The amount of money a company raises to finance its operation is an important metric, but I’ve learned that entrepreneurs and investors often calculate this differently. We recently sent out our quarterly survey to the 25 investments we’ve made through the MergeLane accelerator and fund for startups with at least one woman in leadership. Case in point, 10 of our 25 portfolio companies calculated the Capital Raised to Date metric differently than I would have. This got me thinking: What should really be included in this metric?
“Capital Raised to Date” is not a standard accounting term and, to my knowledge, there is no standard definition or official guideline for calculating this metric. However, it is one of the most commonly reported metrics in the startup community, so I thought it might be helpful to try to outline a standard. After putting some thought into this, speaking with other experienced investors, and consulting our CPA firm Anton Collins Mitchell, I’ve developed the following guide for calculating this metric. Please comment if you have feedback.
What might be included in “Capital Raised to Date”?
The following is a comprehensive list of things that entrepreneurs and investors couldconceivably argue should be classified as Capital Raised to Date:
What should be included in “Capital Raised to Date”?
What should be included is another question. The answer, in my opinion, depends on the intention of the metric.
I think all of the items above would be more accurately classified as “Capital Required to Date” and should only be used if the metric is being used for the following reasons:
However, from my experience, the “Capital Raised to Date” metric is not typically used for the reasons stated above but rather for two other main reasons: 1) to understand capital efficiency, and 2) to measure the progress the company has achieved. The items that should be included are different for each.
Using “Capital Raised to Date” to measure efficiency
If the intention of the metric is to understand capital efficiency, i.e., how much capital has been required to date, I think the following should be included:
Using “Capital Raised to Date” to measure progress
If the intention of the metric is to understand the progress the company has made, i.e., company traction, outside validation (i.e., how many people have said “yes” to the business), and the stage of the business (e.g., a company that has raised $5 million is typically later in its business lifecycle than a company that has raised $500,000), then the following should be included. (Note: This is the definition we typically use when vetting potential MergeLane investments and monitoring portfolio results. If you are using this metric for MergeLane-related purposes, e.g., our quarterly survey, please use this method.)
Should revenue be included in “Capital Raised to Date”?
Revenue from company operations should not be included in this metric. This also applies to capital raised through rewards-based crowdfunding, e.g., Kickstarter campaigns. As I mentioned above, the cost of the reward received should be subtracted from the total raised.
Using “Capital Raised to Date” when the intention is unclear
If there are multiple intentions or the intention is unclear, e.g., an investor asks an entrepreneur how much money they have raised to date and doesn’t reveal his or her motivation, I think it makes sense to avoid this metric all together. It is better to list the details the person asking the question will most likely want to hear.
Under this scenario, I would not mention the following simply because I find these to be atypical things to include:
I would include the following:
Here is a suggested format:
Company X has raised $X dollars from investors. (Include all dollars invested through equity and convertible debt and mention the amount of founder investment if it is above $50,000. This shows founder commitment.) The company has also received $X in nondilutive funding grants and awards. (Include all dollars raised through awards and grants. It might make sense to break this into specifics if the grants or awards are impressive and well-known, e.g., an NSF grant.) We raised $X in nonequity crowdfunding. (Include all dollars raised through rewards-based crowdfunding, including dollars raised in exchange for something of value and mention the platform if it is recognizable, e.g., Kickstarter. Stating this total number provides validation for the business opportunity.) Company X obtained a [insert type of debt financing] for $X. (This last sentence should be used to disclose any major liabilities over $50,000 and/or enhance credibility by mentioning other people or individuals who have said “yes” to the business.)
Here is an example:
“Company X has raised $1,000,000 from investors, $100,000 of which was invested by our founders. The company has also received $250,000 of nondilutive funding from the National Science Foundation, won $100,000 from a national pitch competition, and raised $300,000 from a successful Kickstarter campaign. Company X has obtained a bank loan of $150,000 and a private loan from the founder of Uber for $50,000.”
Dilutive vs. Nondilutive Funding
As if “Capital Raised to Date” weren’t confusing enough, there is also this issue of dilutive vs. nondilutive funding.
Dilutive funding includes all capital raised in exchange for equity in the company, e.g., preferred stock. Nondilutive funding includes anything lent or donated to the company, e.g., debt financing or grants. Because the amount of equity previously awarded by a company is a very important detail, it is helpful for investors and entrepreneurs to break Capital Raised to Date into nondilutive vs. dilutive funding. However, the big question here is this: How is convertible debt classified? To my knowledge, there is no standard for this, but I feel very strongly that convertible debt should be classified as dilutive funding. The intention of convertible debt is to convert it into equity and, from my experience, it is seldom repaid to investors as debt.
There you have it. Capital Raised to Date is clear as mud. What do you think?
In this Fund81 podcast episode, we talk about something that has made our team at MergeLane better investors - the Enneagram Personality Typing System. To talk about how the Enneagram can help other VCs, I invited Kaley Klemp to join the podcast.
As a venture capitalist, I am frequently surrounded by exceptionally high-performing and inspiring people. Until recently, I had never stopped to think about the impact of that.
We are big proponents of using the 15 Commitments in the work we do in Conscious Leadership. However, as an Enneagram Type 1 who is most happy at maximum productivity, I’ve always had a hard time buying into Commitment #9, the commitment to play and rest. Until yesterday….
I am extremely disciplined and focused. However, this can also be a detriment. Anything I perceive as a distraction from my to-do list feels stressful, and I have to constantly tell myself that off-the-to-do-list opportunities are often the best opportunities. I was recently reminded of that.
For the final episode of Fund81's first season, I interviewed Jaclyn Freeman Hester from Foundry Group. As someone relatively new to the industry, she has a fresh perspective on what's compelling to institutional investors and an incredible pulse on the landscape for emerging VC managers. Enjoy!
I’m trying to focus my time on opportunities to operate in my zone of genius and a few select priority areas in line with my passions and in which I feel I can make the most impact, aka my true north. To help all of us stay the course, I thought it might be helpful to share those priorities.
I gave first without question for almost five years. It came back to me in spades. I don’t regret it, and I think it was exactly the right thing for me to do at the time. But then….it just got to be too much.
Dave Balter, the CEO of one of our MergeLane portfolio companies, Flipside Crypto, shares his perspective on investing in the cryptocurrency space. Dave is obsessed with and extremely knowledgeable about cryptocurrency, and has an interesting perspective from both sides of the table.
Most venture capital funds target a minimum ownership percentage when making investments. In this Fund81 episode, Amish Jani, a founder and Managing Director of FirstMark Capital, shares his take on why ownership matters and how funds of different sizes and strategies determine ownership targets.
Venture capital funds are typically structured to have a 10-year lifespan, but venture-backed companies often take more than 10 years to achieve an exit and return capital to their investors. In this Fund81 podcast episode, we discuss solutions to this problem with our our guest, Roland Reynolds.