Peterson's Acquires RMC Learning Solutions

On January 18, 2024, TDV portfolio company Peterson’s acquired RMC Learning Solutions. RMC is a leader in the project management professional (“PMP”) training space. Founded in 1991 by Rita Mulcahy, RMC’s content and instruction is trusted by dozens of Fortune 1000 clients to train execution-focused team members in the art and science of guiding projects from inception to delivery.

PMP has become an essential skill and credential in the workplace – particularly when it comes to managing software development. At TDV, we believe that that every company is a software company whether they like it or not. Which explains why organizations we wouldn’t ordinarily think of as tech companies – like the US Air Force, Procter & Gamble, and McDonald’s – aggressively recruit PMP-certified managers to lead internal technology initiatives.

 

Our rationale for acquiring RMC is simple: the content is excellent as is the team creating it. This, paired with the explosive market growth in PMP and (broadly) information economy jobs will continue to position Peterson’s as a leader in career-focused test prep.

Welcome, RMC, to the Peterson’s and TDV teams.

What We Look for in a CEO

As our portfolio of companies slowly grows, we are increasingly focused on recruiting managers to lead these businesses post-acquisition. We’ve learned that the performance of a business is almost a direct function of the quality of the CEO who is leading it. Good CEOs sometimes fail. Bad CEOs usually fail. Of course, it’s hard to know from an interview how someone will perform on the job. But there are a few key attributes that we think set someone up for success in a TDV portfolio company:

Startup / Entrepreneur Experience
The excruciating journey of starting a business is an incomparable business education. CEOs who have traveled this road - successfully or not - have had to touch every aspect of a business. Most importantly they have had to learn how to build, sell and hire. They’ve dealt with rejection and failure, and developed the resilience that can only come from enduring these experiences first hand. Beyond this, because startups are usually highly resource constrained, entrepreneurs learn to do more with less. 

On a more practical level, entrepreneurs learn to be agile operators who have the skills and the mindset to quickly pivot a business. This is an essential skill for many of the businesses TDV acquires. Usually we end up having to build and launch a new product, tweak the go-to-market or make significant changes to the makeup of the team. Agility - and the willingness to make hard decisions quickly and with limited information - are critical to success. 


Domain Experience
Markets are idiosyncratic. Nuances of functionality, marketing positioning, and buying behaviors exist in every customer exchange, even for products that you’d expect are category agnostic. Having this market context is a huge advantage for any operator. Which is why we like to work with managers who have experience working within a business’s category. We know first hand how long it takes to attain deep market knowledge. Maybe it’s not 10,000 hours, like Malcolm Gladwell argues, but it’s at least one year. Probably two. Given the speed and dynamism of business today, it’s hard to partner with a CEO who will require 1-2 years of on-the-job training. Better to work with someone who has a running start, or at least some experience that is tangential to the market.

Now, this isn’t always realistic. The right people may not be available or we may not be able to afford them. Indeed, when we acquired Peterson’s neither of us had any experience in the test prep and data space. But we both had significant experience in software and media. So, close enough. Smart people can figure stuff out. But for reasons that are obvious, the less domain experience a CEO has the longer it will take him/her to ramp up.


P&L Experience
Managing to an EBITDA target is a hard learned skill that comes only with time in a given business. Over time, a CEO gets to know which revenue projections are soft and which are firm. Some lines of business have more risk than others. Some are cyclical. A CEO also gets a handle on where the weaknesses are on the expense side. Being able to see around a corner (or just knowing that there’s a blind spot up ahead) with respect to budgeting - and knowing how to weigh this information - helps guide spending decisions on a rolling basis. Other than the CEO and CFO, few people in any organization have good visibility into both sides of the ledger; functions tend to break out on either the cost side or the revenue side. So it’s up to the CEO, who hopefully has a strong CFO partner, to actively manage resource allocation. No one else in the company has the information, nor do they probably care. 

That’s the CEO’s job.

Why We Don't Raise a Big Fund

Private equity is mostly an asset management business. PE asset managers make money by charging a percentage of assets under management + a carried interest on gains after the return of capital. Growth for PE asset management businesses comes in two forms: 1) raising more assets under management (AUM) and 2) more gains as a function of their investment performance. 

This model is tried and true. It’s made some asset managers very rich. As a whole, it has also served investors: PE as an asset class has well outperformed the public markets. But as with any model there are limitations and tradeoffs. Squaring this with our own ambitions, personal and professional, is something that we give much thought to. We frequently ask ourselves:

Should we raise a big fund?
Should we buy bigger businesses?
Should we expand our footprint?
Should we enjoy our success and retire to The Villages?

What follows is a candid explanation of how we at TDV think about how our business strategy intersects with our investment strategy. The discourse may be messy, but hey, so are many of the businesses we buy.

#1 We Like Control
When we set out on our own over 7 years ago, it was in part because we wanted control over our own destinies. Both of us had worked in larger firms (investment and otherwise) and were ready to move past executing someone else’s strategy. Institutional capital comes with strings attached. These strings vary but can include: 1) giving up a chunk of the management fees/carry; 2) having to get deals approved by an investment committee; 3) oversight in the form of a board seat or advisory council; 4) all sorts of compliance stuff that comes with taking quasi-public funds (e.g. pension money). Having to manage all of this takes time, resources, and is secondary to what we actually set out to do - which is to buy and operate businesses. All capital comes with obligations and constraints. But the more money raised the greater the controls associated with its use. That’s probably how it should be. But that’s not deal we are comfortable taking.


#2 We’re Business Operators. Not Operators of Asset Management Businesses.
A good friend, who is probably reading this, enjoys extolling the virtues of asset management as a path to making “a metric f**kton” of money. He is not wrong. Most professions follow a similar arch where you go from apprentice -> professional -> manager. Implied in this progression is that you go from doing the actual work to managing the people who do the actual work. In the asset management business, this inevitably means hiring VPs, Associates, Analysts, etc. to the apprentice and professional work. Founders of these businesses essentially graduate to figureheads who show up when it’s time to raise the next fund. Leadership gets farther and farther away from the investment side of the house, as this work is passed on to less experienced, less expensive talent. This tells you everything you need to know about the asset management business! If a firm is allocating top talent to increasing AUM instead of driving investment performance, their priorities are clear: they believe growth of the business is going to come from raising more money (AUM) rather than doing good deals (performance based comp). 

We believe AUM should be output, not the input. 

And yes, while you need AUM in order to do deals, let us break out the handy calculator for some basic math:

The standard fee structure for private equity managers is 2% of AUM + 20% carried interest (“carry”).

$500M raised = $10M/year in fees before you make single investment

$1B raised = $20M/year. And so on. 

$20M/year is enough money to pay 40 people $500,000 a year. Yes, yes, there are expenses and overhead and branded Patagonia vests and not everyone makes $500,000 a year but you get the point - that is a TON of money to go around. Especially considering the top 3-4 people are going to collect 75% of it, and the rest is shared among junior staffers. So you have a situation where the top few people are making $2M/year - again - before they realize a single gain. Making $2M/year sounds great. One day we hope to get there. But alas, these people are essentially full time fundraisers. That’s not how we want to be spending our time. Not because we’re purists - just a personal preference.

#3 Size ≠ Performance
In fact, it’s probably inversely correlated. Time and again, we find ourselves bidding against larger funds in deals. Usually we lose because they are willing to pay multiples that we aren’t. We frequently ask ourselves, “What does Big PE see that we don’t?” Having worked for and among these guys, we’re confident that they use the same version of Excel that we do and are not in possession of some magic wand that turns all investments into 10 baggers. The main difference is that they are investing out of big funds and need to deploy capital in order to justify their management fees. After all, XYZ Pension Fund isn’t paying 2% a year for a PE manager to sit on its hands. As a result, the PE manager ends up doing a lot of deals. Not all of them are great (or even good) deals. But because their incentives are built around AUM, they are compelled to make investments that align with this strategy. Indeed, because there is so much capital chasing so few deals there is significant price inflation in the private markets. But because a PE’s funds frequently last 5-10 years, it takes a long time for investors to fully recognize the true performance. By this time XYZ Pension Fund’s investment team may have turned over; they may have forgotten the original thesis; or they may have moved on to more exciting PE strategies. Along the way, the PE may have raised 2-3 follow-on funds based on the “marked up” performance of its first couple of funds. This allows the asset manager to continue to grow, collect rich fees, and potentially delay answering performance related questions for years to come. Again - no judgment - just not how we want to operate.

Why We Acquired Syncplicity

In October, 2022 TDV acquired Syncplicity from Axway.


Syncplicity is a file sharing and syncing solution for enterprises. The product is particularly well-suited to organizations in compliance-heavy environments (think: health care, government, finance) where security and access control are essential. The company was founded in 2008, and has had various owners since that time.

In many ways, Syncplicity is a great example of the sorts of businesses we love to acquire at TDV. It was a carve-out from a larger company; it has great tech; an excellent team; and perhaps most importantly for us, it has a unique value proposition which can be leveraged with the right go-to-market strategy.

High level criteria aside, we had very specific reasons for wanting to acquire Syncplicity: 

  1. At a macro level, we are bullish on the private cloud market. We define private cloud as self-hosted server environments. Many companies cannot, or will not, store data on AWS, Azure or other commercial cloud platforms for a number of reasons. The main ones are security, compliance, GDPR and perceived/actual business risks. So these companies will therefore host files on their own private clouds. That’s all good and well but most private clouds lack the user applications/tools necessary for employees to do  their jobs. That’s where products like SyncplicIty - which functions as a sophisticated file management system - come in.

  2. Syncplicity’s technology is awesome. It is exceptionally secure, highly stable, and easy to use. For customers looking for solutions that don’t require a ton of IT implementation time, and as important, a ton of training for their employees, Syncplicity nails it. More than this - Syncplicity addresses a known need in the market. Every company with sophisticated compliance and security requirements either has, or needs, a product like Syncplicity. As a market leader in the space, the company is well-positioned to meet this demand.

  3. We see opportunities to grow organically by investing in sales and marketing. Many of Syncplicity’s competitors have been absorbed by larger, multi-product organizations. Product suites are really hard to market because they address such a wide variety of customers and use cases. By contrast, Syncplicity is highly focused and specific in terms of what it does and for whom. We see this as an advantage.  

  4. The team - both inherited and hired - are outstanding. We are fortunate to have attracted John Eikenberry to lead the Syncplicity team into its next phase of growth. And we are further excited to be partnering with Panayot Vladikov on the engineering side. We are supremely confident that these leaders, supported by their 40+ colleagues, bring the right mix of institutional stability and startup enthusiasm to the project. Just a few months into the journey it has been a pleasure to watch the Syncplicity team reinvent the business once again.

Why We Acquired HubDialer

In March, 2022 TDV acquired HubDialer.

 HubDialer is the leading provider of telephonic voter outreach software for political and social action organizations. These customers typically equip their volunteers or campaign staff with HubDialer to call whose votes are strategically critical to the success of a given campaign. Whether it’s engaging voters on key issues, doing basic party building or working to drive turnout in key swing districts, HubDialer is an essential utility for these organizations. Founded circa 2010 by a team of political operatives, the product is offered as a SaaS.

Our rationale for acquiring HubDialer was multi-fold.

 Here are some of the main drivers: 

  1. At a macro-level, we see huge growth opportunities in the “politics” vertical (if you can call it that). While the drivers of this growth – a fractured political environment awash with money – are sad for our country, there is nevertheless an opportunity for businesses that service this sector. Democracy relies on voter participation; we see any tool that encourages this behavior as a net positive.

  2. HubDialer’s technology is awesome. It is battle-tested, market-proven, and engineered with an extreme emphasis on stability and performance. This matters more to campaigns than it might to other customers for a very simple reason: there are no second chances. Elections happen only every 2 or 4 years. If campaign tech fails, there is little or no time to take corrective action. Contrast this with typical marketing software where a service outage could be problematic but usually isn’t fatal to a business.  That HubDialer is highly stable and has never been compromised is a huge differentiator in this market space.

  3. Perhaps because HubDialer was founded by political operatives and technologists, the company historically underinvested in go-to-market. This is common in a lot of the businesses we acquire. We believe that by investing in sales and marketing, the company can grow faster. With a great product in a large, dynamic market, there is a real opportunity to step up sales and marketing with near immediate impact. 

  4. On a financial level, HubDialer’s highly-cyclical business presents challenges for conventional buyers and therefore an opportunity for TDV. Most PE buyers would shy away from a business that had a “busy season” every other year. Not us. Our capital sources are sufficiently flexible that we can make a very seasonal business work in our favor.  We see this as an opportunity to focus our solution so it works for the highly fluid election space. We think our customers, and the company, can benefit by optimizing for the unique attributes of this vertical rather than trying to, say, force a campaign - which is by definition a temporary organization - to commit to long term contracts.

Close to one year on, the acquisition of HubDialer is already proving out. We are incredibly gratified by the loyalty existing customers have shown to the business. And we are further excited to welcome a number of new partners into the fold.

Scaling Down to Scale Up

Scaling up. 

Managers obsess over it. Investors fetishize it. Engineers dream about it.

It’s the ambition of every tech company that seeks to arbitrage demand against the near infinite power of computer processors to reach Xanadu: 90%+ gross margins and growth capped only by market size. Yes! That’s what we’re all marching towards. Right? Plenty of blog posts from your friendly neighborhood venture capitalist about how to get there.

But what if that’s not in the cards? What if demand plateaued; markets didn’t cooperate; your business went from product-market fit to product market unfit? That acquisition, once shiny and new, was trucking along and it hit a speed bump (or a ravine) in its growth trajectory.

The playbook for how to retool a business for growth is one that we spend a lot of time thinking about. In the binary world of tech startups this scenario doesn’t get much attention because oftentimes investors and corporate owners are happy (well, maybe not happy) to write down an underperforming business in favor of focusing on the unicorns in the portfolio. 

But in our world - that of software private equity - we often focus on scaling down in order to scale up. Because sometimes you need to take a couple of steps backward in order to travel forward.

What does it mean to scale down to scale up

The purpose of this blog post is to talk a bit about how we approach right sizing a business in order to facilitate a pivot to growth and increased profitability.

Let’s use Acme App Company as a fictional case study. 

Acme App is a 15 year old software company that is part of a larger company called BigCo. 5 years ago the business was doing $30M in revenue and $8M in profits. This year it’ll do $11M in revenue and $1M in profits. As a result, the business has become something of an afterthought among shinier, more lucrative assets in BigCo’s portfolio. The general manager of Acme, who has been with BigCo for many years, has been working to reinvigorate the business but feels constrained by the culture and processes of the corporate parent. The team, which hasn’t shrunk much since the peak, feels ignored and neglected. The product is stable but it has lost some customers to more forward-thinking competitors. There is a decent customer base but it’s not clear who is sticking around out of inertia versus positive selection. Acme has all sorts of robust processes and functions in place - including HR, finance, procurement, multiple layers of technical management, multiple layers of redundancy, a giant office in downtown Minneapolis, and even physical security out front to keep the app burglars at bay.

First of all - congratulations! You’re the new owner and CEO. Your job is to turn this business around or at least optimize it for profitability. 

Now what?

Head Shrink

The first, most important, and hardest part of scaling down a business is adopting the appropriate mindset. At a fundamental level the question that informs all decision making goes from What do I need to be successful? -> What do I need to survive? While the existential nature of this may seem dramatic, it’s not. If Acme App continues on its current trajectory it will cease to exist. For this reason, we have found that today’s leadership team may not be tomorrow’s leadership team. There are plenty of exceptions to this so don’t take this as gospel. But in our experience it can be difficult for leaders to adopt a new mindset when they are surrounded by the trappings of their legacy (good and bad). It’s just too painful. Second-in-commands are often great successors because they’ve been watching their boss for a while and have an idea of what they might do differently. What’s more, they tend not to be captive to pride of ownership; as a #2 you are usually executing someone else’s agenda. Again - no hard and fast rules here - just our experience. 


Another trap that smart, analytical people tend to fall into is dissecting ad nauseam what happened? As in, why did Acme App go from $30M to $11M? There is a tendency to spend a lot of time trying to unpack history as a way to uncover a path to restoration. In our experience a deep investigation into this is a poor use of time. The focus needs to be on the future: on how Acme App can compete in the current environment given its strengths. What happened doesn’t really matter as what needs to happen in the present reality.


The other shift in mindset is around risk calculus. Mature companies think about risk differently than startups. And rightly so. As a startup your default position is failure. BigCo, on the other hand, has an existing business to protect. So it has developed layers upon layers of processes, administrators, and rules to make sure no one does anything catastrophically stupid such that would endanger the core business. The most palpable manifestation of this is usually seen in three departments: legal, HR and security. Why? Because these departments tend to have the greatest exposure to risk. So defensive resources will flow here as managers invest in protective layers to safeguard the company. Fear, rather than greed, drives risk management. This approach is all good and well when there’s plenty of cash to go around. But as Acme App scales down, it must also recalibrate its approach to risk management. The reason is simple: there’s less to lose. 


Small Business > No Business

Glory days, yeah goin back

Glory days, aw he ain't never had

Glory days, glory days

-Bruce Springsteen

Having established that the glory days are over, it’s now time to set about recasting the business in line with its current revenue, earnings and growth potential. For Acme, we need to answer some of these questions:

  1. How will we make sure our investors don’t lose their money?

  2. What’s the appropriate overhead needed for the company to maintain its current position?


Let’s work from the top because this is the order of operations for any scale down. 

#1 We at TDV live in a constant state of paranoia about losing investor capital. Our investors are our friends, our family, and ourselves - so we feel highly invested (pun intended) in the outcomes of our acquisitions. For this reason, at all times we - and you - should make sure that there is a path to returning capital. This means managing costs and cash flow carefully. This means paying down any debt quickly. This means being very thoughtful about balancing reinvestment of profits vs capital return. Failure is an expected outcome for 90% of startups; not so in private equity. And so you’ve got a series of painful, unpleasant decisions ahead most of which come down to choosing between bad and worse, without much clarity around which is which. But job #1 is to make sure that everyone gets their money back. 


#2 Which brings us to the second point: overhead. In the businesses we buy - software and digital media - staff make up the supermajority of overhead expenses. Let’s acknowledge that there will be a human cost to what follows and that should never be taken lightly. But alas, if we don’t make the necessary changes we’ll all be out of a job. Staff overhead breaks down into roughly two categories: team members needed for steady state operations and team members needed for future growth. There is seldom a clean break between these functions so you’ll need to make some difficult choices. For now, Acme needs to focus on steady state. So the growth team should be quickly reduced or eliminated. While this may seem shortsighted I will remind you that there needs to be short term stability in order for there to be long term success. There should also be reductions in support, sales, marketing, and back office. Cut deeper than you think is necessary and hire back as needed. Any position that does not have a direct sightline to revenue - whether in product, go-to-market, or back office - should be looked at. There will be plenty of gray areas but the filter needs to be: What happens to the business if this role disappears tomorrow? Because the previous regime, under different conditions, found this role to be essential does not mean that the same logic applied going forward. Indeed, the entire organization needs to be right-sized to ensure that company can cash flow so that job #1 happens.

Other than staff cuts, there is sometimes an opportunity in labor arbitrage. Acme has some staff in Minneapolis, but like every tech company, also has team members elsewhere. In this case: Pakistan, Colombia, Ukraine, and Spain. So there may be some savings in consolidating offshore but in the global market for talent this is seldom a straight line. Offshoring can work well for technology teams but less so for customer facing roles such as sales and marketing.

Customer Love

You’ve changed your mindset. Cut a bunch of costs. Ensured that the business is throwing off enough cash so the investment is de-risked. 

Now what? 

It’s time to go see your customers. There is one big reason for this.

#1 After a transaction, customers will need reassurance that the service they rely on is stable. They will further want to feel confident in their new partner (you). When they first bought the product it was backed by BigCo. Now who is backing Acme Apps? Much can be done over the phone/Zoom but there is no substitute for sitting down in person and meeting your customers. It’s time and money well spent. It’s your opportunity to gain their trust, and in doing so, get in front of potential churn situations. This in turns keeps your cashflow stable and the wheels on the bus while you start to figure out what’s next. After all, you didn’t just buy the business to run it for cash (at least, I hope not). 

#1a It’s also your opportunity to learn what your customers need going forward. Where are the gaps in your product? What are your customers' needs? If they are comfortable with you as an operator and the continuity of service, fear will melt away and transform into excitement about the focus and attention that they will be receiving (compared to when Acme was part of BigCo). The energy that comes from this mindshift will open up all sorts of discussion threads about how Acme can evolve to meet their needs. They will basically hand you your product roadmap for the next 3-6-12 months. Your clients will become your partners in this evolution; they will become invested in the company’s pivot to growth. What’s more, they may put dollars against this shift. But this can only happen if you talk to them to find out how you can solve more of their problems. And, as a function thereof, grow the account. 

Conclusion

You’ve changed the mindset of the company. You’ve figured out what’s essential to survival. And you’ve locked in your key customers and are leveraging these relationships for future growth. In sum, by scaling down you’re now in a position to iterate Acme back to product market fit. Once the revenue velocity starts to accelerate, you’re now in a position to start slowly making investments back into the business. Hiring more salespeople. Hiring a new head of marketing. Hiring a biz dev lead. But these hires are, in our experience, at least 1-2 years after the company has found its footing in the market. And these hires are invariably different - in almost every way - than the people who occupied these roles at the outset. That’s because Acme will be an entirely different company than the one you acquired.

Going Evergreen: Announcing TDV Acquisitions

Last month we closed on our evergreen “fund,” TDV Acquisitions (“TDVA”). TDVA isn’t a fund, per se. Initially, it’s actually a “blank check” company with permanent capital raised from private investors. TDVA will acquire software and digital media businesses. While in some ways it sounds a lot like a fund there are some meaningful differences. The purpose of this post is to explain why we took this approach as opposed to raising a traditional private equity fund.

First, let’s define the anti-hero (no offense to our PE friends). A private equity fund is a pool of committed capital invested by a professional manager. The manager typically invests this capital in a selection of businesses over a period of 5-7 years, at which time investors can expect her money back (plus a handsome return, hopefully). Managers collect an annual management fee based on the total size of the fund and a portion of the profits. While performance is a key objective, managers are also incentivized to raise and deploy as much capital as possible and as quickly as possible. This is a tried and true traditional model. But it doesn’t align with our vision.

What’s our vision? Our vision is that TDVA can, over time, acquire and operate a collection of profitable software and digital media businesses. We will use the initial investment capital to build a base of businesses, and then leverage those assets to buy more businesses. Some will be high growth. Some will be high yield. Some will be sold and some will fail. Our ambition is that within 10 years is to develop a portfolio that, in aggregate, produces $100M in annual revenue. TDVA could then IPO, sell, or simply hold. 

That approach isn’t compatible with a traditional fund structure. So we went a different route.

In TDVA we essentially started a company and sold shares to our investors. We’re going to keep the dollar figures confidential, so let’s use some round numbers. Let’s assume we sold 1,000,000 units at $1 per unit. That gives us $1M to invest. We will enhance that equity capital with debt to further extend our buying power. Follow on capital, if needed, can be raised at (hopefully) ever-increasing valuations as we acquire more and more businesses. Investors can exercise their pro-rata (or more), liquidate, or get diluted along the way. 

Why go this way?

1) We want to de-couple capital raised from returns
This is a biggie. One of the problematic elements of the traditional PE model is that fund managers are incentivized to accumulate assets under management (“AUM”). A typical 2% management fee on $1B of assets is $20M a year - whether the performance is good or bad. That’s a stunning amount of money to collect in fees for making investments that might or might not be successful. In our experience, great returns are generated by great performance - not by deploying large amounts of capital. This may seem obvious, but for many PE investors whose business becomes raising and deploying capital, it can be easy to forget.  With TDVA wanted our north star to be outsized returns even if that means relatively small AUM. Anyone can put capital to work; getting back more than you put out is the hard part.

2) We want flexibility
A traditional fund structure typically has a defined hold period. We don’t want to be forced to buy a business when the market is too hot just for the sake of deploying capital and maximizing our AUM by raising more capital. On the flip side, we don’t want to sell perfectly good, dividend-yielding businesses because of an arbitrary hold period of X number of years. Sometimes it will make sense to buy; sometimes to sell; sometimes to hold. Let’s let the opportunity and our returns guide us.

3) Our investors don’t need their money back for a long time
Our capital providers are focused on long-term success rather than generating institutional gains necessary for career advancement or another motive. It's money that, if we do our jobs well, will develop into generational wealth. As managers, that’s a huge responsibility; we treat our investors’ money as our own. That’s not a metaphor. We (Jordan and Mo) each have 7-figure commitments in the same security as our investors.

4) We want to build and leverage strong back-office operations
There is leverage in scale. With fixed costs like accounting, finance, HR, and some technology services we are able to develop efficiencies and centers of excellence that can benefit the entire organization. We frequently acquire sub-scale businesses that would otherwise be unable to afford - as an example - sophisticated analytics. By grouping these businesses and developing a shared-service model we are able to invest in a bench of high-level talent that can provide our portfolio businesses with an unfair advantage in the marketplace. This only comes with scale.

5) We want consolidated borrowing
Much like #4, with increasing scale credit becomes cheaper and easier to obtain. Cheap credit will help drive our equity returns.  A company with a larger P&L can usually borrow at cheaper rates than smaller businesses where the perceived risk of default is higher. In a traditional fund structure, one portfolio business usually can’t leverage the borrowing capacity of another business. In a holding company, it can. We want to be able to use debt for follow on acquisitions or investments in growth. By consolidating the balance sheets of our portcos under one entity we can borrow more money at less cost. Further, it opens up opportunities that would otherwise be closed if we had to use all equity for acquisitions because the return profile does not make sense. 

6) We want consolidated liquidity options
Candidly, we have no idea how this story ends. There are publicly traded analogs in the space such as Constellation Software, Upland and J2 (now Consensus Cloud Solutions). There are privately held analogs (too many to mention) generating steady cashflow for their owners, and others still that choose to sell off all or some of their businesses in time. A capital company structure gives us maximum flexibility to set the right course for TDVA portfolio companies.

Our First Deal: The Story Behind the Peterson’s Acquisition

Day 1 as owners of Peterson’s. We had no idea how little we knew.

Day 1 as owners of Peterson’s. We had no idea how little we knew.

By Jordan Stolper (with plenty of help from Mo Lam)

The first deal is the hardest. 

This is a common refrain in the independent sponsors/search fund community. In our experience, it’s true. In this post, I’ll discuss how our first deal, the acquisition of Peterson’s, came about, and the many challenges we faced on the path to close. (For context, I’d recommend reading the preceding post.)

We first took a look at Peterson’s in July, 2017. Nelnet, the company’s owner, announced the acquisition of Great Lakes Education Loan Services and was looking to sell Peterson’s as it was considered non-core to its loan servicing business. The Great Lakes acquisition was transformative and Nelnet wanted to focus its attention there.

We were excited by the deal for a number of reasons. I was familiar with the company’s brand and products; as a high school student, I’d used Peterson’s college guide to help with the college application process. We saw a business that had suffered from de-investment for a number of years, and so we could envision a path to growth by executing the much celebrated “digital transformation” strategy. In this case, that would mean digitizing Peterson’s library of content and making it easy for consumers to buy it. We also saw a business that had a number of meaningful contracts - thereby providing ample cashflow for investment into higher growth channels. A review of the company’s staffing plan revealed that it was perhaps top-heavy relative to its size.

In sum, we saw opportunities for both growth and cost savings - meaning multiple paths to a good investor return.

So we made an offer. And it was rejected, almost immediately.

Why?

This is a good moment to walk in a seller’s shoes. It will help explain why, as a fundless sponsor, doing deals (especially the first one) can be difficult. While we were not privy to the conversations that took place within Nelnet, we have a pretty good idea of how things went down. Mo and I had both done M&A before (he more than me). 

Likely Reason #1: The purchase price was lower than the competing offer. This is life in the big leagues. The other buyer may have been a strategic or PE firm with deeper pockets. It happens all the time, but it’s seldom the only (or even the main) reason an offer like ours is refused.

Likely Reasons #2 - #99: The seller doesn’t believe that we can get the deal done. With time the single scarcest resource, the seller doesn’t want to mess around with a buyer where there is transaction risk. What is transaction risk? It’s the risk in any deal process that one party cannot make it to the finish line. Usually, the concern is that they do not have the money to do the deal. Therefore, an offer from a firm with a track record of successful transactions trumps an offer from an unproven buyer. Even if the purchase price is lower, most corporate sellers prefer surety of close over a slightly higher purchase price. In 2017, Nelnet’s revenue was $1.2B and about to get bigger. Peterson’s revenue, while meaningful for us, is relatively small potatoes for its parent. For searchers like us, this is where life gets exceedingly difficult. One way or another you need to convince a seller that you are not totally full of shit. That your “firm” is not simply a shell entity with a pretty website and a heart-rending mission statement. That you can pull the equity and debt capital together within the agreed-upon time frame. That your investors are not going to throw up all over the management fees and carry. That your lender isn’t going to back out because underwriting got cold feet. That your due diligence process is refined enough that when the inevitable hiccup surfaces you don’t freak out and walk. 

In short, because these deals are complex, precarious, and just plain hard, they want confidence that in three months they won’t be back in market with a broken process and dashed expectations of a clean carve out.

Lucky for us, this is exactly what happened. The buyer Nelnet moved forward with back in July ended up walking away from the deal. We don’t know the exact reasons why. But in October 2017, the company came back to us and asked if we were interested in re-engaging.

We were.

So we put together a revised LOI and boarded flights to Denver. We sat down with the management team and a member of the corporate development team for a day and a half of due diligence. We went through each of the business lines, talk about the various risks to the business, and, broadly speaking, let the management team sell us on the opportunity. There was a lot to like about the business. It had - and has - a terrific brand, excellent content assets, a number of longstanding commercial relationships to deliver a strong base of recurring revenue. There was also a lot to be concerned about. The company was almost entirely distributed, with the then GM running it from his home in upstate New York. Its technology infrastructure was dated. There were meaningful risks to some of the existing business lines.

None of it was a showstopper. All of the problems we identified in the business were correctable and, in a sense, would be our value add. After all, Mo and I are operators. We are comfortable getting our hands dirty. 

One of the many things we learned in this transaction was how to triage the issues that emerge according to their potential impact to the overall business, and by extension, the deal’s return profile. And to make sure that these material issues are addressed at the beginning of the transaction (before we’ve invested a lot of time) rather than at the finish line. A good example of this is working capital adjustments. It comes up in every deal, large or small, and can become a major irritant to both parties. For this reason, we’ve learned to address it early on in any M&A process. More on this in subsequent posts.

Negotiations with Nelnet continued.

After some further discussions to address some of the issues uncovered in DD, we revised our LOI yet again. I won’t get into the purchase price and the nitty-gritty of the negotiations, but suffice it to say that we asked for additional concessions by the seller. They agreed - but only if we could close by December 31, 2017.

Nelnet asked to see proof of funds. We, of course, did not have the capital raised at this point. We went to one of our likely equity investors and asked them to write a letter, on company letterhead, stating that they were supportive of the transaction. It helped immensely that the investor runs a $10B asset management firm. Nelnet ended up calling the investor to verify their commitment to the deal. As discussed above, they were looking to reduce transaction risk. It was less about the purchase price (though that certainly mattered) than about our ability to pull the deal off.

One way or the other, we convinced Nelnet that we could close the deal on the agreed-upon time frame. At this point, we were now in early November  - so roughly 60 days from close.

Holy moly.

Here’s the to-do list at this point:

  1. Perform further DD (technical, sales, financial)

  2. Write CIM (aka PPM) for distribution to potential investors

  3. Raise equity capital

  4. Raise mezzanine debt

  5. Raise debt capital (term + revolver)

  6. Draft APA (asset purchase agreement)

  7. Draft operating agreement

  8. Draft multiple LLC agreements

  9. Draft the subscription agreement for equity

  10. Negotiate agreement for mezzanine debt and bridge financing

  11. Draft the management agreement between the acquisition vehicle and our management company

  12. Close the deal

  13. Fly to Denver to take over the business.

The long pole in the tent here was of course the equity capital. Without these commitments in place, there would be no deal. In the end, we needed someone to come in as a lead investor - taking at least 50% of the equity in the deal. This lead investor would ostensibly negotiate the terms of the subscription agreement, the operating agreement, and the management agreement. Part of this is also negotiating the carry, management fee, and any go-forward compensation for me and Mo. Put simply, a lead investor needs to have the cash but also should be reasonably sophisticated in understanding the structure of private equity transactions and how sponsors are compensated. Often, the minority investors will want to know who the lead investor is and will take comfort (or not) in knowing that the lead is reputable. Because all of our minority investors are “friends and family” there was trust in us that largely superseded concerns about the lead.

So how about that equity capital?

We met with the aforementioned family office in NYC. They liked the deal, and almost immediately presented us with a term sheet. The terms were decent, and we stepped away to think about the offer.

Around the same time, Mo headed out for a long-planned family vacation. While away, he re-connected with a fellow alum from Harvard Business School. They got to talking about the Peterson’s deal. Much to our surprise, Mo’s classmate stepped forward and offered to lead the investment on his own. After a series of late-night conversations and friendly negotiations, we had found our lead equity investor.

On the debt side, we had made progress with a handful of small banks but it was clear that our deadline was incompatible with the speed at which the banks could underwrite the loan. So we decided to lock in a mezzanine debt financing and take a bridge loan from some of our equity investors in order to ensure close. We would end up getting bank debt a few months after close and pay down the bridge debt at that time.

The weeks that followed are a blur. We managed to get through the to-do list. Though not without making plenty of mistakes along the way. For example:

  1. The lawyers we hired to paper the debt ended up going MIA for a period of time leading up to the transaction;

  2. We paid a heavy price for debt financing because of our shorten close;

  3. We paid for transition services because we didn’t have enough time to stand up health benefits and payroll for a newly constituted entity.

In the end, most of these were rookie mistakes that we now know how to avoid. Their ultimate impact on the deal was negligible. Like all things, experience teaches you how to separate out the stuff that really matters from everything else. We were also very lucky in some cases that none of these missteps ended up hurting the company. Nelnet was easy to work with after they were comfortable with our ability to close. Our investors trusted us. I’ve come to conclude there is a certain amount of breakage that comes along with every deal and, so long as the fundamentals of the transaction are intact, this is just a cost of doing business.

We worked through Thanksgiving, Christmas and really straight up until close on December 29, 2017. 

On the day of close, I remember waking up at around 4 AM, taking a Lyft to the office I was renting, and setting to work. The close would happen electronically. Documents were flying around; we were signing stuff without always fully knowing what we were signing; we were calling lawyers to get capital released; we were getting urgent texts from the seller wondering when the funds would arrive. It was an insanely stressful, exhausting day.

And then it was over. I went home by mid-afternoon and collapsed in exhaustion. We’d close the deal. Nearly 6 months after our initial offer.

On January 1, 2018, Mo and I met up at Denver International Airport.

The next day we would walk into Peterson’s as its owners.

How We Founded TDV: The Backstory

By Jordan Stolper

When Mo and I began talking about teaming up to buy a business, we had been friends for nearly ten years. We’d watched each other start businesses, change careers, get married, and in my case, have children. We knew our comparative strengths and weaknesses. Mo is a finance and analytics guy; my strengths are in product, sales, and marketing. We were each in our late thirties: young enough that we had the energy and drive to leap into the unknown but old enough to know that starting a new business wasn’t especially appealing. I had just spent a year and a half working for a private equity firm. Through this experience, I learned that what separated my employer from me was the willingness to go raise capital and get a deal done. Mo was winding up a role at a venture-backed company that he had joined twelve months prior. The same VCs that enticed him to join as CFO reneged on an effective promise to fund the company’s next round of growth and the business shuttered.

So there we were, walking around the lower east side of Manhattan on a Sunday afternoon, talking about career opportunities. We covered a lot of ground that day. Literally and figuratively. 

On a personal level, we were done working for other people as employees. We’d each come far enough in our respective careers that we felt that we needed to own something and control our own destinies. Mo was maybe more risk-averse about this than me because of his personal responsibilities with his family. I, however, was sure I’d reached the point of unemployability given my issues with authority.

Translating this ambition into something real? Well, that was an entirely different story. Between Mo and I, we had some semblance of how to do this, but neither of us knew exactly where to start. Mo had some small investments in sponsored buyouts, but we knew it was going to be difficult. We agreed on an overall market hypothesis: let’s stick with what we know and find a software or digital media business that we would acquire. Where would we find this business? Would the valuation expectations be unrealistic? How would we get a deal financed? Would one of us move there to run it? How much of our own capital would be needed for any deal? What was our operating strategy?

There were a ton of unanswered questions. None of which could really be addressed absent a deal in hand. Which, of course, couldn’t be closed without adequate equity and debt capital. So we began a parallel process of searching for deals while at the same time searching for capital. 

Our two-track process looked something like this:

On the searching front….

We stood up a simple Squarespace site and declared our intentions. There’s nothing like putting a goal down on paper (as it were) and broadcasting it to the world as a way to catalyze action. We pulled together some marketing materials to describe the profile of our target acquisition. We then proceeded to blast it out to, essentially, everyone we had ever met. We pulled down our LinkedIn contacts. Flipped through our historical contacts. And then quickly began setting up conversations with anyone who would take a call. We also identified potential target “markets.” This included VCs who hadn’t raised capital in 24+ months; startups that hadn’t raised capital in 18+ months; investment banks in the lower middle market; corporate development executives who might be considering a divestment. With all of these, we paid a low-cost data miner from UpWork to dig up email address and then sent out mass-customized email blasts introducing ourselves and asking for a conversation.

We also did a decent amount of content marketing. Mo developed a series of simple but elegant financial models that help founders calculate the exit value of their businesses. One model, which we use for all of our deals (I call it the “Mo Machine”) lets the user calculate purchase price based on target IRR. For anyone who is selling to a financial buyer, this is critical knowledge as it allows you to understand the maximum a buyer is able to pay given PE target returns. Put simply, it takes some of the subjectivity, stagecraft, and self-delusion out of the valuation process.

On the financing front….

Our first conversation was with a friend who manages a family office for a New York-based money manager. The family office does a range of direct PE and VC investments. So we thought it would be a good starting point to test our hypothesis. So we put together a deck that presented a sort of straw-man opportunity; fictitious but indicative of the profile of the type of the business we were looking to buy, the operating strategy, deal structure, and target returns. We sat down with the friend - I’ll call him Chris - for feedback. The reaction was generally positive, if skeptical. Basically, what he said is that if you can find a deal like this then we would absolutely take a look. “We do deals like this all the time” were his exact words. And while Chris was not the decision-maker he was a strong influencer. This gave us enough confidence to carry on in the search though Chris made no promises. “Go find a deal then let’s talk” was essentially the message.

We had this same sort of conversation with a handful of other potential lead investors. The response was generally the same. It boiled down to: 

  1. We know you guys (i.e. we trust that you are not going to screw us)

  2. We think you’re smart (i.e. we’ve seen your careers play out and suspect that you’re odds of success are at least average, if not better than average)

  3. We like the thesis (i.e. we aren’t seeing a ton of deals like this so the strategy is intriguing)

  4. Items 1-3 are necessary but not sufficient. Go find a deal, package it up, and come back with something fully baked. NYC is full of clever people with good presentation skills; show us that you can actually pull this off. 


Sigh...back to searching.

In 2017 we looked at approximately 130 opportunities. These ranged from businesses in our target market (software and digital media) to companies in industries we knew nothing about. Our days were spent on calls, sending out pitches, introducing ourselves, fielding occasional inbound interest, and generally, hustling for deals. There is no trick to this, and there’s certainly no glamour. It’s a matter of executing an aggressive ground game to turn up opportunities.

During our process, we had many conversations with other entrepreneurs looking to do buyouts. Some had been looking for years. They were looking for the proverbial purple dinosaur: a sizable business with strong growth prospects and a low valuation. They were concerned about the ability to raise money, the amount of work necessary, and the professional risk they are taking.

Perhaps we were more aggressive or foolish than others, but we did not want to just look. We wanted to get something done. We made offers on 10-15 businesses over the course of the year. Some of these were in the target market. Some were not. 

In the latter category, we looked very closely at a manufacturing company based in Connecticut. Let’s call it Acme Inc. Acme was in the business of manufacturing the dyes necessary to make the masters used for stamping records (LPs). They were one of the few companies in the world that still made these dyes, and the company had been doing well given the resurgence of turntables. It was owned by an older gentleman who was ready to retire and move to Florida. It employed 20 or so people. Valuation expectations were more than reasonable; the business had hard assets to borrow against, and there was a foreman who could supposedly run the manufacturing shop with little to no supervision. 

Was this our deal?

As an entrepreneur I’ve always believed that the businesses people start are both an outgrowth, and a reflection, of their personalities. In a weird way, it’s usually some mix of what you know and the types of risks you are comfortable with. For example, someone who knows landscape services is probably not going to start a wealth management business. There are exceptions, of course. Domain expertise cuts both ways; muscle memory can make mastering the fundamentals of the business easier, but it can also be constraining. Plenty of bright people jumped into a new business and figure it out. 

And I think it can work - within reason and more importantly, with enough time

But when it came down to it, were we - a software entrepreneur and a finance guy - going to trade our sneakers for steel-toe boots and problem solve on the factory floor? Would we know if the foreman was bullshitting us? Would we feel comfortable hiring and firing machinists? I think the answer to all of these questions could have been yes. We could have figured this all out eventually. But is this really how we wanted to spend the next phase of our careers? I very much believe that there is an element of to thine own self be true when it comes to acquiring these businesses. And after much hemming and hawing, it became clear to Mo and me that this opportunity, while compelling, was not the right one for us. Thank god we decided to pass.

By summer, 2017 we had signed ~3 LOIs. All of these deals had fallen apart for one reason or another. The most common reason was that the financials presented by the seller did not make it through early diligence. We would find discrepancies between what was presented in the CIM and what turned up in the data room. Or we would uncover some issue around customer acquisition/growth that undermined our assumptions around growth.

We were both starting to get nervous that we were not going to be able to land a deal within a reasonable period of time. We both began interviewing for jobs, and in Mo’s case, took a position for a few months while the search continued. 

During this time Mo heard through the grapevine that a company by the name of Nelnet was selling off a small software company it had incubated. I chased it down, and we looked carefully at the business. We decided to pass. So I called up the CFO of Nelnet to let him know we were not going to move forward. 

While on the phone, I casually asked, “Are you guys selling anything else?”

Well, it turns out that they were selling a company called Peterson’s. Were we interested?

Our search was about to end.

Triangle Digital Ventures Acquires Covideo from APCO

May 5, 2020 | 24-7 Press Release

The Indianapolis-based software company and new partner, Triangle Digital Ventures, set their sights on growth

DENVER, CO, May 05, 2020 /24-7PressRelease/ — Triangle Digital Ventures (“TDV”) announces today that it has acquired Covideo, an Indianapolis-based software company, from APCO. The transaction is a partnership between TDV and Covideo’s founding team. Financial terms were not disclosed. The acquisition was finalized at the end of March.

“We are very grateful for the last 10 years with APCO,” said Covideo CEO and Co-founder Jason Price. “They took a chance on a young, unestablished company, and it was through that foundation that we’ve been able to grow into what we are today.”

When founded in 2004, Covideo was among the first providers of video email. Today, Covideo is a worldwide market leader in video messaging, enabling sales and service professionals to record, send and track videos across a variety of channels.

“Covideo invented the category, and now it dominates,” said TDV Managing Director Jordan Stolper. “We are incredibly excited to partner with management on the company’s next phase of growth.” Established in 2017, TDV is a private equity sponsor that acquires, and grows, software and digital media businesses. The firm specializes in acquiring startups and carve-outs.

“Our new partnership with Triangle will allow us to become more agile and respond even faster to the direction of the expanding market and the needs of our growing customer base,” added Mr. Price. “We’re looking forward to continued growth and innovation and couldn’t ask for better partners.”

Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath acted as legal counsel to Triangle Digital Ventures on the Covideo acquisition. BTIG served as exclusive financial advisor to APCO on the transaction. Eversheds Sutherland acted as legal counsel to APCO.

About Covideo LLC
Covideo is a market leader in video messaging, used by thousands of businesses worldwide. Through Covideo, sales and service professionals can record, send and track videos across a variety of channels allowing them to build relationships and convert leads into customers. With an emphasis on personalization and personal connection, Covideo is helping people reimagine business communication. Visit covideo.com for more information.

About Triangle Digital Ventures
Triangle Digital Ventures (“TDV”), established in 2017, is a private equity sponsor that acquires software and digital media businesses. TDV is unique among PE buyers in that the firm is led by entrepreneurs with deep operational expertise. The firm specializes in acquiring startups and carve-outs. TDV’s current portfolio includes Peterson’s LLC, Droplr LLC, BES Publishing, and Wintergreen Orchard House. TDV has offices in Denver and New York City. Learn more at triangledv.com.

About APCO Holdings, LLC. (APCO)
APCO, established in 1984, is a leading marketer and administrator of extended vehicle service contracts, warranties, and other related products sold primarily by automobile dealers located throughout the United States. APCO has expanded its offerings over the last decade to include leading-edge training for dealership sales and finance teams. The company markets its products using the EasyCare and GWC brands, as well as other private label automobile manufacturer brands, through a network of independent agents and an internal salesforce that specialize in consulting with and servicing the automotive dealership markets. EasyCare and GWC Warranty are the only “Motor Trend Recommended Best Buy” brands in the automotive aftermarket. For further information about APCO, see www.gwcwarranty.com and www.easycare.com.

Triangle Digital Ventures Acquired Peterson's from Nelnet

DENVER, February 6, 2018 (Newswire.com) - Triangle Digital Ventures has acquired the Peterson’s business from Nelnet Inc. The transaction closed on Dec. 31, 2017. The full terms of the deal were not disclosed.

About Peterson’s
Peterson’s is a diversified data, learning, and publishing company focused on post-secondary education. The company provides a suite of online test preparation services, higher education research and books to consumers, enterprise, government and libraries. Peterson’s mission of helping students prepare to succeed began in 1966. Peterson’s is based in Denver, Colorado, and employs a team of 60 educators, data scientists, and technologists. Included in the Peterson's family of products are EssayEdge and Dean Vaughn Books. Learn more at www.petersons.com.

About Triangle Digital Ventures
Triangle Digital Ventures (TDV) is an entrepreneurial growth firm that acquires — and grows — technology businesses. TDV targets opportunities that are otherwise too small or too complex for conventional acquirers. Led by serial entrepreneurs and backed by a significant investor base, TDV invests operational expertise and capital to deliver outsized returns. TDV welcomes inquiries from intermediaries and principals seeking a financial and operational partner. Learn more at www.triangledv.com.

About Nelnet
Nelnet is a diversified and innovative company focused on offering educational services, technology solutions, telecommunications, and asset management. Nelnet helps students and families plan and pay for their education and makes the administrative processes for schools more efficient with student loan servicing, tuition payment processing, school administration software, and college planning resources. Through its recently acquired subsidiary, ALLO Communications, Nelnet offers fiber optic services directly to homes and businesses for ultra-fast internet and superior telephone and television services. The company also makes investments in real estate developments and new ventures. For more information, visit Nelnet.com.

The Financial Model PE Acquirers Would Prefer You Not Download

(co-authored by Mo Lam)

Meyer, the CEO/Founder of a SaaS business, was ready to sell the company.

But the offers on the table made no sense to him.

“The comps say that technology businesses like ours trade at 6-8x annual recurring revenue (ARR). I got an offer for 3x. Another for 4.5x. My business broker tells me it’s worth 6x. How can they be this far off?”

A little context: the company was an email marketing service. $2.1M ARR, growing at 25% annually, generating a profit of nearly $700,000. Team of 9, mostly engineers. All in Seattle.

“What am I missing here?” asked Meyer.

***

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then valuation is in the eye the acquirer.

Or something like that.

The point is that the same business can be valued differently depending on an acquirer’s strategy and her investment objectives. Which is why it’s important to put yourself in the mindset of the person doing the valuation. Because knowing what a buyer is willing to pay will help you to competitively price your business. So how do you know what a buyer is willing to pay?

Start with the answer and work backward.

Smart acquirers think about valuation as a function of the return.

In other words, they start with defining the potential yield of the investment and then work backward to price. It’s not a novel methodology. In fact, this is how income-producing assets (like commercial property or bonds) are valued by investors.

For Example:

Acme Capital, a private equity group, has raised capital from its investors (pension funds) who expect 100% annual return. Acme has identified a business that it believes will be worth $100 at the end of year two. Therefore, the most Acme could pay for the business today is $25. Take it another way, the return and future valuation are given to Acme by its investors - the pension funds - and the market. Acme is trying to solve for the price. The price is the one variable Acme can control for. 

This is called return-based valuation.

This approach applies if your business is being evaluated by a group like Acme, which needs to deliver a return to its investors. Acme doesn’t care about the comparables. Acme doesn’t care what a business was valued at its last funding round. Acme is an asset manager singularly focused on delivering a good return to its investors.

Different investors take different strategies. For example, a venture capital firm will value a business differently than a private equity firm, which will value a business differently than a strategic buyer. Knowing how each of these buyers operates is tricky.

Meyer - like most entrepreneurs - isn’t wired to think about his business this way.

So he does what any smart, scrappy startup CEO does. He asks around and looks to comparables as a shorthand for valuation.

Comparables tend to come from three sources:

  1. public market data (e.g. what Tableau is trading at);

  2. valuations for deals that VCs are seeing (e.g. Sand Hill Road propaganda);

  3. valuations for businesses that got “strategic exits.” A “strategic exit” is when a buyer pays a ridiculous amount for a business for their own special reasons (e.g. Salesforce buys Buddy Media for $745M).

None of these are useful comparables to evaluate a business like Meyer’s.

Why not?

  • His $2M business is lot riskier and illiquid than a publicly traded SaaS business like Tableau;

  • VC valuations aren’t a true reflection of what a potential acquirer would pay (sometimes it’s a lot more, sometimes it’s a lot less);

  • If someone is offering you a “strategic exit,” quit reading this and go find a pen.

Even if the comparables were 100% accurate, they are like a Kelley Blue Book: they provide historical context but they do not determine the value to the buyer sitting at the negotiating table.

**

How can Meyer value his business? To help him answer this question, we developed a simple model to let Meyer:

  1. Estimate valuation without undertaking a complex financial modeling exercise;

  2. Understand the factors that would impact valuation to help Meyer decide if he should sell at the current offer.

The model provides a broad estimate of his business’s value using two simple sets of inputs

Set one is a proxy for current business performance using 4 KPIs: revenue, growth rate, expenses, and how expenses will decline or scale with more sales volume. By adjusting these inputs, Meyer can consider how valuation changes if he were to sell today vs. grow for another period of time and cut some costs. More importantly, it allows him to consider the risk or effort in growing sales or cash flow versus the potential reward.

Set two is around the investor or acquirer of his business. 

  1. What type of investor is he/she?

  2. Is growth more valuable (VC) or is it cash flow (PE)?

  3. Is the investor conservative or aggressive? Aggressive investors are usually willing to pay more because they believe in the business’s growth potential. Conservative investors want to control for risk by paying less.

So what did he decide to do? Well, as of last week he hasn’t made a decision. But he now has the tools to evaluate the offers on the tale.

***

With Meyer’s permission, we’ve removed any confidential information and made the model available for the community. The model will let you independently value your business using the same methodology as a private equity analyst.

Free Download Here.

To help you get the most out of the model, we’ve put together a quick webinar. Mo (the finance guy) talks Jordan (not a finance guy) through the model.

Watch the 10-minute Webinar Here.