Exits

Emergence of New Capital Providers – Exploring Alternatives to Traditional Expectations and Structures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Capital Access Lab (CAL) is a national pilot initiative that aims to find, promote, and scale innovative investment managers who are providing new kinds of capital to underserved entrepreneurs and communities in the United States.

In July 2020, the Capital Access Lab announced its investments in 5 funds investing in underserved entrepreneurs through innovative investment structures: 1863 Ventures, Anzu Partners, Capacity Capital, Collab Capital, and Indie.vc. During the selection process of these 5 funds, the Capital Access Lab identified over 100 funds focused on underserved entrepreneurs. This report analyzes the approach of a subset of 20 funds that responded to our survey.

Through our analysis, we learned that funds investing in underserved entrepreneurs through alternative investment structures are often nimble investment vehicles that operate in the very early stages of the portfolio companies’ development, really enabling these companies to raise the first essential capital to fuel their growth. They do not invest exclusively in high growth sectors like traditional VCs; our study shows that they are often sector agnostic and have a wide range of return expectations and initial criteria for the investment that are much more flexible than what we typically see in traditional venture capital.

Whereas these funds face challenges related to covering the structural and operational costs of running an investment fund with relatively low Asset Under Management, they represent a nascent and very targeted approach to serving underserved entrepreneurs. Through this report, we hope to highlight their work, support their growth, and inspire potential funders and donors to invest in them. 

BACKGROUND

The Toniic Institute, through the Impact Terms Platform, developed this report about the work of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Capital Access Lab on investment funds adopting alternative investment instruments.  The Capital Access Lab is designed to provide risk capital to new investment models that do not resemble traditional venture capital or lending, spurring the formation of new financing mechanisms that increase capital investment to underserved entrepreneurs who have been historically left behind due to their race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic class, and/or geographic location.

The objective of this report is to review the lessons learned from the Capital Access Lab’s work and to share innovative ways investors can invest in entrepreneurs who are underserved by venture capital and traditional lending structures. Our goal is to describe emerging approaches to investments, liquidity, and risk/return profiles that can be more inclusive for entrepreneurs. 

The Capital Access Lab (CAL), formed in 2019, is a national pilot initiative that aims to find, promote, and scale innovative investment managers who are providing new kinds of capital to underserved entrepreneurs and communities in the United States.  The Capital Access Lab was created to help address this capital gap by creating a new vehicle to invest in alternative capital funds survive those entrepreneurs  That same year, the Lab’s lead investor and sponsor, the Kauffman Foundation, released a report, titled “Access to Capital for Entrepreneurs: Removing Barriers”, which observed that a surprisingly high percentage of entrepreneurs – more than 83% – do not access bank loans or venture capital. 

To source prospective funds, the Capital Access Lab created an online application process through which funds or proposed funds could apply for consideration for funding.  The CAL did not widely publicize the announcement of this opportunity and instead relied primarily on word of mouth and limited media. When the fund application was announced, responses far exceeded their expectation.  CAL had expected 20 to 40 funds to apply in the first year but ended up receiving close to 150 applications.  Of those, over 100 fit the requirements for application.  “One of the most positive signals to us – [was that] the submissions were mostly first-time fund managers and aspiring investors wanting to bring capital to their community” said John Tyler, Kauffman Foundation General Counsel. The CAL team was also encouraged and surprised by the diversity of the applicants.  Roughly 55% of applicants were women and 50% persons of color.  The large and diverse application pool reveals a significant demand for and interest in alternative capital structures.

The CAL had expected that many of the applicants would be larger funds that saw alternative capital structures as an additional opportunity. (Traditionally it is difficult for funds smaller than $10 million in assets to generate enough fees to cover their overhead.) Unexpectedly, the applicant pool included many smaller funds that would have traditionally been considered too small to rely only on traditional management fees, but instead many funds were a part of related organizations that could support the overhead.  These related organizations included nonprofit business accelerators, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), and other organizations that wanted to bring investment capital to their communities. For example, 1863 Ventures, one of the funds that received investment, already had an active business development program and wanted to start an investment fund as a means of furthering its mission.  

During their due diligence process, the Capital Access Lab identified over 100 funds focused on underserved entrepreneurs, eventually selecting five: 1863 Ventures, Anzu Partners, Capacity Capital, Collab Capital, and Indie.vc. 

The Capital Access Lab includes as one of its initiatives, the Capital Access Lab Fund which is a donor advised fund housed at Impact Assets. That fund was capitalized by the Kaufman Foundation. The Capital Access Lab Fund, and a separate funding source from Rockefeller foundation, have invested in the five funds that were selected by The Capital Access Lab. 

To ensure the preservation of a recognized charitable purpose under Section 501(c)(3), the Kauffman Foundation developed a charitability term sheet which it has made publicly available as an example of how a foundation structured a particular investment to further its charitable mission and ensure accountability thereto.

Although CAL could not invest in all the funds, they recognized there was a lot to learn and share about their innovative investment structures. This report analyses the approach of a subset of 20 funds who responded to our survey.  

RESEARCH – RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Toniic and the Impact Terms Platform conducted research for this study using a combination of interviews with the principals and a formal survey.  The survey participants consist of funds that had applied to the Capital Access Lab during their initial funding period. Twenty funds participated in the survey. The data below highlights some key takeaways from our review.

FUND CHARACTERISTICS

TARGET FUND SIZE

Fifty percent of survey respondents reported a target fund size of less than $10 million.  

This target size is consistent with the population of over 100 applicants who applied for funding from CAL – as 50% of those applicants also reported a target size under $10 million. If these funds were to use the traditional VC fee structure that means that they would expect to receive under $200,000 per year in management fees to cover management costs. These low fees are generally considered below the viable amount required by a fund management team without external middle and back office support.

INVESTMENT STAGE

Ninety five percent of participants report that they will invest in seed or pre-seed stage companies. Of those participants, 55% said they would also invest in Series A investments, leaving 45% who only target seed or pre seed stage investing. Only one fund participant would not invest in seed or pre seed stage companies targeting only post seed investments. 

TARGET INVESTMENT SIZE

Consistent with the small average target fund size and largely seed stage investing, 65% of the participants expect to invest less than $300,000 per investment. Only 10% of respondents would invest more than $500,000.

TARGET SECTORS

45% of the respondents have indicated that they are sector agnostic, and 25% of the respondents (among the open-ended responses) included Food and Agriculture as one of their funds’ focus areas.

While traditional VC funds often target high growth sectors such as IT, Health Care, Financials, Telecommunication, the survey respondents did not indicate a strong tendency towards these sectors.  

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS USED

The following section analyses the financial instruments used by these funds to invest in underserved entrepreneurs. The classification process of these alternative investment structures is a challenging process  because there is not an agreed-upon vocabulary for many of the emerging investment structures, nor agreement about whether they should be broadly classified as equity or debt.  For example, respondents may have differing opinions about if the Demand Dividend Structure should be debt or equity, so we asked about that structure as both debt and equity then combined them when appropriate to our analysis.

COMMON FEATURES OF ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT STRUCTURES BASED ON CONTINGENT PAYMENTS

To structure these investments, investors typically start with a target IRR, make a range of estimates of the company’s future performance, and then structure the other terms and features of the investments, including the repayment terms such as the percent of revenues and return multiple cap to achieve that target IRR.

The survey asked a series of questions about the details of the alternative investing structures used by that participant.  The questions were designed to get further details around what we anticipated would be the most common structures used: a variation of contingent payment structures.  Seventy-five percent of the respondents reported using some form of alternative investment structure based on contingent payments (revenue-based debt, redeemable equity, or Demand Dividends).  

These structures are flexible and can be designed to include a variety of features. The core feature of these structures is that they are contingent on something like the amount and timing of the portfolio companies’ revenues.  Therefore, the return to the investor will vary based on the features of the investment and the financial performance of the company. 

Basis of calculation

Of the 75% participants that stated they will or do use a form of contingent payment structure – 40% said they would invest using gross cash receipts as a basis of calculation, and 47% reported they would invest using net cash receipts.  Thirteen percent reported they would use either gross or net cash receipts. Demand Dividend structures did not seem to affect this ratio, even though Demand Dividends typically use net cash receipts as a basis of calculation.

Return Expectations

Respondents reported a wide range of target IRR for their investments ranging from 2% to 35% and averaging 15%. We did not specify if we were asking for the target IRR for the fund or individual investment, but we believe that most participants were answering at the fund level.

Minimum annual revenue required for investment

Respondents reported a wide range of minimum required revenues for the investees ranging from under $50,000 per year to over $5 million per year.  The median required revenues was $300,000-$400,000 per year.

Minimum annual revenue growth rate

Respondents reported a median required forecast annual revenue growth of 20-30% with only 16% requiring revenue growth of more than 40%.  This differs significantly from the kind of minimum revenue growth requirements you would see from traditional VC.

Half of those who are making revenue based (or similar) finance structures are investing in seed or pre-seed, and will invest into forecast revenue growth below 30%.  These characteristics are not common in traditional venture capital so this demonstrates the growth of new sources of capital, that are willing to invest with non-traditional approaches.

Minimum gross margin of target companies

Considering the role that revenues play in the calculation of repayment, we also asked about the minimum required gross margin in order to repay the investment. Respondents reported a minimum median target gross margin of 30-40%. At Impact Terms, our  expectation was that lower reported minimum revenue growth rate targets would result in higher the margin requirements.  We had this expectation because for an investor to receive a target return of X% on an investment in a lower growth company, that company typically must be able to support a higher percentage of cash flow paid to the investor which requires higher gross margins.

The opposite was the case, as it turned out. The funds that were willing to take the lowest forecast revenue growth in seed stage companies were also willing to take the lowest gross margins. Like the wide range in target IRR, this demonstrates that there is a much wider range of return expectations and minimum requirements than we see in traditional venture capital.  One possible explanation is that the funds accepting lower gross margins for lower revenue growth companies are doing so as part of a strategy to provide the appropriate capital to the entrepreneurs.  That is, the entrepreneurs they are targeting may simply not have higher revenue growth and margins so the funds used alternative investment structures with return features that the companies could afford.

Percentage of revenue used to repay the investment

Thirty-three percent of respondents indicated that their average percentage of revenues used to repay the investment is 5%, and overall 66.6% indicated an average percentage of revenues lower than 10%. This is typically repaid by the portfolio companies monthly or quarterly out of minimum targeted gross margins of 30-40%.

Forms response chart. Question title: How much is the typical percentage of revenues used?. Number of responses: 12 responses.
Average return multiple cap

Thirteen participants use an average return cap – meaning the average cash-on-cash multiple of the invested capital to be returned to the investor over the life of the investment.  The industry average return cap is generally between 2x and 3x the initial invested amount. As an example – a cap of 3x on a $100,000 investment would mean the investment is complete when a total of $300,000 has been repaid.  This is a common structuring feature of alternative investments that are based on revenue, cash flows or similar contingent payments.  The total IRR of that investment would depend on the time it takes for repayment as well as the cap, so a 3x cap investment that takes 10 years to pay out would have a lower IRR than a 3x cap investment that takes 5 years to pay out.

REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS

It is clear both from the large number of applicants for Capital Access Lab funding and from the follow up research we conducted that there is a significant and underserved ecosystem of small funds that are leveraging alternative investment structures to invest in companies focused on underserved populations.  Many of the funds are sector agnostic and not many are targeting traditional venture sectors like IT, Health Care, Financials, Telecommunications.  It is also evident from the wide range of return expectations and the combination of investment structuring features that the funds are willing to invest beyond what we would expect from traditional VCs and that therefore that the funds in the survey can  serve entrepreneurs who fall outside of traditional VC requirements.  

These funds are nimble investment vehicles that operate in the very early stages, potentially being the first professional investors supporting companies in their infancy, effectively de-risking and capitalizing early-stage entrepreneurs.

They also have a wide range of return expectations, including repayment multiples, and initial criteria for the investment that are much more flexible than what we typically see in traditional venture capital.  It has long been a complaint that sources of capital are too fixated on structures designed only for companies with explosive growth, so it is encouraging that this research shows an emergence of new capital providers exploring alternatives to traditional expectations and structures.

Out of the 100 funds that applied to the Capital Access Lab, and more specifically out of the 20 survey respondents, we have observed that about 50% of the funds have a target raise of less than $10 million and 75% of less than $30 million; that 95% invest in seed stage, and about ~50% in pre-seed and Series A; and that 65% target an initial investment of less than $300,000 per investment.   

Toniic, the global action community for impact investing, has also identified the emergence of relatively small and nimble funds (less than 15M in target AUM) leveraging alternative investment structures to address the needs of underserved populations across different investment themes. These includes funds providing loans to farmers to be repaid through a revenue share agreement in order to allow time to the farmers to switch to organic and regenerative agriculture practices and align their cash flows from higher quality produce with the loan repayment, funds providing capital to minority owned businesses in geographies out of the radar of major venture capitalists to facilitate exits, but also funds providing loans to underserved students that can repay their loans only when they start generating income from actual employment. 

While this did not apply to the five funds selected for investment by the Capital Access Lab, these smaller funds are much smaller than typical venture capital fund and CDFI, so small in fact that many are unlikely to cover their operating costs as a fund, and instead use the fund as an addition to existing community service programs.  These funds primarily target seed stage companies and are using a wide range of alternative investment structures.  

In order to support these experimental but smaller funds, it is clearly important to find ways to lower their operating costs.  As noted in this review, important costs like legal, including the added costs associated with using new investing and organization structures, insurance and fund administration are high for these funds.  It can even be difficult to find fund administration services that will support alternative investment structures.  Companies like AngelList are starting to provide some of these services at lower cost but they are still expensive for small funds and they do not offer services to most alternative investment structures. Investors and foundations who wish to support these funds might consider funding start-ups that help provide these services at lower cost to smaller funds.

Agnes Dasewicz, Lead, Capital Access Lab observed that, alternatively, it would be worth evaluating if investments coming from foundations could, when legally allowed, be accompanied by separate resources and donations to cover some administrative expenses and technical assistance.  This is fairly common practice with large international funds who often have sidecar vehicles for technical assistance, and we agree that sidecar grants would help further the ability of small funds to continue to innovate.  

Covid 19 is a lesson in why alternative investment structures are needed

This article and all the articles tagged Tactics or Ideas are opinion articles and therefore only reflect the view of the author. 

Covid-19 is teaching us many lessons that take the form of “that thing we used to do, or that idea we used to feel safe thinking, turned out to not be that good an idea after all.”  Covid 19 is teaching us the value of resilience and flexibility.   

Companies that need cash and wish to borrow to survive the crisis have no idea when their cash flows will once again become predictable.  Companies that thought they had predictable cash flows and have borrowed against those predictions are now stuck with fixed payments they can’t meet.  

The core problem with traditional debt for social enterprises is agreeing to fixed payments against variable revenue streams, negotiated early in a company’s life when revenue is most unpredictable.  Many enterprises in the countries where Covid-19 lockdown measures have been implemented are going to fail. It’s not true that “no one saw this coming.” Covid-19 specifically, yes; but unpredicted swings in revenue early in the life of a company?  Both foreseeable and foreseen.  

There is an alternative, but it’s been practiced only at the fringes.  This global crisis presents the opportunity to reconsider how we structure early stage investments.  For the many companies in trouble, Revenue-Based Finance (RBF) approaches are among the most promising ways to restructure debt to assure repayment in the long run.  Little has changed about the long-term prospects of most of these companies; yet many have total uncertainty about near-term revenues. A return to revenue growth is likely, but the timing is completely unknowable.  This type of situation is a perfect recipe for the use of RBF.

For new financings, the benefits of RBF have never been clearer.  If a crisis can quickly slow the economy once, it will happen again — why not design our financing structures for flexibility and resilience?  Revenue-Based Financings are investment structures that link the returns to the investor with a company’s revenue. This type of structure is in the interest of both the social enterprise and their investors.  There are many ways to structure RBF and you can learn more about structuring options at impactterms.org  

Because the payments due to investors from RBF structures vary with company performance, they are designed to handle exactly the kind of stress and uncertainty we are seeing in this crisis (and others like it in the future). A company that borrowed using an RBF structure, instead of traditional debt would not be forced to make payments that they can’t afford but if they miss put them in default. Its action also saves the investors in the company. Yes, the investors’ returns will likely decline as payments get pushed to the future, but that’s a much better problem than losing their whole investment.

One investor using RBF both for restructuring and new investing is Capacity Capital, a new fund investing financial and social capital into small revenue-generating growth businesses, especially the overlooked and underestimated.  For example Capacity Capital recently made an investment in RentSons, a company that helps people link up with “helping hands”. Rent Sons had a mix of existing debt obligations that, as is common in debt structures, did not offer the company the flexibility they needed to manage downturns in the business cycle.  They now have the flexibility they need thanks to Capacity Capital restructuring those old debts and providing new financing in a combined RBF financing.  

Through a new RBF investment they are providing RentSons additional growth capital and restructuring their old debn

For investors and companies that have used traditional debt and are facing likely default, this is a great time to consider restructuring the debt using an RBF structure.  When the timing of cash flows is uncertain but the company’s prospects are still strong, the traditional option is equity. However, the investor has to believe they will one day be able to sell that equity.  By restructuring into an RBF structure, the company can have the flexibility they need to recover, and the investor can have a realistic path to recovery and profit.  

It will take some time before we have enough perspective to look back and draw final conclusions from this experience, but one clear lesson we can learn today is the value of flexibility and we can put that lesson to work today by using Revenue-Based Financing and the other alternative investment structures featured on ImpactTerms.org 

Traditional Exit Strategies for Social Enterprises

An “exit” is one of the methods an equity investor uses to get a return on investment.  Companies should consider exit strategies at an early stage of the company lifecycle, as it will shape the strategic decisions made along the way, including how and where to grow. 

This is especially true for social enterprises which must also consider elements such as mission and the impact of an exit on customers, not only profit and investors. Some social enterprises will find an alternative exit structure more appropriate, but many may be able to utilize an investment structure that relies on the traditional exit. The best strategy will depend on business type, company size, financial value, investor profile, and mission alignment. 

For investors, exits are important for a number of reasons including having the option to recycle funds to other investments. 

This article explains the types of traditional exits and corresponding considerations for social enterprises. 

Key Considerations for Deal Structuring

Mission

In addition to financial and operational considerations, social enterprises must also consider how an exit strategy affects their mission/impact. Some strategies may amplify the depth or breadth of the impact, whereas others may distract or detract. Founders/Managers should consider this early on, as miscommunication or confusion early in the enterprise life cycle could result in higher multiples and over-valuation, which could force the enterprise to be more aggressive in growth and sacrifice the mission. 

Customers

Different exit strategies will affect not only the company and investors, but also customers. In the case of social enterprises, the company may be the only provider of a basic good or service in the area of operation. When considering exit options, consider questions like “Will an intense focus on scaling or profitability shift the business away from poor or rural customers?” 

Common Exit Structures

Acquisition

Definition: Integration of entities or takeover of one entity by another entity.  The exit to the equity investor comes from the assets used to purchase the entity.  If the assets used to purchase the entity are illiquid, then the acquisition has not resulted in an exit.

Common Motives for Acquisition 

Strategic Acquisition

When the acquirer comes from a different business sector than the entity acquired

Benefits: Strategic acquirers can come from a wide range of sectors but share similar motivations. Strategic acquirers and investors often want to either increase their presence, or gain greater insight into the emerging markets where social enterprises operate. They may also be interested in exploring a complementary product or service to expand the reach or impact of the enterprise. 

Challenges: Social enterprise business models can be complex and differ from the core capabilities of potential strategic investors. Overcoming this requires time and resources from the strategic investors for them to understand the sector and theory of change.

Sector Merger & Acquisition 

Integration of entities or takeover of one entity by another in the same sector

Benefits: A sector merger or acquisition leverages existing synergies between companies, which could also mean amplified impact for a social enterprise. This would extend the reach of both companies to access new geographies, customer segments, products, distribution channels, etc

Challenges: Misalignment of mission is a risk in mergers or acquisitions of social enterprises. Even if they are aligned, other (even though larger) social enterprises may not have the capital to purchase other companies, particularly if investors are seeking a high valuation. Other companies may want to create their own tailored solutions in house instead of buying another company.

Secondary Sales 

The sale of existing equity shares to a secondary investor (such as VC funds, private individuals, private equity, investment banks, or dedicated secondary sales funds). This does not occur during full acquisition.

Benefits: Secondary sales, even those resulting only in partial exits, are a vital source of liquidity for investors. Existing investors may choose to buy the shares, which simplifies the capitalization table and gives them more control over the company. Secondary sales can also attract new investors. Strategic investors have shown a willingness to make secondary investments as a way of getting a foot in the door to better understand the sector without taking on the risk of early stage investment in an unfamiliar area.

Challenges: Secondary equity sales sometimes occur at sizable discounts to primary capital raises, resulting in cases where early investors may be unwilling to accept secondary purchase offers when they do materialize. Social enterprises must also be aware that perceived share price volatility can deter later-stage investors, such as PE firms. 

IPO, or initial public offering 

Process of offering company shares to the public through the issuance of new stock

Benefits: An IPO provides access to a large pool of capital for the company and gives earlier, private investors a chance to realize gains, particularly for social enterprises in industries that lack many potential acquirers. 

Challenges: IPOs are generally uncommon for social enterprises, especially in emerging markets. Depending on the enterprise and industry, there may not be a significant pool of potential buyers to make exchanges liquid. An IPO can also be taxing on a company due to the costs to execute and the stringent reporting and budgeting systems required to be publicly listed.

Share Buybacks 

The sale of existing investor shares to company management or founders.

Benefits: Share buybacks restore greater control over the company to its founders or management, allowing them more flexibility in decision making, especially when it comes to mission (in the case of social enterprises). 

Challenges: Social enterprises may be overvalued and therefore lack the cash for share buybacks. 

Case Studies

Download four case studies of Traditional Exits in African off-grid energy companies by Acumen and Open Capital Advisors:

Icon

Open Capital-Acumen Off-Grid Energy Exits Case Studies

1 file(s) 646.33 KB
Download

Additional Resources

This content has been developed from Lighting the Way: Roadmap to Exits in Off-Grid Energy. The full report can be accessed at https://acumen.org/energy-exits-report/

Contributors

  • Original report was published by Acumen and Open Capital Advisors, a regional ITP partner organization. 
  • The report was adapted for this site by Melody Jensen from the ITP team. 

Alternative Exits

Alternative Exits are financial structures that allow investors to realize their investments return using methods other than traditional debt and equity investment.

An “exit” is the method the investor uses to get the return on investment including their original capital and their profit. For example, a common stock listed on an exchange, the exit can be as simple as selling to another investor.

The most common traditional exits for early stage equity-like transactions are 1) sale to another investor via a future round of financing, and 2) sale of the whole company to another investor or company.

Alternative exits are often contingent payment structures as they often are designed so that the timing of the payment to investors are contingent on aspects of the issuer’s business.   For example, Revenue Based Financing structures payout periodic investor returns as a percentage of period revenues and thus the payment amount is contingent on revenues.

It is important to note that terms for alternative exits like “royalty”, “revenue share” and “contingent payment” are often interchanged they can have very different tax treatments and thus should be discussed as related but different concepts.

Reasons for Alternative Exits

Alternative exists are often referred to by their specific method or structure which include Royalty Exits.  They can also be called self-liquidating investments though this may cause some confusion as other traditional investment structures are self-liquidating, for example, debt. While many of the existing Alternative Exit structures have been used for non-impact investments, the movement towards social enterprise and impact investing has raised the profile of Alternative Exits because of several factors that are common in impact investing.  Impact investors are increasingly seeking to provide Appropriate Capital to investors.  Appropriate Capital is capital that meets the needs of the investors and fits the specific business model of the entrepreneur so that the capital structure does not hinder the prospect of success.  Many traditional financing methods are not Appropriate Capital.  For example, debt forces a company to pay at a specific schedule but would not be appropriate for a company that can not predict if their business performance will match the debt schedule.  Many equity structures are not appropriate for companies that are unlikely to attract a traditional exit, or would prefer not to pursue one.

In some jurisdictions alternative exits can be structured as Royalty Financing but as Royalties serve a narrow and well specified economic role there are often legal and accounting rules that prevent Royalties from being used for investor returns except when they would otherwise be used to pay for the use of intellectual property.

Investor View

The most common reason for investors to seek an Alternative Exit is that, for the specific investment, they don’t believe that traditional structures will return their capital in their target time horizon.

Entrepreneur View

The most common reasons for an entrepreneur to consider alternative investors are 1) to match their enterprise performance with the return needs of their investors or 2) to preserve the mission or control of their company.

Influencing Factors

Social Entrepreneurs May Not Want to Exit 

It is common for social entrepreneurs to wish to preserve the mission of their organization and protect their involvement in the organization.   They may feel that traditional exits of equity structures will dilute their ability to control mission or maintain their role in the organization.  Therefore they may prefer investment structures that protect their long term equity holdings and their ability to maintain voting control.   

Impact Capital May Be Less Interested In Rewarding Prior Investors 

Compared to traditional (non-impact specific) finance, the motivation of Impact Investors includes social return.  If an investor’s money is just used to pay out prior investors then that investor may not view their capital as having created any additional social returns.  This makes it more difficult to raise follow on rounds that pay out early investors.  Therefore early investors may prefer alternative structures to mitigate this risk.

Early Stage Entities and Visability

The discussion of Alternative Exits in Impact Investing is largely focused on early stage companies. The earlier the stage of a company the less the ability to forecast the near and long term financial performance of the company. It is often unreasonable or infeasible for investors and entrepreneurs to agree on company valuation and forecasts.

Common Alternative Exit Structures

Contingent Payment Structures

Revenue Based Exits

Revenue Based Exits are contingent payment instruments that dedicated a percentage of revenues as the source of returns to investors.  The structures are typically designed to stop paying investors when the investor has received the negotiated target return. Typically, that negotiated return is expressed as a multiple of the initial investment.  For example, investors seeking a 3X return target that has invested $100,000 would receive their share of revenues until the investor has been paid $100,000 X 3 = $300,000. It’s important to note that the investors return on capital will depend on the timing of the payments – and thus will depend on the rate of revenue growth.   The same 3x return target will have a much better return on capital if the company has fast revenue growth compared to the same company if it experiences slower revenue growth.

Revenue Based Exits can either be set up as debt or equity structures depending on the local laws.  When using equity they are typically Redemption Based Exits in that the issuer is obligated to repurchase the equity from the investor at a specified premium.  In Revenue Based exit Structured as debt, the payments to the investor are treated as a mix of interest and principal payments.

Demand Dividends

Demand Dividends are a structure created by Santa Clara University. Demand Dividends are contingent payment instruments that dedicated a percentage of free cash flow as the source of returns to investors.  Like Revenue Based Exits, they are typically designed to stop paying investors when the investor has received the negotiated target return.

Royalty Financing

Royalty Financing in Impact Investing repurposes the royalty payments from traditional finance to meet the needs of Impact Investors

In traditional finance, Royalties are a mechanism for paying for intellectual property.  Most legal jurisdictions have clear definition of royalties and their accounting treatment and definition may vary between legal jurisdictions.

Many impact investing structures would be significantly easier to classify as royalties as the accounting and tax rules for royalties are well defined and simple.   Royalties are only treated as income as the sales on which those royalties depend occur.  For example a book publisher will owe royalties to an author only when that author’s book sells.

Unfortunately many tax juridiscinos limit the use of royalty accounting to their traditional use as payments for intellectual property.   For example, in many jurisdictions a Revenue Financing structure cant simply be called a Royalty Structure with the hope that the accounting will be as simple as royalty accounting.  This is because doing so would facilitate tax avoidance structures in traditionally busessiness.

Redemption Based Exits

Redemption Based Exists re typically equity structures where the investment structure requires the company to redeem (repurchase) the equity shares from the investors.  The terms of repurchase agreements vary between structures but generally include a method for the investors to, over the life of the security, receive a specified multiple of their original investment as the premium paid for the redemptions.

Examples include Indie.vc

Hybrid Exits

Hybrid exist typically provide investor returns by a mix of redemptions with another payment stream like interest payments or dividend payments.   Examples of hybrid structures include Performance Aligned Stock

Key Considerations for Deal Structuring

Legal and Accounting Considerations

Complexity

Complexity is an important consideration when seeking the most appropriate capital for a company.  If the needs for capital are appropriately met with traditional structures then using traditional structures will likely reduce transaction costs and investor reticence.

Many of the alternative exit structures are new, are not well understood by many practitioners, and have less clarity about their tax, accounting, and legal merits than traditional exits.  These complexities can add costs and slow the transaction process.

Equity vs Debt

It’s important to understand that just because a security is labeled as “equity” or “debt” does not mean that the local tax authorities will accept that label.  It is common for tax authorities to have procedures to reclassify securities based on their economic structures.  Any reclassification could significantly change the economics of the security and/or increase the difficulty of accounting and other compliance elements.

We recommend any investor or entrepreneur seeking to use an alternate exit structure seek professional advice on the tax implications with a specific focus on reclassification risk.

Usury Laws

When an alternative exit uses a debt structure or a structure that could be reclassified as debt issuers must be careful that the nature of the contingent payments don’t violate local usury laws.  Usury laws are laws that set a maximum interest rate on debt payments.

What is interest vs principal?

When an issuer pays an investor some return on a debt structure it needs to be clear to both parties what portion of the payment is interest and what portion is principal.  This distinction is important because generally the return of principal is not taxed but the interest is subject to taxation.

Traditional investment structures calculate the principal and interest portions of a payment using near-universally accepted amortization tables.  With many alternative exit debt structures it is not clear how to create an amortization table that is accepted by the local tax authorities.

For example, consider a debt based alternative exit where the source of returns is a fixed percentage of revenues until the investor receives 3 (three) times their initial investment (a revenue based contingent payment).  If the investor invested $100,000 then when the transaction has completed its duration the investor will have received $300,000 in payments of which $100,000 has to be treated as return of principle and $200,000 has to be treated as interest..  If the first payment is $10,000 – what portion of that is principal and what is interest?  It might make sense to call ⅓ principal and ⅔ interest.  It also might make sense to call the entire $100,000 of payments principal and then all the rest interest.

While it is possible that your local tax jurisdiction will not have clear rules, it is more likely that they do have rules for properly apportioning principle and interest because not having those rules would have made it easy for investors to take advantage of their absence and create investment structures that are intended to delay, defer or avoid taxes.

Complicated accounting requirements

Some tax jurisdictions solve the above referenced question of apportioning interest and principle by imposing complicated tax accounting methods that can be burdensome to administer and may even create tax disadvantages to the investor.

For example, in the United States the law (26 CFR § 1.1275-4) reqires contingent payments instruments to be treated as if they were not in fact contingent using the Noncontingent bond method. In addition to the added complication, this often has the negative consequence of requiring, in the early years of an investment, the investor to pay tax on income they will not receive until the later years of the investment.

Distribution rules (eg re dividends and Board approval)

Local lay may have rules that need to be carefully considered when using equity instruments for alternative exits, especially when using a dividend as part of the structure.  Traditionally dividends may need to be authorized by the board and their may be restrictions on payment if the issuer does not have retained earnings.

Downside Protection

Traditional investment structures have clause for when the investment does not perform or when the company is forced to restructure or close.  The order in which creditors and investors get repaid in those cases is one of the negotiable features of term sheets but is generally based on the overall structure of the transaction with debt having higher preference than equity.  To the extent that an alternative exit has an economic structure that is different than its legal structure (eg a debt based exit that offers equity returns) the parties need to consider the appropriate downside protection.

Considerations by Legal Jurisdiction

The key questions that you need to ask to figure out what exit structures work in a given local legal system:

  • Do the tax authorities have rules for reclassifying debt as equity (or vice versa) – that is, is it possible that designing a debt instrument that pays variable payments (eg revenue based) would be reclassified as equity
    • if those rules exist you may need to create an equity structure
    • if those rules don’t exist then,
      • how are contingent payment debt securities taxed and accounted for.
        • how is each payment split between the return of principle vs interest? (need to know for investor and issuer – may not be the same)
        • are there rules that force contingent payment debt instruments to be accounted for in a way that may create phantom tax (in the US, for example, you have to act as if the payments were non contingent and create an amortization schedule and make tax payments based on that schedule – not just on what each payment ends up being)
    • Could designing an equity structure with mandatory redemptions be reclassified as debt
      • if yes this loops back to the questions re debt payments above
      • if no then equity with mandatory redemption contingent on (revenue %) is an easy option

Example Term Sheets


Additional Resources


References


Contributors

Case study: convertible revenue loan for green cleaning product

A Latin American company produces and distributes green household cleaning products. Investors have funded the company with a convertible loan that is repaid monthly through a percentage of revenues as opposed to fixed interest payments, allowing the company more flexibility for growth than with traditional debt.

The company had limited sales and marginal EBITDA, which made valuation challenging, so the investor designed a tailored senior convertible loan that would be paid back through an escalating percentage of sales.

Target IRR: 20-25%

Type of investment: Senior convertible loan to a non-US-based enterprise

Investor: An impact investment fund focused on supporting the early growth of social and environmental companies in Latin America. It invests in a wide range of sectors, such as education, sustainable consumer products, health, housing, organics and clean energy. It seeks to tailor its transaction structures to the needs of each portfolio company.

Company: A producer and distributor of 100% non-toxic and biodegradable household cleaning products. Company is generating revenues and is cash flow positive.

Key innovations

Revenue-based loan: The company’s total loan obligation is fixed, and repayments are determined as a share of revenue, escalating over time until the entire obligation is repaid.

Conversion option for investors, at investor discretion: The loan may convert into equity at a pre-determined multiple of trailing revenue or EBITDA, at the discretion of investors.

Key terms

Investment amount: The investment was broken down into two tranches: (1) US$300k immediately, and (2) US$150k after 12 months, contingent on reaching predefined operating and financial milestones.

Repayment timeline: The target term is 5 years, with an 18-month grace period for both principal and interest.

Revenue share rate and repayment cap: After the grace period, the company pays an initial 3% to a maximum of 9% of revenues (escalating over 3.5 years) until the investor receives a total of 2.3x its original investment.

Conversion option: Convertibility provision allows the investor to convert into equity at its own discretion and at a valuation equal to the higher of 1x TTM sales or 5x TTM EBITDA. At the time of conversion, the investor can only convert the balance of the total obligation still owed calculated at 2.3x the total loan provided, less any loan repayments made up to that date. Conversion is only allowed after an initial 18-month lock up period.

Governance: The investor assumes one Board seat and has veto right over a number of pre-defined “Major Decisions”, including new share issuance, new debt issuance, CAPEX and budget decisions.

Special considerations

Tax considerations: The local tax regime does not have any special treatment for flexible debt schedules, so not a concern for the issuer in this case. For a U.S. lender, “original issue discount” tax implications could be significant given the grace period, variable nature of payments, and lack of”original issue discount” reporting by the company.

More detailed deal rationale and context:

  1. Company has to be close to profitable or already profitable, so that it can service debt at a % of revenue after about 12-18 months.
  2. Margins need to be strong, if investors are to take up to 9% of revenues by year 5.
  3. Company should not have significant prior debt.
  4. Company should not expect to have a large need for additional equity/debt requirements during the term of the investment.
  5. Structure appealed to investor over equity because it would allow the company to grow and thrive over the longer term without needing to be acquired in the short to medium term to provide a liquidity event, for two reasons: (1) It was not obvious that the company would appeal to a strategic buyer within the life of the fund, and (2) The investor was concerned that sale to a strategic buyer could compromise its mission.
  6. The structure also appealed to the company because the founders liked its equity-like alignment of incentives (the faster the company grows, the higher the IRR for the investor), however they got to retain more ownership than they would have under an equity deal and the investor’s returns are capped.
  7. Local business environment: local founders are often comfortable with the idea of building a company for the long-term, with potential generational succession plan. Therefore, the idea that they wouldn’t be acquired in the next 5-7 years was not off-putting.

Case study: redeemable equity direct investment for emerging market green manufacturer

A family office with an environmental mandate invested directly into an emerging market manufacturer, and plans to earn a return when the company redeems investor shares.

Neither investors nor founders believed that a sale or IPO was a viable option within 5-7 years from investment. In addition, both founders and investors wanted to maximize cash spent on operations to catalyze growth, as opposed to servicing debt or revenue share payments.

Target IRR: 15% +

Deal type: Redeemable preferred equity

Company: The company manufactures various products using recycled materials. The company had been cash flow positive for more than two years at the time of the investment, but local capital was unavailable to invest in increasing production capacity. There is no history of M&A or IPO activity in the sector in which the company operates.

Investor: The investment was led by a family office that invests globally to optimize both financial return and social and environmental impact. The other investors consisted of a European foundation and two individuals. The investor group seeks a reasonable return given the risk profile of the investment, with a targeted floor of 15% per year over 5 years.

Key innovation

Redemption incentive when investors cannot elect for redemption: The investor group initially sought to structure a redemption right at the election of the investors. They learned, however, that the law of the country under which the company was organized prohibits redemptions at the election of the investors. As an alternative, they allowed investors to mandate profits be set aside for a “redemption fund,” which can only be used for redemption initiated by the company.

Key Terms

Financial terms: Total raise of $450,000 at $775,000 pre-money valuation.

Legal structure: The terms are structured to closely approximate standard U.S. “Seed” preferred equity investment model (except for the redemption provision, which is not standard in U.S. Seed Preferred model).

Redemption: The company has the right to initiate a redemption at its election after 5 years, but the redemption is only effective if accepted by the investors. The investors have the right to require the company to set aside a reserve fund out of profits to fund a redemption. The objective with the set aside is that the company will be motivated to redeem the shares because of the restriction on the use of funds.

Redemption price: The redemption price equals the greater of (1) the equivalent of a 12% per year return and (2) the fair market value of the preferred stock at the time of redemption, as established by an independent valuation.

Special Considerations

Tax considerations: The relatively short redemption period of 5 years would normally cause concern that the IRS might recharacterize this instrument as debt rather than equity. The risk here, however, is probably very low because the redemption option requires “exercise” by both parties. Other factors may weigh in favor of equity treatment as well (e.g., otherwise “thin” capitalization). The instrument most likely avoids the “original issue discount” rules as exempt “participating preferred stock”, due to its participation in dividends and liquidation proceeds.

Other considerations: This structure would be useful in any scenario in which legal rules prohibit investor-initiated redemption and in cases in which the investors would like to control the timing and amount of any reserve that is set aside to fund a redemption.