, not the respectively out of twenty-seven investment wrong idea” (Bygrave & Timmons, 1992, p. criteria for angels—see table 1. 6). Both angels and VCs feel that the entrepreneur and the management team (Van Although VCs are more focused on a ROI Osnabrugge, 1998; MacMillan et al., 1987; for their limited partners, they still rank Van Osnabrugge & Robinson 2000) are the trustworthiness and enthusiasm higher than two factors that attracts them to most deals. ROI. Coveney (1996) found that lack of trust Macmillan, et al., (1985), for example, found reduces investment by angels. Timmons and that for VCs the quality of the entrepreneur Spinelli (2004) stated that the entrepreneur’s ultimately determines the funding decision. commitment and determination are more Some literature suggests that angels are more important than any other factor when looking attracted to the entrepreneur while VCs for successful entrepreneurs. Benjamin and might be slightly more attracted to the idea Margulis (2000) stated that “Some investors (Van Osnabrugge & Robinson, 2000). VCs, are motivated by the passionate commitment for instance, often feel they can attract better of the entrepreneur. People committed to a management to a deal if the deal is venture can be persuasive; they have fundamentally sound (Van Osnabrugge & enthusiasm and solid entrepreneurial vision Robinson, 2000; Ehrlich, Noble, Moore, & [p. 95]” Benjamin and Margulis (2000) Weaver, 1994; Harrison & Mason, 1992; combined the themes of passion, Freear, Sohl, & Wetzel, 1997; Macmillan et commitment, and enthusiasm. al.). Timmons and Spinelli (2004) stated that the management team can make the The themes of passion, commitment, and difference in venture success. enthusiasm are used interchangeably throughout the literature (Coveney, 1996; Some literature suggests the management Timmons & Spinelli, 2004, Benjamin & team is the most important factor (Shepherd, Margulis, 2000, Van Osnabrugge, 1998). 1999; Dixon, 1991; Macmillan et al., 1987). Hence, this study treats them as the same Carter and Van Auken (1992) found the construct relative to characteristics of the management team second only to the entrepreneur. entrepreneur in a survey of VCs consisting of 27 investment criteria. Clearly, the In addition, Van Osnabrugge and Robinson entrepreneur and the management team are (2000)
Recommended publications
  • Investor Book (PDF)
    INVESTOR BOOK EDITION OCTOBER 2016 Table of Contents Program 3 Venture Capital 10 Growth 94 Buyout 116 Debt 119 10 -11 November 2016 Old Billingsgate PROGRAM Strategic Partners Premium Partners MAIN STAGE - Day 1 10 November 2016 SESSION TITLE COMPANY TIME SPEAKER POSITION COMPANY Breakfast 08:00 - 10:00 CP 9:00 - 9:15 Dr. Klaus Hommels Founder & CEO Lakestar CP 9:15 - 9:30 Fabrice Grinda Co-Founder FJ Labs 9:35 - 9:50 Dr. Klaus Hommels Founder & CEO Lakestar Fabrice Grinda Co-Founder FJ Labs Panel Marco Rodzynek Founder & CEO NOAH Advisors 9:50 - 10:00 Chris Öhlund Group CEO Verivox 10:00 - 10:10 Hervé Hatt CEO Meilleurtaux CP Lead 10:10 - 10:20 Martin Coriat CEO Confused.com Generation 10:20 - 10:30 Andy Hancock Managing Director MoneySavingExpert K 10:30 - 10:45 Carsten Kengeter CEO Deutsche Börse Group 10:45 - 10:55 Carsten Kengeter CEO Deutsche Börse Group FC Marco Rodzynek Founder & CEO NOAH Advisors CP 10:55 - 11:10 Nick Williams Head of EMEA Global Market Solutions Credit Suisse 11:10 - 11:20 Talent 3.0: Science meets Arts CP Karim Jalbout Head of the European Digital Practice Egon Zehnder K 11:20 - 11:50 Surprise Guest of Honour 11:50 - 12:10 Yaron Valler General Partner Target Global Mike Lobanov General Partner Target Global Alexander Frolov General Partner Target Global Panel Shmuel Chafets General Partner Target Global Marco Rodzynek Founder & CEO NOAH Advisors 12:10 - 12:20 Mirko Caspar Managing Director Mister Spex 12:20 - 12:30 Philip Rooke CEO Spreadshirt CP 12:30 - 12:40 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for a Public-Private Partnership to Increase The
    A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future Enhancing Commercial Technical Report NREL/TP-110-40463 Outcomes from R&D May 2007 A Framework for a Public–Private Partnership to Increase the Yield of Federally Funded R&D Investments and Promote Economic Development L.M. Murphy Manager, Enterprise Development Programs National Renewable Energy Laboratory P. Jerde Executive Director Robert H. and Beverly A. Deming Center for Entrepreneurship, Leeds School of Business University of Colorado, Boulder L. Rutherford Venture Partner Vista Ventures R. Barone 2008 MS/MBA Candidate Department of Environmental Studies and Leeds School of Business University of Colorado, Boulder NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 Enhancing Commercial Technical Report NREL/TP-110-40463 Outcomes from R&D May 2007 A Framework for a Public–Private Partnership to Increase the Yield of Federally Funded R&D Investments and Promote Economic Development L.M. Murphy Manager, Enterprise Development Programs National Renewable Energy Laboratory P. Jerde Executive Director Robert H. and Beverly A. Deming Center for Entrepreneurship, Leeds School of Business University of Colorado, Boulder L. Rutherford Venture Partner Vista Ventures R. Barone 2008 MS/MBA Candidate Department of Environmental Studies and Leeds School of Business University of Colorado, Boulder Prepared under Task No. 1100.1000 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle Contract No.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Angel Investors in Capital Formation Who Are Angel Investors?
    Role of Angel Investors in Capital Formation Who are Angel Investors? • Often successful entrepreneurs or retired business persons – Active investors providing money, expertise, and their network – Contribute to their local ecosystem (mentoring, judging, educating) • Accredited investors – SEC definition • Invest their own money (not money managers) • Generally invest in local companies • Invest in businesses not run by family Financing Life Cycle Proof-of Product Product Manufacturing/ Discovery Concept Design Development Delivery Idea Pre-seed Seed Start-up Expansion/Mezzanine Funding Funding Funding Operating Cap. Founder Venture Funds Friends and Family Angels Institutional Equity Angel Groups Loans / Bonds Seed Funds Investment Landscape— Company Valuation Company Continue, Prep Technology Proof-of Go To - Product Build and Scale IPO or Discovery Concept Market Stage Deliver M&A Investment $100K $500K $1.5M $2-5M $15M $50M Needed Funding Pre-seed Seed Start-up Expansion Operating & Stage Funding Funding Funding Funding Growth Founder Individual Angels Seed Funds Source SBIR Phase 1 & 2 Venture Funds of Funding Friends & Family Angel Groups Institutional Equity Business Gov. Economic Dev. Loans / Bonds Incubators Company $100K $1.5M $4M $10M $75M $250M Valuation Angel Investors • TYPES - all shapes and sizes! – Friends and Family – Unsophisticated or Sophisticated – Guardian Angels > active advisors/mentors – Passive – Super Angels – Angel Networks /Funds – Single Family Offices Growth in Number of American Angel Groups 400 350 300
    [Show full text]
  • FT PARTNERS RESEARCH 2 Fintech Meets Alternative Investments
    FT PARTNERS FINTECH INDUSTRY RESEARCH Alternative Investments FinTech Meets Alternative Investments Innovation in a Burgeoning Asset Class March 2020 DRAFT ©2020 FinTech Meets Alternative Investments Alternative Investments FT Partners | Focused Exclusively on FinTech FT Partners’ Advisory Capabilities FT Partners’ FinTech Industry Research Private Capital Debt & Raising Equity Sell-Side / In-Depth Industry Capital Buy-Side Markets M&A Research Reports Advisory Capital Strategic Structuring / Consortium Efficiency Proprietary FinTech Building Advisory FT Services FINTECH Infographics Partners RESEARCH & Board of INSIGHTS Anti-Raid Advisory Directors / Advisory / Monthly FinTech Special Shareholder Committee Rights Plans Market Analysis Advisory Sell-Side Valuations / LBO Fairness FinTech M&A / Financing Advisory Opinion for M&A Restructuring Transaction Profiles and Divestitures Named Silicon Valley’s #1 FinTech Banker Ranked #1 Most Influential Person in all of Numerous Awards for Transaction (2016) and ranked #2 Overall by The FinTech in Institutional Investors “FinTech Excellence including Information Finance 40” “Deal of the Decade” • Financial Technology Partners ("FT Partners") was founded in 2001 and is the only investment banking firm focused exclusively on FinTech • FT Partners regularly publishes research highlighting the most important transactions, trends and insights impacting the global Financial Technology landscape. Our unique insight into FinTech is a direct result of executing hundreds of transactions in the sector combined with over 18 years of exclusive focus on Financial Technology FT PARTNERS RESEARCH 2 FinTech Meets Alternative Investments I. Executive Summary 5 II. Industry Overview and The Rise of Alternative Investments 8 i. An Introduction to Alternative Investments 9 ii. Trends Within the Alternative Investment Industry 23 III. Executive Interviews 53 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Sam Goodman [email protected]/650-364-1151) Senior Adjunct Professor, Department of Finance & Economics Edward S
    Dr Sam Goodman [email protected]/650-364-1151) Senior Adjunct Professor, Department of Finance & Economics Edward S. Ageno School of Business GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY Summer Term, 2009 San Jose Campus Mon 6-8:40pm FI 318 – VENTURE CAPITAL & START-UP FINANCING Course Outline Course Description: This course examines the strategic and financial issues facing high-growth start-ups. Students develop a sophisticated understanding of the tools and techniques employed by successful entrepreneurs in raising start-up, growth, and acquisition capital for their ventures. Students also will explore alternative financing sources, notably venture capital and angel investors. In addition, students will review the exit strategies available to companies, including IPOs and mergers. Topics discussed include: the history and current direction of the venture capital industry, valuation techniques for new ventures and established private firms, raising venture capital and alternative financing, entrepreneurial management issues in capital raising, maintaining control and direction, and harvesting the venture via IPO or merger. Through two short case studies and an individual project, each student will have an opportunity to personalize the learning process by applying the analytical tools of entrepreneurial finance to real cases and by selecting and studying a highly entrepreneurial industry of personal interest. Finally, all of the course material is based on the key underlying premise that it’s important for each student to understand the perspective of both
    [Show full text]
  • WBAF ACADEMY - Workshops 2019
    WBAF ACADEMY - Workshops 2019 World Congress of Angel Investors 2019 Unlocking the Potential for Innovation as Developing Global Partnerships for Economic Development 19 February 2019, Tuesday Swissotel The Bosphorus Istanbul Zurich Hall 09:00 Workshop 1 : Making big returns investing in small businesses: An entrepreneurial approach to investing Investors complain there are not enough good deals. Entrepreneurs complain that there is not enough money. The current investment structures are keeping the two parties apart. 50% of the Worlds GDP comes from small to medium enterprises, yet most of it is off limits to sophisticated investors. Learn how adopting an entrepreneurial approach with a fixation on liquidity can allow all investors to make big returns investing in small business. WBAF Faculty Member to lead the session Callum Laing, Partner in Unity Group Private Equity Callum Laing is an entrepreneur and investor. He is partner in Unity Group Private Equity, Co-Founder and Chairman of MBH Corporation PLC, and is the originator of ‘Accelerated Venture Capital’ (AVC). Author of two best-selling business books, publisher of more than 700 interviews with entrepreneurs and investors, he is also the WBAF High Commissioner for Singapore. 10:00 Workshop 2 : Combining the best of angel investing and venture capital According to the latest EBAN figures, the average investment for an angel investor in a sin- gle business in 2017 was EUR 25,000, and EUR 182,000 for an angel network. At the same time, venture capital investment starts with significantly larger numbers. Businesses looking to raise $500K to $2M often struggle. It’s the valley of death.
    [Show full text]
  • A Randomized Field Experiment on Early Stage Investments
    Is it Just the Idea that Matters? A Randomized Field Experiment on Early Stage Investments Shai Bernstein, Arthur Korteweg, and Kevin Laws* Abstract Which start-up characteristics are most important to investors in early-stage firms? This paper uses a randomized field experiment involving 4,500 active, high profile, early stage investors, implemented through AngelList, an online platform that matches investors with start-ups that are seeking capital. The experiment randomizes investors’ information sets on “featured” start-ups through the use of nearly 17,000 emails. Investors respond strongly to information about the founding team, whereas they do not respond to information about either firm traction or existing lead investors. This result is driven by the most experienced and successful investors. The least experienced investors respond to all categories of information. We present evidence that the information materially impacts investment rates in start-up companies. The results suggest that, conditional on the quality of the idea, information about human assets is highly important for the success of early stage firms. JEL classification: G32, L26, D23 Keywords: Angels, Early stage firms, Entrepreneurship, Crowdfunding, Theory of the firm Current Draft: March, 2014 * Shai Bernstein ([email protected]) and Arthur Korteweg ([email protected]) are from Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Kevin Laws is from AngelList, LLC. We thank Wayne Ferson, Steve Kaplan, seminar participants at Harvard Business School, UCLA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Maryland, University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, and brown bag participants at the UC Berkeley Fung Institute and Stanford for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Angel Investors on Founders of New Ventures in the Medical Technology Industry
    The Impact of Angel Investors on Founders of New Ventures in the Medical Technology Industry By Alan R. Braly BS, Biomedical Engineering, Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218 MBA, Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02163 SUBMITTED TO THE HARVARD - MIT DIVISION OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HEALTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY ARCHIVES AT THE MASSAH TUTE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEP 2) 2J September 2011 1 @2011 Alan R. Braly. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium no known or hereafter created. Signature of Author: Harvard MI Division of Health Sciences and Technology September 1, 2011 Certified by: Carl M. Berke, PhD Partner, Partners Innovation Fund, Partners Healthcare Lecturer, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology I \P Thesis Supervisor Certified Jonathan J.Fleming, MPA Managing General Partner, Oxford Bioscience Partners Director, Leerink Swann LLC Senior Lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: Ram Sasisekharan, PhD Director, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Health Sciences & Technology and Biological Engineering This page intentionally left blank. Dedications To my family, unyielding in their support of my extensive (and long-running) graduate educational endeavors... and equally unyielding in their quickness to knock me down a notch if the MIT-Harvard dual- degree nerd in me threatened to escape.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Leave You Feeling Ignored
    CDBmagazine.qxp 4/10/2007 3:16 PM Page 1 can leave you :too big feeling ignored. FINDING THE RIGHT FIT IS EVERYTHING when it comes to maximizing the return on your investments. Select a firm that’s too big, and you could lose priority while paying too much for professional tax, audit, and transaction services. Too small, and you could be stuck with advisors who lack the expertise to properly protect your interests. At Virchow Krause, you get a regionally based, globally focused leader with the strengths and services of the largest firms and the personalized attention of the much smaller ones. The right fit. It’s what you should demand. And exactly what we deliver. EXPECT US TO BECOME YOUR MOST VALUED ADVISOR. CALL 248.372.7300 Certified Public Accountants & Consultants www.virchowkrause.com © 2007 Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP DETROIT BUSINESS MAIN 04-23-07 B 18 CDB 4/17/2007 2:46 PM Page 1 GROWING A NEW ECONOMY HelpingHelpingpg BusinessesBusinesses GrowGGrow Women ToT Their Full Potential ■ From Page 16 To Their Full Potential search, women represented 13.8 percent of angel investors in 2006. Nearly 13 percent of entrepreneurs who sought angel capital last From idea to implementation. year were women, and 21.5 percent of them received angel investment, the center says. From start-up through financing. The Kauffman study contends that hav- From a dream to a successful exit. ing fewer women venture capitalists means fewer deals with women-led firms because The experienced attorneys at venture deals often depend on personal con- Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA VCG Book August 2010 FINAL.Indd
    DISCLAIMER The information in this Guide has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer review process. It also has undergone EPA administrative and general counsel review. It does not necessarily refl ect the views of the Agency, however, and no citation or illustration of any specifi c product, service, or enterprise in this document should be construed as a Government endorsement. EPA/600/R-10/028 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development http://www.epa.gov/ncer August 2010 This report was prepared by The Scientifi c Consulting Group, Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland, under EPA Contract EP-C-05-015, Work Assignments 3-4 and 4-2. Paul Shapiro was the EPA Work Assignment Manager. Venture Capital 101: A Resource Guide for Commercializing Environmental Technology Table of Contents Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ix I. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1 II. Overview of Venture Capital Funding .............................................................................................................3 A. History of Venture Capital Funding: 1946–1994
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Opportunities for Small Businesses
    CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES Capital Opportunities for Small Businesses A Guide to Financial Resources for Small Business in North Carolina Prepared by the Small Business & Technology Development Center CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES © 2009 by The University of North Carolina’s Small Business and Technology Development Center 5 West Hargett Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 phone: 919.715.7272 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.sbtdc.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without the prior written permission of the publisher. This material is based upon work supported by the US Small Business Administration (SBA). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author[s] and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SBA. Development of this guide was partially underwritten by the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. The SBTDC would like to thank the following for their valuable contributions to this guide: Linda Esterling Angela Farrior FEEDBACK Eileen Joyce George McAllister If you have any suggestions or Carol McLaurin questions about this guide, please Lisa Ruckdeschel call 919. 715-7272 Horace Stimson Jordan Williams or e-mail [email protected]. CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1: Introduction Purpose of this Report.…………………………………… …………………………1 CHAPTER 2: Overview of Financing Sources Getting Started…………………………………………………………………………3 Start-Up (or “Seed”) Stage……………………………………………………………3 - Personal Assets………………………………………………………………4 - Family and Friends……...……………………………………………………4 - Home Equity Loans……..……………………………………………………4 Growth Phase………………………………………………………..…………………5 Internal Financing………………………………………………………………...…5 - Cash Management Tools……………………………………………………5 a.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridgefunding: Crowdfunding and the Market for Entrepreneurial Finance Seth C
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 25 Article 3 Issue 2 Issue 2 - Winter 2015 Bridgefunding: Crowdfunding and the Market for Entrepreneurial Finance Seth C. Oranburg Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Oranburg, Seth C. (2015) "Bridgefunding: Crowdfunding and the Market for Entrepreneurial Finance," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 25 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol25/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CJP\25-2\CJP203.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-16 11:54 BRIDGEFUNDING: CROWDFUNDING AND THE MARKET FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL FINANCE Seth C. Oranburg* Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (Regu- lation Crowdfunding) should encourage entrepreneurship by allowing startups and small businesses to sell stock online. Unfortunately, that law applied Depression-era securities law concepts to peer-to-peer fi- nancing in the Internet era; as a result, it implemented Internet-investor protection ineffectively. Using Regulation Crowdfunding requires star- tups to comply with costly and unnecessary antifraud requirements. Even after making disclosures, registering with a funding portal, and producing audited financial statements, startups still cannot raise enough money via Regulation Crowdfunding to deploy high-growth strategies without needing more funds from professional angel and ven- ture investors.
    [Show full text]