All About Your Board of Directors

Pictured Forest, Alan and Len

Last week, Create33 hosted a panel for startups on The Board of Directors – how to manage, form, and think about them in the company building process. Len Jordan, managing director at Madrona, Forest Key, founder and CEO of Pixvana and Alan Smith of Fenwick & West talked about good and bad board experiences and gave some top tips for getting started and staying on an even keel.

What is the purpose of a board for a startup founder/company?

Everyone agreed that the board is a resource for a founder to leverage and one they can’t afford to ignore. Board members are there to help you build your business by bringing knowledge, experience, relationships and perspective you as a founder may not have. This means you need to choose your board members wisely. Look for people who can work well in groups, are prepared to dig in and spend the time and who have skills and experiences you don’t.

How early is too early to start a board? Never too early.

But there are some considerations:

Size In the early (pre-A series) stage, your board should be small – you, an angel investor, an independent advisor with strong business and domain expertise – would be a good size. You have to keep in mind that as you add investors in venture rounds, those investments usually come with a board seat. And if the board gets too big, it’s not that useful. It’s hard to have great conversations with big groups – and that’s what having a board is all about. Getting into hard problems, looking ahead and coming up with steps for growth. Amazon, the largest market cap company in the US (most days) has 10 people on their board. Also beware of too many board observers. Observers are in the room but don’t vote.

Advisory Board vs Board of Directors: What is the difference? Governance and scope of engagement are the main differences. Many companies have both types of boards. Advisors often have specific domain expertise that is useful but are not necessarily company builder types. Advisory board members should be set up to serve a set amount of time and then, if you pivot your business and that advisory board member doesn’t make sense for your business, there is a pre-arranged way to say goodbye. There was also a thread about changing out independent board members or advisory board members. It’s never easy – the advice was to make sure you set up the compensation and board member agreement ahead of time so it’s clear what the steps are for all involved. And, as with any type of management situation, stay very connected and transparent in your communication. For your venture investors, it is very rare for a firm to trade out board members, and they are usually on your board for the long haul. Pick your investors carefully, do as much diligence on the partner as they do on your company and test-drive independent directors as advisors first to get to know them and understand their value-add and chemistry with your team.

Why have a board so early?

Building a company is a group process, especially once you take outside capital and bring investors onto your board who now have a very vested interest in your success. Founders and companies who don’t have the motion of spending time looking outside of the company for insight into problems and solutions can run into problems. Venture investors at early stages are looking to partner and seeing the founder be forward thinking about running his or her business shows that there is a fit.

What is appropriate compensation for board members?

Investor board members generally do not receive compensation from the company but independent board members and advisory board members need to be compensated. You would want to draw up agreements for each of these members that outlines the payment and vesting schedule – and puts some time limits in place for re-evaluation. Typical compensation is a standard stock option grant in a range between .25-.5% of outstanding equity. The amount should be the same for every director.

How do you choose board members?

When you think about your board – they will likely be with you for 10-15 years so you should think carefully about who those people are. This is also an important step in taking venture financing. You get money and assistance from a firm, but the partner is the one you will spend the most time with. Get to know him/her and how they think before you go down that road.

For independent board members, the panel urged that founders think about choosing people with experiences different from your own. Your mentor at your old job is not a good fit – they shared that information with you already. That person is a friend and you can get advice for free from them without complicating things.

How do you run board meetings?

This starts before the board meeting. The group was unanimously in agreement that the board presentation should be sent around ahead of time (2-3 days) and you should expect that everyone will have read it ahead of time. This means you can zero in on opportunities and challenges that you, your exec team and board members want to address (you should ask ahead if things stand out to them) and also use the time creatively to address bigger strategic questions/alternatives and tradeoffs you face.

How do you work with your board outside of board meetings?

Early and often was the advice on this! Regular communication with board members is highly encouraged. Send weekly or monthly updates (depending on size and your inclination) and don’t hide the bad news. Put that upfront and be transparent. Meet with board members outside of the board meeting 1:1 – that is where good ideas come up and you can more easily discuss challenges. There were examples of a biweekly coffee with a director, a Sunday evening email that summarizes the week prior and pre-meetings with board members ahead of a monthly or quarterly meeting. One person said they usually send out 4-5 topics that could be discussed at a board meeting to see what board members are interested in.

Regular communication with board members is highly encouraged. Send weekly or monthly updates (depending on size and your inclination) and don’t hide the bad news. Put that upfront and be transparent.

Who from your company should be in a board meeting?

Remember the size discussion above? Keep that in mind but know that your board needs to hear from leaders in the company – they might want to meet with them 1:1 too. Pull the right people in to discuss issues and present their areas of the business – it’s great for your internal team to know the external team.

  • For more on this check out Len Jordan’s (timeless) TechCrunch post – just don’t comment on the photo’s role in the timeless comment!
  • For more events at Create33 – sign up to receive their newsletter!

Alan Smith is chair of Fenwick & West’s corporate practice. The firm provides comprehensive legal services to leading technology and life sciences companies — at every stage of their lifecycle — and the investors that partner with them.

Forest Key is founder and CEO of Pixvana. Pixvana, a virtual reality solutions provider, helps enterprises develop cutting-edge approaches to solve business challenges in innovative ways. The company is venture-backed by Vulcan Capital, Madrona Venture Group, Microsoft, Cisco, Raine and Hearst Ventures.

Len Jordan is a managing director at Madrona Venture Group, an early stage venture firm investing in information technology with a regional focus on Seattle. The firm has with nearly $1.6 billion under management.

 

Matt McIlwain to Receive Emerging Company Director Award

Next week Matt McIlwain will be awarded the Emerging Director of the Year award from the Puget Sound Business Journal, in partnership with the prestigious National Association of Corporate Directors’ (NACD) Northwest chapter.

We congratulate Matt but we are not surprised.

Matt joined Madrona in 2000 and has played an important role in the growth of the technology industry in the greater Seattle region. He has advised founders and entrepreneurs, CEOs, executives and brilliant engineers.

Matt also puts his passion for education and research to work on the non profit side, serving on non-profit boards such as the nationally recognized Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute and the Greater Foundation.

Tom Alberg, co-founder and managing director at Madrona commented, “Where Matt’s depth of passion, experience, and acumen comes into play on a daily basis at Madrona is helping our companies grow.”

The CEOs and founders he works with offered these observations.

Mark Mader, CEO Smartsheet
Matt intuitively understood the value of Smartsheet’s innovation in our earliest days, even when the “signal” was not as pronounced as it is now. In the years since, his counsel and guidance helped us deliver wave upon wave of growth. He digs in deep to understand our needs from multiple perspectives – market trends, buyer needs, funding, executive talent – and offers observations that continue to make a difference for our business. We’re proud to have Matt on the Smartsheet Board and could not be happier for the recognition he so richly deserves.

Bill Richter, CEO Qumulo
What makes Matt truly special is everything beyond his role as a company director. . . . as a CEO, Matt’s often the first person I call when I need perspective. I’ve been through many difficult situations with Matt. While others are prone to wilt under pressure or compromise core values, Matt’s counsel and leadership only gets better.

Sunny Gupta, Founder and CEO, Apptio
I consider Matt to be a co-founder of Apptio. Right from day one, Matt has been a sounding board for me regarding my team, product, market, early employee hiring. As a board member of Apptio today, Matt continues to provide amazing contributions including recruiting new board members, engaging deeply on market expansion strategy and helping my team think about critical issues – he is always there for me – I usually call him weekly on my way home and always appreciate talking about issues/challenges/opportunities at Apptio – he is a great listener and provides candid advice (always speaks the truth).

Frank Mycroft, Founder and CEO, Booster
Matt is the kind of company-building partner that any entrepreneur would be blessed to have on your side from Day 1. A mentor and river guide, in it for all the right reasons.

Arif Kareem, CEO of ExtraHop
Matt has had a tremendous impact on the growth of the Seattle tech community over the years. His vision in major market categories like Cloud and Big Data has been a driver of the Puget Sound region’s rise to prominence as a center of innovation in the United States. ExtraHop, along with many other Seattle-based tech companies, has benefitted greatly from Matt’s thoughtful and insightful guidance. Congratulations Matt, on this well-deserved honor.

Jason LeeKeenan, Co-Founder and CEO, TraceMe
Matt is one of the most strategic people I have ever met and has been incredibly valuable as a board member for TraceMe. We are in the early phases of the company and his strategic perspectives around what capabilities we need to build have been tremendously important to the company. We are very fortunate to have Matt on our board and I believe he’s one of the best early-company board members in the Pacific Northwest.

Kabir Shahani, Co-Founder and CEO, Amperity
Matt is one of my most trusted advisors and an extraordinary coach. He knows how to bring out the best in his CEOs — and is able to do that alongside tangible, actionable, operational guidance and perspective. He’s a life long learner and that is just one of the characteristics that makes him more effective each and every day. I can’t think of a more deserving Director for this award.

Kiran Bhageshpur, Founder and CEO, Igneous Systems
No one can contest Matt has an incredibly deep understanding of the storage market and he was the logical person for us to go see when we were starting Igneous. Not only was he quick to understand the market we were attacking, he had and continues to have creative ideas and bring an untiring energy to board meetings and beyond as we work to build a next generation storage company. Having him as an active board member, coach and business partner makes all the difference.

Doug Schneider, CEO 2nd Watch
Matt’s business and market acumen coupled with his relentless drive to build market leading companies is a true asset to any CEO he collaborates with.

Thor Culverhouse, CEO SkyTap
I have had the opportunity to work with Matt over the past 4 years while growing and building out our company, Skytap. In that endeavor, I have always viewed Matt not as just investor, but rather a business partner. He has provided guidance in the areas of overall strategy, product positioning, personnel and even sales campaigns. He is truly one of the great minds of our industry and pleasure to work with.

Brad Jefferson, Founder and CEO, Animoto
Matt joined our board nine years ago and is a great great strategic advisor for the company but what I appreciate just as much is his mentorship to me personally as I grow as a CEO.

Nikesh Parekh, Founder and CEO, Suplari
I have known Matt for a long time. We both moved to the Pacific Northwest in 2000 to work in venture capital. Matt recruited me to be an EIR at Madrona in 2007 and lead our financing of Suplari in 2017. Matt goes out of his way to understand, help, and support me in many ways over the last 17 years. He is a great friend and partner in business.

Workwise, Matt is one of the strongest strategy and marketing minds for new and emerging enterprise software and cloud technologies in Seattle. He is quick to see the big picture and understand the tactics to achieve key milestones. I get the benefit of his experience with a large number of similar companies and he is always quick to get back to me, even when he is working with larger and perhaps more important companies in his portfolio.

How VC-to-PE Buyouts Can Change Market Dynamics for Later-Stage, VC-backed Companies

Every VC-backed company board gets to evaluate company exits from time to time and often these decisions occur when there is an opportunity to raise more capital. If you have been in the industry for a while, you have experienced various forms of the three main types of late-stage capital raises or exits: Late-stage rounds, IPO, and strategic M&A. Late-stage rounds are an interim step for raising capital and forging a path to profitability. M&A is usually appealing to all shareholders only when the company is being “bought and not sold.” Finally, IPO’s are expensive and hard to prepare, and public capital market timing and attractiveness are out of any board’s control. So boards are sometimes unsatisfied with the alternatives available for capital raising and/or transfer of some or all corporate control.

In the private equity world, a fourth option has existed for many years where one PE firm buys out the majority stake of another PE firm that is ready to sell. Increasingly, PE firms are making this “secondary buyout” option available to VC-backed companies and their boards. These “VC-to-PE buyouts” are a helpful liquidity alternative for both employees and investors in later-stage VC-backed companies and are changing the dynamics when boards consider strategic options. Specifically, we have seen software-focused private equity firms like Vista Equity Partners (Ping Identity, Marketo) and Thoma Bravo (Digicert, Qlik) in the market, looking to acquire both private and public software-driven companies.

Capital and Control Matrix

Capital raising strategies and corporate control questions are among the most momentous ones for a company board. These are often areas where the collective experience of the board can provide great value to an entrepreneurial team. At times, the capital raising and control questions can become conflated. Below is a high-level summary of the options available to later-stage, venture-backed companies arranged by percentage of capital raised/transferred and percentage of control/ownerships transferred. A more detailed matrix is included at the end of this piece.

CapControl Matrix

How Did We Get Here?

For the last several years, late-stage capital for private companies has been plentiful, relatively inexpensive and light on control provisions and investor protections. While there have been occasions of sudden and sharp pullbacks, including February 2016 and April 2014, this capital has generally been available for high-growth companies. An increase in the size and variety of sources of capital, from larger venture funds, public institutional investors and hedge funds, have fueled these “company-friendly” trends. These capital sources have allowed companies to remain private later and longer than historically possible, and have given rise to the so-called “unicorns”, or private companies with valuations above $1 billion.

Two main groups of investors look to lead late-stage private rounds. One group consistes of late-stage venture firms like Insight and TCV who prefer to take market execution risk over the product market fit and market timing risks taken by early stage VC’s. The second group is mostly made up of public stock investors like T. Rowe Price, Fidelity and Janus, along with some hedge funds. For rapidly growing, technology companies, these private rounds are often attractive. Companies sell a small portion of their business in exchange for growth capital and the later stage company-building expertise of new investors. These rounds sometimes have a secondary component to provide some liquidity to longstanding employees and early investors. With these private rounds, companies are somewhat sheltered from the quarterly expectations of the public market, which is especially helpful for companies who have customer concentration, lower sales productivity and lumpy sales cycles.

A different path for raising capital and creating liquidity over time is the IPO. A company sells shares (typically 15 to 20% of the company at pricing) to raise capital to fuel growth. The IPO process is expensive and time consuming, generally costing over $3 million to prepare and taking 9 to 12 months. And, being public subjects a less established company to the spotlight and expectations of public company investors. That said, for companies that are taking a long-term perspective and are increasingly mature in their processes and predictability, an IPO has several advantages. It creates a public currency that can be used to buy other companies or leveraged to raise more cash by taking on low-cost debt. An IPO provides a path to liquidity for existing employees and investors, as well as a path for transitioning ownership from early-stage to public company investors. The IPO also has some other advantages; it creates a branding opportunity for the company and a stamp of approval in attracting customers, partners and new employees.

In a world of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and subscription-based businesses, companies are stronger candidates for being public. They have greater visibility into key metrics like revenue, product usage, customer renewals/upsells, customer acquisition cost and lifetime value than was ever possible in a world of on-premises and licensed software. And, they can typically drive toward free cash flow and positive operating margins as they get to scale and continue to invest in growth. For these reasons, we expect more of the mature SaaS and subscription-based technology companies to go public if the IPO market stabilizes in the later portion of 2016. But, the demands of being public, the volatility in capital markets, and the leverage of gatekeepers in the IPO process have led many boards to choose other paths.

M&A and the new VC-to-PE Buyout Trend

Selling a company in an M&A process is another path. But, according to Pitchbook, full-year 2016 transaction value is projected to be well below the $83.9 billion dollar of M&A reported in 2014. This trend is especially surprising given that five of the largest technology companies (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Oracle, and Cisco) had $504 billion dollars of total cash in May 2016 and, financial sponsors have over $1 trillion of “dry powder” available to invest. Notwithstanding the recent acquisition of LinkedIn by Microsoft, NetSuite by Oracle, and EMC by Dell, larger technology companies have been relatively cautious to make medium to large acquisitions.

What we have seen emerge over the past few years, is a group of discerning private equity firms including Vista Equity, Thoma Bravo and Warburg Pincus who have sensed opportunity and increasingly led the way on initiating M&A discussions and acquiring VC-backed, software companies. For the same reasons that mature SaaS companies are less risky to take public, they are better able to fit within a leveraged buyout model. Boards of later-stage private companies are evaluating these VC-to-PE buyouts as an alternative to strategic buyer acquisitions or raising capital in IPO’s or private rounds.

Several broader factors, that may not persist, are contributing to these current VC-to-PE buyouts. Valuations for SaaS companies growing 20%+ on an “enterprise value to next twelve-months sales” (EV/NTM) basis have recovered, according to Goldman Sachs; but are still modestly below the 5.5x EV/NTM 12-year average. The cost of debt remains low, and more innovative debt structures are available. Finally, in some cases like Marketo (a public company example where more data is available), the EV/NTM multiples paid by private equity buyers outbid potential strategic buyers. The Marketo deal was done at a 64% premium to prior stock price with a 5.8X EV/NTM multiple. The company grew roughly 40% in revenue and billings in 2015, and generated $2.3 million of cash. In Madrona’s portfolio, the purchase of PayScale a few years ago was a leading indicator of this trend. With SaaS companies growing and maturing, other VC-to-PE buyout deals are expected.

But why would a VC-to-PE buyout be attractive to the management and board of a later stage private company? Management has the opportunity to continue fulfilling their dream as an independent and private company. New PE owners offer a high degree of autonomy and flexibility to executives who are meeting or exceeding agreed-to milestones (admittedly with greater EBITDA emphasis over growth), as well as additional capital to take advantage of strategic opportunities. These deals create immediate liquidity for long-standing shareholders. Typically, executives remain in their leadership roles and receive new equity in the new entity. The opportunity cost of a VC-to-PE buyout is the promise of holding out to build even greater value through an IPO or strategic exit. However, this new form of buyout could be considered the “best of both worlds” for a management team that is committed to continuing to build business and equity value.

A force as significant as VC-to-PE buyouts will likely have ramifications across the capital and control matrix. A few we anticipate are:

  1. Strategic buyers will be motivated to move more quickly and aggressively on acquisitions – and be pressured on pricing and terms as they look to acquire later stage private companies.
  2. We may see a loosening of the burden of the IPO process. Investment bankers, public equity investors and other gatekeepers will become more flexible on IPO pricing and processes in taking companies public.
  3. Later-stage rounds, for 20%+ growth companies that can demonstrate compelling unit economics and a path to cash-flow breakeven, will enjoy a rebound in company-friendly pricing and terms and will continue to offer partial liquidity for employees/investors.
  4. PE buyout firms will increasingly emphasize the “best of both worlds” value proposition to CEOs and their executive teams as a reason to choose the VC-to-PE buyout route.

Boards are responsible for helping guide management teams to maximize long-term shareholder value in the context of balancing risk and reward. The increasing opportunity for later-stage companies to evaluate VC-to-PE buyouts as a change of control option improves the menu of possibilities boards can consider. Thinking about it in matrix form can help clarify the real trade-offs between options leading to better capital raising and control decisions.

CapControl Matrix Detail

This post first appeared on Venturebeat in shortened format.