In short
The Twenty Minute VC (20VC) - Episode Summary: Are IPOs Back?
Podcast Overview Host: Harry Stebbings Guests:
- Deven Parekh, Managing Director at Insight Partners
- Woody Marshall, General Partner at TCV
- Jason Lemkin, Founder of SaaStr
Episode Title: 20VC Roundtable: Are IPOs Back? Is Growth Dead? Release Date: [Insert Date]
Episode Description: This episode features a roundtable discussion among prominent venture capitalists addressing the current landscape of IPOs, growth rounds, and the overall health of the venture capital market.
---
Key Topics Discussed
- The Growth Landscape Overview
- Is Growth Dead?
- Growth is not dead; many companies are still growing but at a slower pace.
- The number of growth deals has decreased significantly compared to 2021 and 2022.
- Price Changes in Growth Deals
- Prices for growth deals have adjusted downwards, reflecting the current economic climate.
- Challenges for Growth Companies
- Companies with large cash reserves but little revenue may struggle to raise funds.
- There’s a disconnect between buyer and seller valuations.
- The Great Reset: Valuations Need to Change
- Reasons for Resetting Valuations
- Companies should actively reset their valuations to reflect current market realities.
- A failure to do so may lead to misalignment between VCs and LPs.
- Structure of Investment Rounds
- Discussion on whether structured deals are inherently bad.
- A nuanced view on acceptable versus unacceptable investment structures.
- Are the Public Markets Creeping Open?
- Recent IPOs: ARM, Instacart, Klaviyo
- These IPOs should not be taken as clear indicators of a fully opened market.
- Mixed performance post-IPO raises concerns about market viability for future IPOs.
- Market Sentiment
- Some believe that companies should go public at a discount to previous private valuations to reflect current realities.
- Late Stage Growth is Dead
- Analysis of Late Stage Growth
- There's a significant slowdown in late-stage growth deals.
- Companies looking for late-stage funding may need to adjust their expectations.
- Revenue Multiples Discussion
- How revenue multiples are determined and assessed in the current market.
- Future projections for revenue multiples and company valuations.
---
Key Takeaways
- Optimism in the Market: While the market is challenging, there are still promising opportunities, especially for companies that have adapted to the current climate.
- Valuation Adjustments: Companies and investors are encouraged to reset expectations and be realistic about current valuations to ensure a healthier investment environment.
- IPO Landscape: Recent IPOs may not indicate a broader recovery in the market; performance will depend on underlying company fundamentals rather than market speculation.
- Focus on Profitable Growth: Investors are increasingly valuing companies based on profitability and sustainable growth rather than just revenue growth.
---
Insightful Quotes
- "The glass is half full if you look at the fundamentals and how companies are performing."
- "Valuations need to reflect the reality of the current market, and companies should not shy away from resetting them."
- "It's always about the execution and how well companies can deliver on their promises."
---
Conclusion The roundtable discussion provides a comprehensive overview of the current venture capital landscape, highlighting both challenges and opportunities. Despite the prevailing skepticism about growth and IPOs, there remains a sense of cautious optimism among investors. The focus on realistic valuations and sustainable growth could pave the way for more robust market conditions in the future.
For more episodes and insights, visit [20VC Website](http://www.20vc.com).
Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.
Transcript
Automatic transcript. May contain errors.0:00We went over a year without any tech IPO. We went about a year without any kind of meaningful, the large strategic M &A. Cisco just bought Splunk. You had three companies go public at real scale, which are real business models. That to me is a glass half full. Growth is not dead. Challenge is going to be in my view. Crapi Growth High Burn. Like if you got Crapi Growth High Burn, like, don't need email. My word, I am so excited for this roundtable. Everyone says that growth is dead, and so stay in this roundtable episode. So we unpack is growth really dead? Should we be optimistic about the IPOs that we've seen?
0:33And what should we expect looking forward? Joining me is two of the best growth investors in Devon Perak, managing director at Insight and Woody Marshall General Partner at TCV. As always I'm joined by the one and only Jason Lanken at Saster, a roundtable would not be the same without Jason, and the full video for this can be found on YouTube by searching for 20 VEC. But before we dive into the show's date, we have to talk about Canva. Canva is on a mission to empower the world to design. That is why they've introduced Magic Studio. Magic Studio brings together the best AI -powered tools for you and your team to help you redefine the way you design.
1:10Magic design creates custom designs for you in seconds. Just provided text prompt or upload your media and Magic Design cross professional social posts, presentations and even videos and something that I am particularly love is Magic Edit. It lets you add to replace or edit your images with a single text prompt. It's incredible. Simply select where you want to see the change, write your prompt and watch as your image transforms. With Canva, you can realise your ideas with ease. Start in -spired with over 500 ,000 free templates and a rich content library to help you and your team achieve their goals.
1:47Explore Magic studio at Canva .com forward slash magic and speak of amazing products that we could not live without. Listen to this. Mercury has been a breath of fresh air. Getting started was maybe one of the most delightful and important experiences I've had. Mercury is just so easy to use. The aesthetic of it is actually quite relaxing. For me it was less a choice and more finding a kindred spirit. Imagine feeling this way about business banking. You could if you join more than 100 ,000 startups on Mercury, the powerful and intuitive way, ambitious companies to bank, start building momentum and leave the friction behind by visiting mercury .com forward slash 20VC, Mercury is a financial technology company not at bank, banking services provided by choice financial group and evolved bank and trust, members of FDIC, and speak of incredible products like Mercury there, travel in these banks are never associated with cost savings, But now you can reduce costs up to 30 % and actually reward your employees.
2:52How? Well, the van rewards your employees with personal travel credit every time they save their company money when booking business travel under company policy. Does that sound too good to be true? Well, the van is so confident you'll move to their game -changing all -in -one travel corporate card and expense super app that they'll give you $250 in personal travel credit. just for taking a quick demo, check them out now at navan .com forward slash 20Vc. You are now arrived at your destination. Well, I am so excited for this. I think we have some of the best minds around this kind of virtual round table for this.
3:27I'm just going to start off by one by one. I just want to do like half a minute of introduction so everyone gets a scene and now she hears the voices. So Devon, let's start with you. Can you introduce yourself in 30 seconds? Sure. Devon Perak Magic Depper with insight, been at insight since January of 2000. When I joined insight, the market was rip roaring, and about four months later, it was no longer rip roaring. So I've kind of been through the current rodeo before. Insight is kind of a global investor in software. We do everything for early growth to buy out, and happy to be here, Harry. Woody, I have a 30 seconds hit me.
4:02Yeah, Woody Marshall, a general partner at TCV. I joined TCV in the beginning of 2008, so the world was not rip roaring. And when I joined TCM, he's been around for almost 29 years. We do two things, growth and technology, software and consumer. And you know, just to give context, there are lots of different definitions of growth. About 70 % of the businesses that we invest in are at least 50 million of revenues. And half are profitable. That's how it comes out when you look at the data. For us, we're focused on growth assets. That's what we've been doing. and that's what I've been doing, you know, for the better part of almost 30 years.
4:41And Jason, I think Vavrum loves the round tables, which everyone does. They probably know you, but it is with you with that exact hands anyway. Sure, Jason Lemkin, I run Sassar, the largest global community for Sass founders, and I've been investing, seen investing for about 10 years. I'm pretty excited. I've got three or four after 10 years, and I'm hoping will IPO at the end of next year. I've had some billion dollar exits, one within sight, Hopefully one with TCV soon, but I haven't had an IPO yet, so I'm super excited to learn how great it's gonna be at the back half of next year And we've got some standing bets around this by the way back off a nice year Jason.
5:16It's happening I have from X -Buts happening since they stay tuned for that But I want to start Woody and Devon. I mean, I have this one on to you Which is everyone says that growth is just dead is this true? All new deals getting done first of all growth is not dead Let's start with underlying growth in actual companies. If you look at Q2 of 2023, it's like as 184 folio companies that grew worth a 50 % in Q2 of 2023 over Q2 of 2022. And you know, we're clearly more macro challenge environment than we had maybe a few years ago. So the underlying growth in companies is still there. Now that's separate from where's the growth market as it relates to new investment.
5:57And like many people, our pace is down dramatically. We have done New Deal this year, but many fewer than we did in 22, many fewer than we did in 21. The one thing I would just point out is if you look at 21 and 22, there was a lot of series A and series B investments that got done. When a company gets funded, series A series B, and you're not typically funding a company for three to five years. You're funding a company for 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, so kind of the next proof point. And so as we kind of get to the beginning of 24 you're gonna naturally have companies that are gonna need to raise capital And some of them are gonna have executed reasonably well not with standing the environment and what will happen is they'll raise capital They just might not raise capital at the price they will hunt to raise it I don't anticipate the growth market being dead.
6:41It's definitely that pace is gonna be dramatically lower in 23 I don't know that we'll see 21 pace anytime soon or if ever But I also think that, and this is one of the things we talk about internally, particularly when we're talking to the team, this market is probably closer to reality than 21 was. And, you know, the pace of actually being able to spend time with companies, build relationships with Aspen teams, take them out to dinner, see how they do over, of course, to six months, is really what this business always used to be. And I think is what this business will go back to being. And so I'm actually, while obviously there's, we'll talk later about what happened in 21, I'm optimistic that we'll get to a reasonable place.
7:20I still think there's a lot of really interesting companies out there that are growing. What do you have to respond to it? Nevin's totally right. I mean, volumes are down. They're still at disconnect between buyers and sellers. You don't have the opportunistic fund raises that certainly happened in 21 where somebody may have raised money and another investor got excited about what that opportunity could be and bit them up, 2X, 3X, 4X, very quickly. So I think transactions are happening, but for very specific reasons, maybe there's some strategic M &A There's some specific growth investments that have been well thought through a company may have taken some debt Which was free before and now it's actually expensive.
8:01So I think that there are some real Business reasons that are driving transactions. You're also seeing some secondary I mean a lot of people haven't gotten much liquidity not that early investors are selling an entire stake but provide some partial liquidity. You're seeing these things. I mean, look, we just did a deal with, you know, that Devon and the guys at Insight were in. It's a classic minority software, you know, investment, $100 million plus investment, $100 million plus business growing 50%, but losing a little bit of money, but very focused on a number of really thoughtful growth initiatives.
8:38Actually, there's ROI that's behind them. the team is thoughtfully allocating incremental capital. So they're definitely happening. And to Devon's point, I think you're seeing companies that are executing well. The issue is you need a reason to want to raise money today because there is that valuation disconnect and there's a lot of investors that they're trying to buy a dollar for 75 cents. They look at the public market and think that there's a great deal there. Like I just don't think those transactions are happening. And I agree with Devon, I like the more normalized pace. Investors get to do their work, management teams get to understand the investors that they're getting involved with, and I just think you end up with better decisions and more commonality and kind of shared vision and execution after the transaction gets done.
9:23Is that for folks that maybe haven't been in the venture markets before 2020? Is that as six months a reasonable way to think about pacing for growth round? Do you guys like to see two quarters and get to know folks? I don't? And what was it at 2021? How have I asked it a deal get done in 2021? By the way, I don't think it was a magic to six months. I imagine I think it's just an interesting anecdote. Yeah, no, I would say the other interesting thing is like we have a bunch of companies in our portfolio, companies that we like, and I think what we have been positively surprised by, that one literally that we just got a term sheet today, I wasn't really even expecting a term sheet, but we got a term sheet from a firm that I've never seen before that showed up a pretty attractive term sheet.
10:03No, we're going to participate in the round. companies actually doing well. So I think that companies that are executing well, that have reasonable expectations of value, are really able to raise capital today. One other thing I just point out, is there is another driver of why companies are not, rounds are not happening, which is the companies were smart, that when the cost of capital was low and valuations were very high, many of them went out and raised a lot of money. We have multiple companies in a report portfolio that have between three and five hundred million dollars of cash on their balance sheet.
10:30And their last round was probably not around that they could not replicate today and they actually kind of know that. The newsflash is they don't need to replicate it because they took advantage of that time and raised a lot of capital. And so the other reason is that's not a deal where you're going to get an easy clearing price because the company has no motivation to raise that. Devon, you know worried that they're going to have such a valuation scale into you. I have some companies not quite with three to five hundred but we'll say a hundred But to get that 100, they did it at 100x, I said, I'm all, and I'm sitting there and going, God, that is a big valuation scale, and to you, share that worry.
11:06Yeah, but I think there's two different constituencies that I worry about in that case. I obviously worry about myself, because I've written a jack R2. But probably more importantly, I actually worry about making sure that the team is incentive. And so I think there's gonna be a lot of those cases where companies with our support, we were going to significantly reduce the valuation of the option and equity incentives going forward. Because I don't think what we can do is look part of a lot of those rounds obviously as investors are sitting in preferred stock in most cases. And so they have downside protection that the employees don't have.
11:43What is going to be important is because these companies are really not worth much if you don't have a team that's motivated. I think that there will have to be a realignment area around how and create equity incentives for the team in these companies, but for investors, it's going to take longer. So a deal that you might have thought might take three or four years, might take five, six, or seven years, and maybe at five or six years, you might only get your money back. But it might be that in a place where I get my money back for a late stage investor gets their money back, employees still really need to earn money, right?
12:12Because so a lot of value creation needs to happen to get there. So I think there's multiple constituencies and we just have to be sensitive to all. Our alert of teams just gonna get wiped out though on the press side. I think the important thing is, the only thing that's gonna determine ultimate valuation for any of these situations is the performance of a company and companies don't run themselves. So there's always these discussions about so and so raised a lower priced round for the 4 .9 .8, what you're ever talking about. 4 .9 .8 is so much lower and it's written about in the press as like this bad thing.
12:47Look at this stupid company and to me, I have the totally opposite view, which is here's a company that is, by the way, if you're in public company, there's no argument, right? Like your stock was trading at 100 and now it's trading at 25. There is nothing to argue about. On a private company, the smart companies are resetting the deck. They're ripping Band -Aid off because the problem with companies that hold on to some of those valuations is they're going to make decisions that are suboptimal. When you think about how to build the business over the long term. And as an investor, by the way, we take that risk and devins right, like if you look at the things we invested in 21, we'd like those companies a lot.
13:23It may take, it's gonna take us longer to get our returns. It just is, because multiples have come down. But if you don't have a company that level sets to where they are, A, you're not gonna have motivated employees, and you may make decisions that are not the right decisions for the organization. Shoot the moon, by the way, the only way we're gonna be worth anything is we have to literally put everything in. I'm all in on black as opposed to thinking about how should you most efficiently allocate capital given the environment that you're in today. The one thing I'd add, where do you have companies where they're trying to hold on to that last valuation?
13:55Forget now from an employees standpoint, but because they think it's better to go to their employees and say our valuations flat when everybody including employees know it's not. And then they go out and try to raise some heavily structured security in order to try to preserve value. And I I actually think that's the most dangerous thing the company can do, because then you do create a challenge, because you've created artificially high valuation that's not consistent with where current values are, makes it harder to actually strike before an added valuation is where they probably should be struck, and you're also not just being intellectually honest, in a public company, when Facebook stock goes down, they take action, the stock goes up, and so you just don't get to do that in a public company, but when you start thinking that your company's worth something, I like to get instant cards, an example, Well, that valuation came down a lot.
14:39The, you know, the 49 evaluation came down a lot. Now it's a public company. It'll end up trading over the next few years based on its underlying operating performance. Can I ask a question about that about structured terms? Everyone on the internet talks about how toxic structured terms are, right? Are they so bad? Imagine Harry and I are running to start up together. We're at 50 million an hour. Okay, we're growing 80 % pretty good. And we raised the last round at a billion. Okay, not at 5 billion or 50 billion. And we got someone that'll do the, they'll do a round extension at a billion. but they want to guarantee 2x return.
15:08Okay, I get that it's debt -like, but Harry and I want the money, we get it and Harry and I are in it for 10 years. We're gonna IPO, we're gonna get to 3, 4, 5 billion. Why is a little structure? Box had it when it IPO'd, other had it. Why is a little structure so bad? I'm not sure it bridging the difference is the end of the world, is it? Well, it looks great when the outcome works. Right, again, we're going for it. We're all going for it. The four of us are going for going for these big outcomes. When you go to the casino and you bet on red And in red wins. It's great. It's just when you bet all on black and it goes red.
15:38It's not great Yeah, by the way, it's just it's the same as preference right when things work out You could have invested in common as opposed to preference Yeah, I'm done preference actually comes into play when it doesn't work But by the way, this is a decision that you know the issue are asked to make you as the company You know, we don't like it because we like to be on the same side of the table and I just think all the sudden you have differing motivations heads I win and nails you lose, we should all benefit as the value of a company is created. I also think there's, you know, from the investor standpoint, there can be the fallacy of, oh, like this is a really interesting, you know, opportunity because of the structure, structure never made a good company, right?
16:16Like at the end of the day, oh, it doesn't make a great point. Find a good company and pay the right price. I understand why people do it because sometimes adjusting a price creates a crescendo of other things that happen, and anti -delusion, a bunch of other things. But in a perfect world, I'd rather everybody being on the same side of the table, we're just driving enterprise value benefits everybody as opposed to differing outcomes depending on what's security you want. But Jason, let me ask the question why I would care in that situation, hasn't it? Yeah, why do you why? Because every VC at every level from pre -seed to crossover has a bias, right?
16:50Every bit of advice from all, including all four of us. So I just want to penetrate the bias. So anyway, I would care in the situation you said, right? because the $50 billion AR company is growing 80 % and you're raising a hair and iron feeling pretty good. You're pretty good. But the odds are that you're not going public. The 75 % probabilities you're not going public. And if you end up with a structure that says the structure only converts at 2 billion when Cisco comes along or IBM comes along or name a whoever or strategic you want comes along and says, hey, here's a billion for the company and that's by the way 17 times trailing revenue.
17:25And the founders are sitting there's going, I'm not going to do that deal because I got away from my 2x conversion because that's the only reason I took that money We're not totally misaligned. I will could have been a good exit for me and you but you only want to happen if deal So I've been in that exact situation. Yeah, so I like alignment now when I'm not saying these two things One I'm not saying that we don't have any companies that have it and be I'm not telling you that we've never done a deal that has it But the deal that I've done that it has it almost always preferred in the end that I didn't have because The structure ends up trying to bridge evaluation gap at the end of the day.
17:57My view is that rather just I don't get to a deal that I'm comfortable with or not. And if somebody else is willing to do it with structure, I'd probably rather just let that other person do the deal. Well, that might be the inside right there, right? You'd rather let someone else do the deal. Because of the conflict. I want Jason, when that pin comes in from Mr. Tungic, you and I think you've added exactly the same way, not differently. Can I honestly, we said about a really serious assessing evaluations and incentive alignments. If we did that across portfolios, Benchren vs. would be resetting in some cases 50 % down or marking down portfolios really across the board 50 % to 60 % in some cases if we want to be direct.
18:34That's not in their interest often, with LPs who they want to go and fundraise from in the next quarter or two quarters or three quarters, and we've seen delays in VCs marking down their books. Is there an incentive misalignment in the resetting of valuations in that respect? Yeah, that is an issue. And if you talk to LPs, there are many of them that are waiting. And all that shoes dropped. And, you know, it's not a perfect world in terms of you can have many different investors in that same company, you know, holding a particular security or a particular company at different prices. It's definitely an issue.
19:07But fundamentally, you want everybody to try to get to the point of this is a fair price because the decision issues that Devon talked about, until you're all on the same side of the table. Some might be fighting for something that is not the right optimal outcome, but it's the right thing for them in the short term. And that's a bad thing over the long term. So LPs are trying to get smarter. If your firm is big as minor as devins, there's a very sophisticated process that gets reviewed by auditors, which is a little different than with a lot of the early stage guys. So it's hard for us to play around with valuation and I just think that needs to flow through to you know Everybody in that investor community or you have all of these different opinions that have different motivations You know given their valuation discrepancies.
19:56Can I ask Jason's hypothetical example mentioned? You know the 50 million error company. There's a large group of SAS companies that 100 million even 200 million error with decent and ash growth will be activity pick up here. And what happens to that? I think you're gonna see, and we've done a bunch of these deals, others will have done some of these deals. Those are gonna be companies that they're not all perfect public candidates, but some of them are not necessarily perfect strategic candidates either. Meaning there's not a logical strategic who wants to own the asset for whatever set of reasons.
20:26And I think you're gonna see those firms can get bought by sponsors or firms like us. I think there will be a market for those types of assets. And I think the challenge is going to be, in my view, is those assets that are not growing that fast. And the lower left quadrant is crappy growth high burn. Like if you got crappy growth high burn, like, don't need to email. Yeah, I would really request you send your pits to Woody. I'm teasing, but I think that the companies that have, just like you're seeing the public markets, which you're seeing the public markets. So if you go back to 2020, The correlation to revenue multiple in the public markets was something like 72 % was correlated to revenue growth today It's in the mid 30s.
21:07What's the spread? Well path to profitability or free cash flow and everyone's reset Now I don't it's not like Woody has to show up at the board meeting and tell his CEO Yeah, he really should be more profitable if you want to go public because all you do or she has to do is look at the public Combs and look at what the research says there's gonna be absolutely a market area for companies of good revenue scale that have got reasonable growth that can kind of build a rule of 40 company. Are you guys modeling that this efficient market would that correlation for revenue versus profitability? Are you modeling that's going to be true in 2025, 2025, 2026?
21:41My gut is that historically that's been a minority of years in tech, right? Most years we've been valued out and you guys don't have to think 20 years out. Do you want to value it the way it is today or where your gut is it's going to be in 2024, 25, 20, so... But when we did deals in 2021, I'm talking now about revenue growths, driven deals, right? As opposed to buyouts or eat more EBITDA, driven, we do both. We were assuming on average 50 % multiple contraction. Now at the trough, they contracted even more than 50 % and now they kind of come back to close to 50%. If you look at long -term software multiples, like over 15 years, today's multiples are lower than like the 15 year median but not by 40%.
22:24No, maybe 2015, 20%. Maybe 15 or 20%. I actually think there's upside, personal opinion, but I think there's upside from today's revenue multiples, but I certainly wouldn't think that we're going back to 21's multiples either. That's a different environment. I also think over time, as businesses grow and they may slow, and there's the rule of 40, these are these rules of thought. I was talking to some capital markets folks recently that were talking about two years ago if you had talked to the public market and you asked them what would the combination of revenue growth plus EBITDA margin is your rule of analysis and what was if you wanted to get to rule a 40 that's special company what was the characterization?
23:05what was it the component parts and it used to be 16 to 70 % growth with the negative 20 to negative 30 % EBITDA today depending on who you talk to it's like 30 and 10 20 and 20 they want to see both and I think at least devins on a percent right. When you're in the growth world, the multiples that you enter and are very different than the multiples that you underwrite your accident on. And that's just the nature of the acceleration of the businesses they scale. The other thing is revenue multiple may be an output, but it's not the metric. The metric might be, here's your EBITDA multiple. Take a look over time things will start to trade at EBITDA.
23:42Or they'll trade at maybe its gross profit for a little bit. Then it goes to EBITDA. And over time it's going to get to net income. At the end of the day, like, Like, you know, we were Facebook investors when it was private, and the thing was growing like a weed, by the way, it was very profitable, but read every Facebook report that comes out. We talked about revenue. Some people may talk about EBITDA, but it's net income. That's the evolution of these businesses, and I think you have to figure out in your whole period, five years. Where are you? Are you 20 % revenue growth business? Are you still 50?
24:10Wherever you are? Because that's, I think, a little bit of whether you're going to be on the valuation continuum, It's best you with the metric that is most relevant to you know, at age two when I was in high school I remember going up to an Ivy League missions officer my junior of high school and saying hey I might better off taking in honors class and getting a B or a regular class and getting an A and they looked at me and said Well, if you want to come to our school, you got to take honors class and get an A. It's not a choice It's not a joy though. I think many founders and others are confused about some of the messaging around efficiency today, right?
Read the full transcript
24:40And will you guys because there are macro impacts still we're not over these macro impacts Will you take a lower growth rate with an azois and daggern assume it will reaccelerate if we have a very efficient model, right? Will you settle for a slightly lower growth rate today than maybe two or three years ago because of macros or is there no credit for is it the Harvard AP biologist? Jason, I think the problem is it I think it's kind of very important to generalize the answer, right? Because take a consumer growth company, right? I think there's lots of examples and TCV as examples and I'm sure we have examples where or he did a consumer of growth company whose growth rate was really just driven by a payback theory that just didn't make any sense.
25:17And if you say, okay, I'm gonna change by payback theory, I'm making up numbers from 24 months to 18 months or 12 months based on kind of the gross margin and what my add costs are. That growth goes slow down, it might not re -accelerate, you were just acquiring customers that were not gonna long -term be profitable. Now that's one example. Another example might be kind of an enterprise software company whose customer acquisition costs got really expensive because they bought too many seats during COVID. and they overbought. But the fundamental macro of that market for the next 10 years is great.
25:45They just got an overbought period. So you cut some of the expense, but that business will probably re -accelerate once they get over the hump. So I think the problem is people always want like the easy here's the one rule and just follow this rule. How it depends on your business model depends on kind of what's changing about your income statement, what effect did your growth rate? I mean, I guess if it was an easy rule, none of us would be making much money doing this. It is a little bit dependent and on the business. It's a good question, Jason, but I think you spend a lot of time on product, understanding where the product is, understanding how the customers are excited about the product.
26:17David mentioned one of the things that you certainly have seen, which is folks overbought. So understanding what the core value of a product is, what should the pacing of a customer relationship look like, all of the metrics of gross retention and net retention, which are really important. But if you think about one of the things that drives net retention, obviously besides gross attention, that never attention is what are some of the other products and features that you can add to the customer. And to me, the thing that we spend time on is if you are really embedded in a customer. And by the way, this is whether you're talking about a consumer or whether you're talking about a small business or an enterprise.
26:52Are you valued enough because of what you provide? You're in a really strategic position. So as you build more functionality, you have a right to win that for someone else. And the magical companies are the ones that when you're three years into your home or more, the opportunities that you're talking about are product initiatives that won't even be discussed when you made the investment. And that's companies that are really, really focused on innovation and iteration. There is no math problem that can do that. This is to Devon's point that like, that's the thing that you really have to understand.
27:21What is the opportunity? What are the problems that the end customer has? What are the solutions? And why is the company that you're getting excited about? Why can they take advantage of that opportunity over the long term? And some of it may be a numbers issue, but the inputs that are most important are tell me how good the product is and how it can be extensible over time, you know, given your position with the customer. We've spoken about revenue multiples quite a lot. I do have to ask Jason that said to me before about how he, bunny believes in the broken nature of kind of a stas venture investing.
27:50And I'm probably butchering this Jason. So do correct me if I'm wrong. But if we assume that, you know, 6XARR is kind of the trading price for public sas companies days, chasing thought that maybe is that really high enough to sustain a true growth market? How do we feel about that if six X's is the new normal and not just an adverse time? Look, I think Cliveo is trading at eight times forward, growing at 50 % with, I think, profitable. Shopify concentration, maybe that's an offset. But look, if 50 % growth with great economics or eight times forward, there's a lot of companies that have less good economics.
28:25What I would say this, the least active part of the growth stage market is late stage growth. And I'm defining late stage growth as what you speak all pre -IPO. You know, however you want to define it, right? I'm going public within a year. But I think frankly, it's the least clear of how you underwrite your return. Because those companies are looking for valuations that is some cases are north of the public cops. It's very different when you're investing in a $20 .000 revenue company or $15 .000 revenue company. You're making a different bet. You're making a bet that's four or five years out.
28:55And your revenue multiple assumption is more based on how fast can you kind of grow over that period of time. Totally different for what the parry you do and what Jason does, like that doesn't really matter in my view where all that is trading. So I think the market that's the most stuck right now is that late stage growth and is probably where you see the least amount of deals in now. It's data bricks would be the one exception of a big late stage deal that's gotten done. Okay, so it says the least activity there, Devon, I'm improving a bat to Jason here So I've got a lot of money on the table.
29:25This is the least active area is that late stage growth Does that not mean that we're gonna see a further delayed IPO window opening Jason things age to 2024? I'm saying with the as you said kind of frozen nature of late stage growth. It's gonna be age to 24 No, I've cool nose. Let me start by saying since the chairman of the said can't predict the economy me, I'm certainly not going to try. But I'm probably a little bit more optimistic. I'm probably closer to Jason. Back half of 24. I don't think the activity in the late stage market is necessarily a driver. You pointed out correctly earlier that there's tons of software companies with a hundred or 200 million dollars of revenue.
30:04Some subset of those are potential public companies. And there's no need for them to do a late state round to go public. It used to be that people would do these rounds just to kind of get a third -party validation of value. Let's take Instacart as an example. What would have been the value for them to do a late stage round before they went public just so that they could tell their employees, yes, let's definitively tell you the worth less than our last round. Now, the public market became the late stage round. And so I think that that's really what you're going to see. I think you're going to see companies that have a good economic model, that have the predictability, that the public market's crave, that have got the balance between revenue and path to profitability or profitability, and the public market's going to determine what they are willing to pay for that.
30:44And over a three to five year period, they'll trade based on the underlying economic value that they can drive Which is kind of the way markets should work So I don't really see a relationship between a slowdown in the late stage market and the IPO market I think they're kind of right now disconnected Yeah, I'd look at it as that's gonna be up to the companies Do you want to bet on yourself? If you look at the three IPOs that happened, I believe they all sold less than 10 % right? So that's a small percentage what they were doing was you know, we referred to it as putting the puck on the ice The only thing that's going to determine ultimate valuation is your execution.
31:16Press loves to write about IPnode price compared to last price and everything. It doesn't matter. It literally doesn't matter. And by the way, it matters less when you sell 6 or 8 % of your company or something else. Put the ball in play. You can give your shareholders, if you know, or shareholders need to get some liquidity great. Put the ball in play. Reasonable price. Over time, the long -term public managers will find the best position businesses will build positions over time, I think it's only goodness. And you're betting on yourself in the sense of you're like, I can grow my business at 20 % you know a year for the next five years or maybe my profits will grow faster and you know that's one of the things that the markets are interested in and there's benefits for me being public maybe I want to do some M &A it provides liquidity for shareholders and you know and employees.
32:04So to me I actually think the markets are open but But you have to rip the bandaid off and not be wed to, oh, but in 2021 I was valued at X. It doesn't matter. If you're a public company today, that's in the rearview mirror. The public companies that do that same analysis, rip the bandaid off, they can go public if they want you today. Can I ask a related question, just to you guys, neither of you did the last round. I mean, I'm a super fan of Klavio for many years, right? Neither of you did the last round, right? We're not in it. We're not in it. So the last round I think was at nine and a half billion.
32:33I didn't look up the S1, but let's assume it's trading slightly down for purposes. behind the scenes at the late stage investors. What are they talking about? Have they already adjusted it? Is there stress around it being slightly down? Just tell us, because I just don't have that visibility about what those conversations happen behind closed doors at the late stage. There shouldn't be. I mean, it's not a surprise. Like, I can already look up with markets since the Q4 of 2021. Yeah, what I'd say Jason is that I think, I push it off the top of my head. I don't remember who the late stage investors are in Clivea, but let me make a slightly different point.
33:04but I think Summit did the one before and bought like 40%. So I think they did. Summit made like seven times their money. So they're just fine. But we have like say two companies right now that I know of that are looking at doing kind of a late stage round sometime at the end of this year. But here's why they're looking at doing it. They're looking at doing it because in both cases, companies have executed unbelievably over a very long period of time. They have a very clear path to real margins. neither management team has really ever taken any meaningful liquidity at all over a very long period of time.
33:37And they're kind of looking to do around to provide some liquidity, Pringy and IPO, because I think we're also in a market where investors or management teams selling it to an IPO is a challenge. Right? It's not what people want to see. And I think that the most likely investors that are already talking to them are the same people who are going to buy stock if the companies go public in the public market, some of the mutual funds is an example. And why is that? Well, these offerings are getting very small. So if you are a growth manager, you actually need growth product over time, right? Like you're not a value manager, you're a growth manager.
34:10We need to find growth stocks to buy. And once they're so little inventory and the amount they're selling is so small. And the size of the fidelity or vanguard of Wellington fund is so big, their ability to buy a position in the public market is actually not that they can't get much allocation. These actually even become ways for them to build a position in a company they want to probably hold for five or ten years. Now that might be separate from a hedge fund that might want to flip it in a week. That's probably not who you want in your late stage round either. Again, I don't know the specific answer on Claday out because I don't know who it is.
34:44But I think the people who are looking at these right now are looking at these in a rational way. They're not expecting to make a massive return to IPO. They're kind of building a position in a company that they're probably going to stick with. If you did the Insta Cart round at 38 or 39, whatever it was, right? What happens behind the scenes? If you already marked it down so long ago that no one cares, do you just fire the partner that went on the deal? I mean, you think I'm kidding, but in my limited experience adventure, I've seen folks kind of get shown the door on deals, right? What happens behind, I mean, it's a wildly successful company Insta Cart, right?
35:17Yeah, no, look, thanks to the guy who said, either, what are you right or not, or one of the deals you're talking about? But what do you think? What happens in those partner meetings? and Harry or Jason did the deal. Harry and Jason together, we split the deal. We're in a risk business. If all of a sudden you start smacking people on the hand, if they make a mistake in a risk business, what are you gonna end up with? You're gonna end up with a risk of risk set up of investors and your next fund is gonna be like a 1 .6x. That's not exciting. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, obviously somebody, I guess, did it 20 times like at some point, but I think that I don't.
35:49I don't think anybody's gonna escape 21 without having made mistakes. Right? I don't sure if they didn't. Right? After no matter who they are, no matter what their reputation was, no matter where they are on the minus list or some other list, you know, they've made mistakes. What he's made of, I've made them. But I would tell you that the one is that we've made in 21, a lot of them are marked down substantially. So if they did a follow -on round or they went public, it's not gonna be a surprise. It's all been internalized at this point, right? Yeah, but this is the point, Jason. It should have been.
36:16And yes, there are people that may be living in the past saying, well, you know, gubbing still doing well. I will be changed that the multiples just will get up on with markets. So anybody that has a methodical valuation process, things are marked to market or as much to market as you know the prime can be. I had dinner last night with a manager who manages close to a trillion dollars, one of the largest asset managers in the world and he said, I look to the three IPOs Harry and you won't get it young, young one, but this is not good. These were not good I'm not optimistic when I think about this is the opening that are of that basically was at the concert.
36:52They're all flat. There were no big buyers in the books. No one was stepping up going, oh I'm excited. I want to buy 10 % it was widely distributed amongst the institutional buyers and then performance post has been lackluster. Do you think that's fair and do you share that? I don't. I think this is the same when you have small offerings things like that. Small changes in volume can have massive impacts. What's happened since all those guys went public? You had the Fed comments 10 years now over 4 .5%. I think a lot of it's macro. I guarantee you, and I'm not a trader anything, but I guarantee you that the short interest is probably off the charts on every one of those.
37:31So I wouldn't say at all that the stock performance is indicative of the underlying companies, but as much about trading volumes and how certain people are approaching them, those opportunities, small float, you're going to have lock up releases in the future. We'll short against those distributions in the future. So I understand the comment, you know, we have to start somewhere and I personally think, let's see how the company's report. I would expect that the companies will have been thoughtful about this and they will, you know, continue to report solid numbers. But the fundamentals again is valuation is only determined by your performance and going public in a market like this you're betting on yourself so yeah be great when there's more volume and more liquidity but I don't look at this as a failure again you may not have as many people that are lining up to do this because everybody thought maybe these all the stocks would shoot up by 40 % and then there'd be a blind out the door it's just gonna be a little bit harder and I think the macro is at the consideration yeah I also say how you look I look you can wake up in the warning and decide the glasses have empty or you can decide the glasses have full.
38:37We went over a year without any tech IPO. We went about a year without any kind of meaningful, large strategic M &A. And we went through 12 months where every infrastructure software company was talking about cloud optimization which was driving down their volumes. If you look at the last quarter, that's kind of bottom to start moving in the right direction. Cisco just bought Splunk. You had three companies go public at real scale, which are real business models. companies that don't have business models. These are companies that are profitable, good companies. Maybe it's the car's out there yet, but it's on the path to getting there.
39:09And so look, I look up and say that to me is a glass half full. But if somebody wants to wake up and say it's a glass half of them, do that's their broad angle. But I actually look at it much more like what he is. My question to the group is this, for the sake of the larger, this is the flip side of the Bill Gurley point about direct listings and efficient pricing. What if Clevio had decided to, I'm just looking today, Clevio is at 36, okay? I think going to Devonsport there's nothing to knock Clayview other than the Shopify dependency. Okay, maybe a few other things. It doesn't get much better folks than 600 million growing 60 % profitable with almost 120 % NRO from SMBs.
39:45I mean, you can't find a better company, but I think it was price to perfection the round or price to optimization. Should it have IPO to 25? A company leaves a bunch of money on the table or takes some delusion, not cool, but the market's restarted, right? Should Did you take one for the team as the question? Because if everyone made 40 % on Clavio, would people be rushing for another 30 or 40 SaaS IPOs? Maybe, but you made the right point. Because if it had that happened, we would have five articles about the billions of dollars that were left on the table by Clavio Cheryl. Cheryl, there would be four editorials about the IPO market scam, right?
40:18So, like, would it be better as growth investors, would it be better for you guys? Because would it help the rest of your portfolio sort of create liquidity in the market? What, right? Other companies leave money out of the table and have great aftermarket performance. I'm not complaining if that's your question. Sure, that creates more sizzle and institutional investors, mutual funds and other drawer buyers are sitting on a portfolio that's up, which gives them more confidence to buy the next issue. But at the same time, you have to expect the companies are going to try to be reasonable about their pricing.
40:49But I also think don't underestimate Woody's point. There's a lot of macro uncertainty. even over the weeks that these deals were getting done. In a different world, that level of macro uncertainty, these deals weren't of gun done at all. For sure. Yeah. You're gonna go public? It's gonna be volatile, but I'll still stick to my point, which is ignore the noise, focus on your business. The only thing that's gonna determine your ultimate valuation is how you perform. You put the puck on the ice, you're gonna start being able to, you know, to public market wants. Oh, here's the new CEO. Let's see how he does against his guidance.
41:21Like, does he understand his business this is a communicated well, start the process. What do you say ignore the noise? One thing I do have to ask is, lady stage market is pretty frothy for AI deals. How do you think about the lady stage frothy market for AI deals? Haha. Haha. If you step back, this is a remarkably fundamental trend that's going to have significant impacts. We have not made any specific investments, although I would say 100 % of our companies are leveraging AI in lots of different ways, whether it's, you know, I attached the end customer or how you make some of your processes more efficient.
41:57This is the positives and negatives of the business that we're in. We can say it's a frothy market and this is crazy. People are going to lose their money. They're going to boot some of the bets that are made today that will all look back on and say, God, we shouldn't know that. It was, AI was, you know, at the beginning, why didn't we put out of money in there? We could have made, you know, X return. That is the nature that's not an area that we have made any direct investments in. But a good reminder, the reason that people get excited about technology is it can have remarkably fundamental impacts on consumers and businesses alike.
42:27Devon, how do you think about it? We have the active in AI, but I wrote, so if you look at fun 12 or most recent fun, like I think about 7 or 8 % of it is invested in AI companies. Ironically, almost zero of it was invested in 2023. Almost all of it was invested in 2021 in more AI infrastructure companies as opposed to the LLMs. and it might be the one category where pricing in 21 was better than the pricing in 23. I'm glad the only category to that. It's a good quote. So I think that, and like Woody, all of it, every portfolio company is implementing it within their portfolio. Look, we think right now in 23, the valuation were in a hype cycle and the evaluations are way ahead of where companies are.
43:07You're seeing companies who've raised money as recently as six or nine months ago who are already being impacted by something developed six months later. So while we're spending a ton of time on it and we're getting smart on the space we're being cautious this year Just given we're evaluations. Can I ask a real life example? But I literally had a board meeting this week Here's a question about efficiency today SAS startup SMB over 100 % NRR from SMB so pretty good 50 50 zero 50 million NR 50 % growth no burn okay, but not 100 % growth not 90 is that growth? Fundable what's it worth can you give us?
43:41I know you don't want to but can you tell us is it fundable for growth? Yes. And what's the most it would be worth if it's not AI? What's a 5050 zero worth in today's world? Certainly probably worth the club A .O .B .L. Right? That's an interesting insight. Yeah. And so certainly worth the club A .O .B .L. If you have those net retention characteristics in a big tam, like, you know, there's a lot of ifs, which I don't know the answers to, what I would say is that deals will get done at even north of that multiple for a high -quality company that has a lot of runway in a big market, because I don't think investors are gonna assume that everything's gonna trade for six -time revenue until the end of time.
44:15Now, I don't think people are gonna also assume they're gonna trade at 17 -time revenue. Any... You have to have some rationality to what you can assume from an exit standpoint. But at some point, the real question, Jason, is how long is this 50 % growth compounding for? Because my guess is that, but in year five, is it compounding at 50 or is it compounding at 20? If it's compounding at 20, then maybe eight's not a crazy multiple. If it's compounding at 50, it's really undervalued. I don't know the answer, I haven't studied. For good, a good answer. Okay, we're gonna do a bat, me and Jason love a bat.
44:44And now we, there's a Jason there. If you have a bat suggestion, then I'm happy to take it. The two that I'm kind of interested in is like, over and under, and we can choose the company on arm or clavio. None of us are investors then, Annie, so we get. If you know, he's a question, which one I don't know, oh, that one clavio. No, the question is clavio in a year, will it be over 15 billion market cap or under? Well, let's do stock prices because market cap can be there's like ADA calculations for market caps aren't there But it's 36 today so you're asking will it be plus 50 % in a year? Is that the bet?
45:16Yeah, that's it So it's gonna be what is that? The question to me is what should be the underlying return in growth? That's really the question the companies public in theory their growth rate unless the market really inefficiently priced them she's got a compounded kind of where the market compounds and I don't have a differentiate knowledge to say it should compound lesser or more, but I'm probably not going into any company assuming that I have a 50 % IRR. Like I would have to really know something specific that would make me feel like there's something I know the market doesn't know that would make me have a conviction that something was gonna have a 50 % IRR.
45:51I don't know anything, that doesn't mean it won't, but since I don't know anything, I'm gonna assume that it won't have a 50 % return because I'm not gonna assume the public market is gonna have a 50 % return. Woody, the only thing that I would think about it is, If the company's execute, I think there's probably more upside in some of the multiples than downside. I don't necessarily look at some of the multiples in, you know, certainly with some of the newly public guys. I don't think they're remarkably overheated. Okay, here's my bet. I'll let me simplify. Maybe they're on e -takers. All bet 10 grand, anyone that takes it.
46:20The clavio 12 months from when this episode goes out or today, whatever it says, trades at 20 % or higher from where it is today. All bet 10 grand, it's 20 % or higher. I'm going to take Devon's point about Matt. I can't figure out everything I wouldn't bet against that you won't take that bet 10 grand I wouldn't bet against that either. I bet 10 grand would always trade 40 percent 40 pro Oh, you're pretty bowling my investment committee on personal we're on the same side of this bed is the problem Not my investment committee on personal vets is my wife and she would not allow when you take any Suspension thousand dollar bed so I'm not gonna take a bet But you know, I'm certainly comfortable with 20 % assumption not 40.
46:56I don't think okay. We're all betting Who's gonna pay the other side? We're all betting, we're all betting, we're all betting, Clayvios is gonna be 20 % or higher. We're all hoping, we're all optimistic, 20 % or higher in 12 months, right? Okay, that means we're one more out of that. Where's that? It's $877 billion now. I have that. No, I do not follow that market. It's not even growing, is it? Is an arm shrinking? The only thing is that you have one thing, which is you have a massive shortage of chips, generally. And there's massive demand because of what's going on in AI. I'd arve it everybody else or trying to come up with some way to position their chips for that market.
47:28I remember all these things. It may not be fundamentals. They trade off those. It may be the fact that very little liquidities out there. And if people are trying to get liquid that have been long term investors, arm is very closely held. That could impact, you know, the stock price more than anything else. What can I say? I tried. I'm glad we're all on the same side of Clavio. Devon, I'm glad that your wife rules the rules. Yes. Guys, I've loved doing this. Thank you so much for being so accommodating. and it's been fantastic. Oh my god, I just love doing the round tables. They are so much fun, Stu.
48:02I want to hear your thoughts. Let me know on Twitter at Harry's, Debbings, and you can check out the full video on YouTube by searching for 20 VEC. But before we leave you today, we have to talk about Canva. Canva is on a mission to empower the world to design. That is why they've introduced Magic Studio. Magic Studio brings together the best AI -powered tools for you and your team to help you redefine the way you design. Magic design creates custom designs for you in seconds. Just provided text prompt or upload your media and magic design cross professional social posts, presentations and even videos.
48:37And something that I am particularly really love is Magic Edit. It lets you add to replace or edit your images with a single text prompt. It's incredible. Simply select where you want to see the change, write your prompt and watch as your image transforms. With Canva, you can realise your ideas with ease, start in -spired with over 500 ,000 free templates and a rich content library to help you and your team achieve their goals, explore Magic Studio at Canva .com, forward slash magic, and it's been a great experience. Getting started was maybe one of the most delightful onboarding experiences I've had.
49:18Mercury is just so easy to use. The aesthetic of it is actually quite relaxing. For me it was less a choice and more finding a kindred spirit. Imagine feeling this way about business banking. You could if you joined more than 100 ,000 startups on Mercury, the powerful and intuitive way, ambitious companies to bank. bank. Start building momentum and leave the friction behind by visiting mercury .com -420VC. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group and Evolve Bank and Trust, members of FDIC. And to be here incredible products like Mercury there, travel in these banks and never associated with cost savings, but now you can reduce costs up to 30 % and actually reward your employees.
50:07How? Well, the van One rewards your employees with personal travel credit every time they save their company money when booking business travel under company policy. Does that sound too good to be true? Or Navan is so confident you'll move to their game changing all in one travel corporate card and it spends super app that they'll give you $250 in personal travel credit just for taking a quick demo. Check them out now at navan .com forward slash 20VC. As always I so appreciate all your support and stay tuned for an incredible episode this coming Friday with Eli Learner on 20 Gross.
From the publisher
Deven Parekh is a Managing Director at Insight Partners, one of the leading investing franchises of the last 25 years. Deven has made more than 90 investments since joining in 2000 including in the likes of Twitter, Alibaba, JD.com, Chargebee and Automattic (WordPress) to name a few.
Woody Marshall is a General Partner @ TCV, one of the most successful growth funds of the last decade with a portfolio including the likes of Facebook, AirBnB, Spotify, LinkedIn and many more incredible companies.
Jason Lemkin is the Founder @ SaaStr one of the best-performing early-stage venture funds focused on SaaS. In the past, Jason has led investments in Algolia, Pipedrive, Salesloft, TalkDesk, and RevenueCat to name a few.
In Today's Episode We Discuss:
1. The Growth Landscape Overview:
- Is growth dead? Are any growth deals getting done?
- How has the price changed for growth deals that are getting done?
- Which type of growth companies will vs will not be able to raise?
- What happens to all of the growth companies with $300-$500M in cash but little revenue?
2. The Great Reset: Valuations Need to Change:
- Why should companies be actively resetting their valuations? What are the benefits?
- What will happen between VCs and LPs when there is no incentive for VCs to reset their portfolio valuations when they need to go out and raise from those same LPs?
- Structure is often part of these valuation resets, is structure to rounds always bad? When is it good? What type of structure is acceptable vs unacceptable?
3. Are the Public Markets Creeping Open:
- Should we take comfort from ARM, Instacart and Klaviyo and assume the public markets are going to open again? If not, what will cause them to open?
- How should we analyze the performance of the IPOs above? Many have been negative, are they right to suggest this is not the response we wanted?
- Why does Woody believe, like Instacart taking a 75% discount to their last round, we should have more and more companies go public at discounts to their last private round?
4. Late Stage Growth is Dead and Revenue Multiples:
- Why is late-stage growth dead? How long do we think this will last?
- How should we assess revenue multiples today? New normal? Same as always? How will revenue multiples look in 12 months from now?
- How should we analyse the large late stage growth rounds for hyped AI companies? What happens there?




