Use VC Intelligently: When to Seek, Delay, or Skip Venture Capital
Book: Finance Secrets of Billion-Dollar Entrepreneurs: Venture Finance without Venture Capital
Author: Dileep Rao
ISBN: 978-1-64250-199-5
Previous: Choose Smarter Instruments | Next: Develop the Right Capital Structure
VC Helps a Few People at the Right Moment
Chapter 13 is the big one. Rao stops treating venture capital as the default path and starts treating it as an expensive, controlling tool that only makes sense for a narrow slice of founders in a narrow slice of industries at a narrow slice of timing.
VC can help you build a billion-dollar company. For a few people. To use it well you need an emerging high-growth industry, proof you can dominate it, and timing after “leadership Aha” when dilution is lowest and before a competitor locks up the market. Do that and you might control both the company and the sector. Mess up timing and you fund someone else’s exit.
Many founders treat a VC term sheet like a trophy. Rao says it is one step in a long road, and often the wrong step. You might not get VC. You might fail with it. You might get fired by the VCs or the CEO they install.
VCs Are Brutally Selective
The business press makes VC look routine. Incubators, pitch competitions, and intermediaries reinforce that story. Reality: top firms fund maybe one or two deals per hundred plans they see.
About 600,000 businesses start in the US each year. In 2016, roughly 1,400 seed-stage VC deals happened. If each is one company, that is about 0.002% odds for a brand-new startup. Even at four years old, with ~4,800 VC deals against millions of live ventures, odds stay near 0.1%.
VC funds need 20%+ portfolio returns to satisfy pension funds and cover their own fees. Individual deals must target 30% to 80%+ annual returns depending on stage because so many bets die. Very few companies can deliver that.
Unless you have a real breakthrough or a prior big win, do not plan on VC at startup. The ones who get it early usually already show they can dominate a high-potential emerging market.
VCs Hunt Home Runs in Emerging Industries
Early-stage VC is a portfolio game. Median VC returns have trailed the 20% target since the 2000 dot-com crash. Funds need a tiny number of massive winners to carry dozens of failures.
VCs want disruptive opportunities in emerging trends: semiconductors in the 60s, PCs in the 70s, biotech, telecom, Internet 1.0, Internet 2.0. Funding and returns spike when those waves form giants like Google and Facebook. They flatten when no new wave appears.
Chobani, Fastenal, and Tastefully Simple all reached massive scale without VC because yogurt, nuts-and-bolts, and party-plan gourmet foods are not emerging disruptive industries. VCs reject about 99% of plans. Google was turned down by twelve VCs. One Bessemer partner refused even to walk near the garage where Brin and Page worked.
VCs Need Attractive Exits
VCs think about exit at investment. Instagram raised $50 million at a $500 million valuation in early April 2012. Facebook bought it for about $1 billion days later. Thirty million users, lots of buzz, no business model. Unusual, but it shows what VCs dream about.
IPOs have collapsed from 311 per year on average (1980-2000) to 105 in 2016. Strategic mega-sales are rare too. If you want to stay private, VC is a bad fit. Rao’s math: 99.9% never get VC. Of those who do, about 80% fail. Even winners often lose control and most of the wealth.
VCs Want Control
VCs owe their LPs fiduciary duty. That means pushing strategy and leadership. Before Aha, terms are expensive and controlling. Seek too early and you waste months pitching. Seek too late and competitors pass you.
Rao calls the sweet spot “Goldilocks time”: potential is evident, but the peloton has not left you behind.
Jobs got VC early at Apple, lost control, got fired, and only returned after proving himself at Pixar. Segway took $100 million in VC and flopped. Zuckerberg proved Facebook’s model first and controlled his investors.
VCs replace founders with hired CEOs in an estimated 20% to 50% of cases. Among billion-dollar entrepreneurs Rao studied, only 6% of founders were replaced. Gates and Zuckerberg delayed VC and stayed. Jobs did not.
VCs Get Paid First
Rollerblade founder Scott Olson watched his investor sell for $150 million while his own payout was tiny. Convertible preferred puts VCs first in line. Down rounds crush founders who cannot reinvest. Home runs like eBay and Google are about 1% of portfolios and get all the press.
Few VCs Actually Win
Marc Andreessen says 97% of VC returns come from about fifteen investments per year. Twenty VC firms earn 95% of industry profits. Four percent of firms captured 66% of IPO value in one study. Silicon Valley takes the lion’s share of high-value exits. Government attempts to clone that model elsewhere mostly underperform.
Three Paths Billion-Dollar Founders Actually Took
Rao studied 85 US billion-dollar entrepreneurs. The split:
| Path | Share | Control | Wealth kept | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VC Early | 6% | Hired CEO | ~7% of wealth created | Jobs, Omidyar |
| VC Late | 18% | Founder CEO | ~17% | Gates, Zuckerberg |
| No VC | 76% | Founder CEO | ~56% | Dell, Schulze, Bloomberg |
Dell and Plank never took VC. Gates and Zuckerberg delayed until momentum was obvious, then negotiated control. Omidyar took VC early when eBay faced well-funded copycats and lost the CEO seat.
Two Americas: Silicon Valley vs. Everywhere Else
In Silicon Valley, about 90% of billion-dollar entrepreneurs used VC (25% early, 63% late, 12% none). Outside Silicon Valley, about 90% grew without VC (1% early, 8% late, 91% none).
Minnesota shows the same pattern: Schulze started Best Buy with $9,000, Burke built UnitedHealth with a $40,000 loan, and 80% of local billion-dollar founders never touched VC. Modest visions rarely attract top funds. Lower-tier funds may fund you but still take control.
Delay, Avoid, or Skip?
Rao’s advice by region:
- Silicon Valley: Delay VC until takeoff. Prove potential. Negotiate control.
- Outside Silicon Valley: Learn to grow without VC. You may have no choice.
If competitors in an emerging industry have VC and you need to match burn, delay until your momentum is obvious, then take VC as fuel for a proven strategy.
VC advice quality is debatable. Only 1-2% of VC-backed companies become home runs. Research suggests post-investment VC involvement does not significantly improve performance. Angels who actually built businesses may help more. Marc Andreessen missed Instagram while funding a competitor.
At the end of the day, everyone is guessing. Silicon Valley VCs guess in the richest soil.
The VC Reality Check
VC is expensive. It demands high returns and control. For 99.98% of US ventures there is a “VC-benefit gap.” Outside Silicon Valley there is a “VC-area gap.” From idea to Aha there is a “VC-stage gap.”
About 94% of the 85 billion-dollar entrepreneurs Rao profiled used finance-smart skills to bridge those gaps: avoid VC, delay VC, or only take VC early when the opportunity truly demands it and you accept losing control.
The myth says you need VC to build something huge. The data says most giants were built without it, or with VC only after the founder had already won the negotiation.
That is Chapter 13. VC is not evil. It is just rarely the right tool, rarely at the right time, and almost never the first tool you should reach for.