Atlantic Canadian Founders Deserve Better Than FAN (First Angel Network)

CC-BY-NC-ND-20 Photo by Stephen Poff
AttributionNoncommercialNo Derivative Works Some rights reserved by Stephen Poff

Recently, I have had the pleasure of travelling to the East Coast and working with founders. I have seen the amazing companies and the founders across the region. Moncton, Halifax, Saint John, St. John’s and Charlottetown (among the varied cities). There are amazing companies like LeadSift (disclosure: I work for OMERS Ventures who is an investor in LeadSift), GoInstant, Verafin, Clarity.fm, Lymbix (disclosure: I sit on the Board of Directors), Introhive, InNetwork, Compilr and others.

The region is bristling with great founders, great ideas and a lot of untapped talent. It also holds some amazing secrets like Toon Nagtegaal (LinkedIn) who runs a (also ACOA funded) program for startups that I have been lucky enough to be invited to co-teach (disclosure: this is a paid consulting gig). There are amazing people and companies across the Atlantic Region. It’s only a matter of time until there is another HUGE exit.

However, the region also is a small community that has it’s own culture and politics. Those small town politics have allowed nepotism and crony capitalism to seep in and it has allowed terrible deal structures to be put upon unsuspecting founders and companies. This pisses me off!

When we started StartupNorth we promised ourselves we would always stick up for founders and startups when it mattered. We continue to  support, educate and connect startups and founders with other founders, with capital, with new ideas and educational resources. We need to identify the BULLSHIT that is being allow to pass in Atlantic Canada as supporting entrepreneurs so that the amazing investors that are there don’t have to compete with a backwards and ill-conceived entity.

First Angel Netowrk

Who? I’m talking about First Angel Network (FAN). Why? Here is an example of the full deal they present to entrepreneurs:

  1. Startups apply to pitch the non-profit FAN which is funded and supported by ACOA and others.
    • Most of this funding goes to pay salaries as well as to cover travel expenses.
  2. If a startup is selected to pitch FAN, the startup must agree to pay $3000 to the non-profit  FAN.
  3. Startups MUST also sign a “Consulting Agreement” with a for-profit consulting company owned by Ross Finlay and Brian Lowe.
    • You can NOT pitch the non-profit UNLESS you sign the consulting agreement with the for-profit company.
  4. Startups then pitch the non-profit and if successful get a deal done
  5. If a deal is done, the consulting agreement gives the for-profit shell company and FAN organizers 8% of the total proceeds of the transaction
    • 4% in stock directly to Ross Finlay and Brian Lowe (not the consulting company, directly to the individuals)
    • 4% in cash to the consulting company

This is so wrong! On so many different levels. This is worse than pay to pitch.

Crony Capitalism

The thing that pisses me off the most is that the most nefarious part of the process, the consulting company and payouts to individuals, is not listed on the FAN Funding Process page. We have individuals who collect a salary that is partially (if not completely) funded by a government agency (ACOA). First Angel Network Association received at least $1,123,411.00 in funding between 2006-2011 (nothing reported for 2012). That is an average of $224,682.20/year in funding, and that is just what we could source publicly.

Getting paid by a government agency to source your own deals. Seriously, if you thought management fees were high, what about tax dollars going towards salaries of investors. They are using federal funding to source their own deals and cover expenses and salaries. Something is wrong here. Then they charge entrepreneurs for the privilege of their investment. Which someone already paid them to source. The cost of this capital is incredibly expensive to entrepreneurs taking this investment and to the region.

Atlantic Canadian entrepreneurs and startups deserve better than this.

Do Not Pay to Pitch

Startups should not pay angels or angel networks to pitch. Jason Calacanis wrote the definitive piece on why startups should not pay angel investors to pitch.

“It’s low-class, inappropriate and predatory for a rich person to ask an entrepreneur to PAY THEM for 15 minutes of their time. Seriously, what is the cost to the party hearing the pitch? If you answered “nothing” or “the cost of two cups of coffee” you win the prize!”

Jason eloquently describes why this doesn’t work. It is a imbalance between cash poor startups and rich investors. The imbalance is made worst by. We have been running Founders & Funder$ events. There is no imbalance. Everyone pays the same. Founders. Funders. We try to curate the audience to ensure that only founders actively raising money attend. We also invite a limited number of funders that are actively doing deals (criteria change based on angel investor versus institutional investors). We want everyone to be on equal footing.

And there are a lot of startups and founders that will argue that Jonas, Jevon and I have strong track records (well at least Jonas & Jevon do) and even stronger networks:

“Now, before you go saying “Jason is connected and he has access to angels” remember that I hustled my way into this industry from nothing. I networked at free conferences and figured out a way to get on the radar of uber-angels like Ted Leonsis, Fred Wilson and Mark Cuban. They paid attention to me because I had good ideas. If my ideas had sucked, they would have ignored me. Period.”

Our goal has been to help connect and educate founders and startups. We continue to believe that it is not government agencies, or venture capitalists, or angel networks that will build the next generation of successful Canadian companies. It is the founders and the employees of these startups. It’s the big ideas and the big execution that result from the efforts of dedicated people. They are the ones who deserve a great deal, not some middle man.

What can you do?

  1. Do not pay to pitch. Avoid groups like First Angel Network like the plague.
  2. Tell the people who fund FAN and other angel groups who have a pay to pitch model that you believe they should cut off funding.
  3. If you know an angel investor within an angel networks that make you pay to pitch like FAN, tell them what a bad deal they are getting and offer to connect them to great founders.
  4. Help fellow entrepreneurs by making introductions to qualified angels directly
  5. Explain to your peers that an investment by networks which make you pay to pitch, such as FAN, can only be considered as a means of last resort, and taking this money will affect your future funding opportunities negatively.
  6. List your startup on AngelList, our StartupIndex, Techvibes index and other places to get exposure FOR FREE to great investors

Atlantic Canada is generating some of the highest returns in the country right now for angel investors. The community is small but very focused on big outcomes and it is really showing. I think it’s time to cut ties with this old model and to start giving the founders in Atlantic Canada a deal worth taking.

The Changing Landscape of Venture Capital

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Kevin Swan (LinkedIn@kevin_swan). Kevin has cut his chops doing product management at Nexopia.com before becoming it’s CEO. He moved to the dark side with Cardinal Venture Partners and is now a Principal at iNovia Capital.   Thankfully he is an MBA dropout and that’s why we like him. Follow him on Twitter @kevin_swan or OnceABeekeeper.com. This post was originally published on November 4, 2011 on OnceABeekeeper.com.

CC-BY-NC-ND Some rights reserved by DanMaudsley
AttributionNoncommercialNo Derivative Works Some rights reserved by DanMaudsley

There has been a lot of discussion recently on the changing landscape of venture funding and what it is leading to. I thought that it would be worth digging into this a bit and, as most of the discussion and data is from the United States, put a Canadian spin on it as well.

There are two driving factors that are shaping the current startup landscape – the extremely low barriers and costs to start a tech company and the availability of seed or angel funding. Now, I am the last one to think that there should be any barriers to starting a company, but you need to make sure you are not just starting a company because you can. You need to know what you are getting into and, if you plan to raise any capital, know what is lying ahead.

The number of new startups we are seeing has been increasing at an alarming rate over the past couple of years across North America. Did you see Paul Graham’s recent tweet that Y Combinator was receiving an application a minute? All that starting a legitimate company takes these days is a couple of smart people with computers. Getting to the next stage is a different story though.

The seed and angel funding market has exploded with many new “super angels” as well as emerging seed funds entering the space. It was joked that a Google engineer could quit, walk onto the street and get a $500K angel investment to start a company. This is not far from the truth as anyone in the upper echelons of web development and design talent has a good chance of getting seed money these days.

Capital raised and invested by venture firms.So, what is starting to happen to all these companies? Well, like most startups, they need more money. Some need money to fuel massive growth – these rounds have turned into highly competitive financings and are attracting crazy valuations. However, most (~99%) are going to run out of money while showing some progress, but not enough to have VCs scrambling to write checks. To make matters even more challenging, VC fundraising continues to drop to levels not seen since before the dotcom boom. This scenario is even more alarming in Canada.

Despite all these changes one thing still remains – it costs a lot of money to scale a company. Sure getting started is cheap, and that is great, but you are eventually going to need money to build a big business. If you are really fortunate you will be able to do this through sales, but few have that opportunity. The result is a large demand of startups needing Series A and bridge funding and a smaller supply of available funds. Many believe that this is a healthier environment as the returns of venture capital since the dotcom boom have been less than desirable as the industry became bloated. It is important to know that most VC funds have a 10-13 year life so all that money raised in the late 90s and early 2000s is just now starting to wind up.

So what about Canada?

Well, whether you believe it or not the border is becoming much less relevant when it comes to venture funding so Canadian startups (and VCs) are all in pretty much the same boat. The complaint most commonly heard in Canada is that there is not enough early-stage funding. I disagree. Great companies in Canada are getting funded and acquired. However, with the increased competition for Series A funding there are a lot of good companies that won’t be able to raise money. This does not mean that they won’t be successful, but they are going to have to take a path that doesn’t rely on venture funding. Unfortunately many don’t plan for this reality.

With all that said I, like many, are concerned with the direction venture capital fundraising is going in Canada. While it is great that US funds are now starting to ramp up investing in Canada they usually do it alongside Canadian funds – such as the recent case of Union Square’s investment in Wattpad alongside Golden and W Media. Also, Canadian funds are valuable in actively recruiting US funds into local companies. While it is great having talented investors from the US active up here it does not replace the feet on the ground that are needed and Canadian investors fill.

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Kevin Swan (LinkedIn@kevin_swan). Kevin has cut his chops doing product management at Nexopia.com before becoming it’s CEO. He moved to the dark side with Cardinal Venture Partners and is now a Principal at iNovia Capital.   Thankfully he is an MBA dropout and that’s why we like him. Follow him on Twitter @kevin_swan or OnceABeekeeper.com. This post was originally published on November 4, 2011 on OnceABeekeeper.com.


Toronto community mourns passing of angel investor

Paul Maasland from CBC

Paul Maasland source: CBC & OPP

Local angel investor Paul Maasland was murdered, his body was found north of Toronto at a public boat launch. We extend our deepest condolences to Mr. Maasland’s family. And our sincerest concerns go out to his friends and colleagues at Maple Leaf Angels and his investments (according to Mr. Maasland’s LinkedIn profile) including:

The conversations with his investees shed some light on Mr. Maasland as an investor. From one of the portfolio companies CEOs:

“I’d just say he was very generous with his time and resources and provided great input into how we ran [company removed]. He always was positive and excited about the initiatives were were doing.”

These comments were repeated throughout Mr. Maasland’s portfolio. He was a knowledgeable, generous investor that provided useful guidance and support for his companies.

This is an unexpected situation for anyone including many startups. It opens questions for startups about succession planning for Board Directors, questions around the Shareholders Agreement and the shares of a deceased investor. Hopefully most Boards are experienced in succession planning. As the shareholders change over time with new investment, replacing board members is a fairly straightforward and common practice (albeit usually under very different circumstances). Regarding what happens to a deceased investors shares this is decided between the deceased’s estate and the shareholders agreement. If an estate needs or chooses to liquidate the investment, many shareholders agreements have a clause that allows the company or other shareholders to purchase the investment at Fair Market Value. There are tax and legal considerations, so this should not be considered tax or legal advice, please consult a professional.

It’s unfortunate for our small close knit community to suffer such a sudden, tragic loss. We are deeply saddened to hear about the loss of a member of our community.