The Exchange
Auto Added by WPeMatico
Auto Added by WPeMatico
You might have missed it, but amidst the current political-M&A-pandemic-election-disinformation news cycle we find ourselves in this week, SaaS and cloud companies reached new public market records.
Yesterday, the Bessemer-Nasdaq cloud index closed at 2,035.54, a new record finish for the basket of software companies. And, today, the index broached the 2,040 mark before ceding some ground.
The Exchange explores startups, markets and money. You can read it every morning on Extra Crunch, or get The Exchange newsletter every Saturday.
What matters for our purposes is that with a good chunk of the Q2 earnings cycle behind us, software companies are not only holding onto their gains from earlier in the year, they are managing to add to them, albeit modestly. Of course, valuation expansion during earnings season could still lead to gently falling multiples; as companies grow, if their shares gain value at a slower pace, their price/sales ratio can lose ground.
Regardless, for our purposes it’s notable that recent public market gains are not dissipating. Tech valuation boosts have helped major American indices regain ground lost early in the year, and Q2 earnings were a possible threat to prior progress. So far earnings-related dents are thin on the ground.
So, what’s going on? Why are SaaS and cloud stocks doing so well? Leaning on notes from two VCs — Jamin Ball from Redpoint and Mary D’Onofrio from Bessemer — we can unspool recent valuation highs.
Powered by WPeMatico
The TechCrunch Exchange newsletter just launched. Soon only a partial version will hit the site, so sign up to get the full download.
Welcome back to The TechCrunch Exchange, a weekly startups-and-markets newsletter for your weekend enjoyment. It’s broadly based on the daily column that appears on Extra Crunch, but free. And it’s made just for you.
You can sign up for the newsletter here. With that out of the way, let’s talk money, upstart companies and the latest spicy IPO rumors.
If you are tired of reading about special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, we hear you. We’re sick of them as well. But they keep cropping up, this time in the form of a possible IPO alternative for Affirm, a fintech unicorn that has raised more than $1 billion to provide consumers with point-of-sale installment loans. (Rates from 0% to 30%, terms of up to 36 months.)
Affirm is effectively a lending company that plugs into e-commerce firms. Researching this entry I had an idea in the back of my head that Affirm had a super-neat credit system to rate users. But reading through its own FAQ and what NerdWallet has to say on the company, its methods seem somewhat pedestrian.
Regardless, distribution is key for the company, and Affirm recently linked up with Shopify. That should provide it another dose of growth. The very sort of thing that IPO investors want. The WSJ reported that Affirm could go public this year, perhaps via a SPAC, at a valuation of $5 to $10 billion.
I did my best to map out what those valuations implied, generally finding that Affirm needs to have hella loan volume to make the sort of money that a $10 billion figure implies. Of course, I was trying to make numerical sense. The stock market in 2020 is a bit more relaxed than that.
All this SPAC talk is still mostly bullshit, mind. We are seeing public debuts this year. And every single one of them that has been of note has been a traditional IPO, at least as far as I can recall. The running history of direct listings and SPAC debuts that matter is pretty slim.
Of course, Coinbase and Asana and DoorDash and Airbnb, among others, are in need of liquidity and could yet pull the trigger on a more exotic debut. Hell, Qualtrics could do something wild in its impending IPO but we doubt it will.
The biggest market news this week had little to do with startups. Instead, it came from the anti-startups, namely the largest American tech companies, which smashed their earnings reports. Alphabet actually shrank year-over-year, but it still beat expectations. Facebook and Amazon and Apple were juggernauts in the quarter.
The startups that aren’t are DOA. As Freestyle Capital’s Jenny Lefcourt told TechCrunch the other week, every investor wants into the next round of startups that have caught a COVID tailwind. And precisely zero investors want into the proximate funding event for startups that haven’t.
Moving along, don’t re-invest your retirement funds just yet, but bitcoin is back over $10,000 and is currently trading for $11,300 as I write to you. Given that the price of bitcoin is a workable barometer for consumer interest, trading volume and, perhaps, development work in the crypto space, the recent market movement is good news for crypto-fans.
Turning our heads to breaking news this Friday, news was brewing that the Trump administration was looking to force ByteDance, a Chine-based mega-startup, to sell the U.S. operations of TikTok, the super-popular social app.
There were 25 equity-only rounds of $50 million or more in the last week, 22 if you strip out private equity-led rounds and post-IPO investments. That’s a little over $2.6 billion in late-stage capital collected by Crunchbase in a single week. No matter what you might hear from startups stuck on the wrong side of the COVID-19 divide, money is still flowing and quickly.
Stack Overflow’s $85 million round was the tenth largest deal of the week. Damn.
Other rounds you may have missed: $33 million for San Mateo-based Helix, Argo AI is now worth $7.5 billion after its most recent fundraising, $11 million for Brazil-focused wealth manager Magnetis, $16 million for construction-tech company Buildots and $20 million for Instrumental, my favorite round of the week,
Investment into AI-focused startups suffered in Q2, but descended from all-time highs so the numbers were still pretty ok.
On the VC topic, TechCrunch’s own Danny Crichton (he’s on the podcast with me every week) has updated the TechCrunch list with another 116 VCs that are willing to write first checks. The project has been oceans of work, so please do check it out if you have the time, or are looking to fundraise.
And, to wrap up, as always, here’s a collection of data, news and other miscellania that is worth your time from this super insane week:
Moving toward the close, Redpoint VP Jamin Ball is writing a series on cloud/SaaS that I’m reading here and there. Take a peek.
And, speaking of VCs out there doing my job, Floodgate partner Iris Choi (an Equity regular) does frequent live streams that she calls Market Musings that I try to snag when I can. It’s always interesting to hear how people with more money than I do think about the market as they are ever-so-slightly more invested in its outcomes.
Excuse the pun, give yourself a hug for making it through the week, make sure to hit up the latest Equity episode and let’s all go for a run. — Alex
Powered by WPeMatico
The fortunes of startups that leverage artificial intelligence have soared dramatically in recent years.
These AI-powered startups have seen quarterly investment totals rise from a few hundred rounds and a few billion dollars each quarter to 1,245 rounds and $17.3 billion in the second and third quarters of 2019, according to data from CB Insights. The rise in dollars chasing AI startups has been huge, demonstrating strong venture capital interest in the cohort.
But in recent quarters, the trend has slowed as VC deals for AI-powered startups fell off.
The Exchange explores startups, markets and money. You can read it every morning on Extra Crunch, or get The Exchange newsletter every Saturday.
A new report from the business-data company looking at the second quarter of venture capital results for global AI startups shows historically strong but declining investing rates for the upstart firms. During a pandemic and widespread recession, this is not a complete surprise; other areas of VC investment have also fallen in recent quarters. This is The Exchange’s second look at quarterly data in the startup category, something partially spurred by our interest in the economics of the startups that make up the group.
The scale of decline is notable, however, as is the national breakdown of VC investment into AI. (The United States is doing better than you probably guessed, if you have only listened to politicians lately.)
Let’s unpack the latest results, determine how investing patterns have changed by stage and examine how different countries compare when it comes to deal and dollar volume for AI-powered startups.
In the second quarter of 2020, global investment into AI startups fell to 458 deals worth $7.2 billion. According to the CB Insights dataset, the deal volume is the lowest for 12 quarters, or since Q2 2017 when 387 investments into AI startups were worth $4.7 billion.
Powered by WPeMatico
Over the weekend, software giant SAP announced that it will take Qualtrics public, with the German software company retaining a majority stake in the Utah-based “experience management” firm after its forthcoming debut.
SAP paid $8 billion in cash for Qualtrics back in 2018, right before the smaller firm was set to go public. Chatting with the CEOs of both companies around the time of the deal, they were pretty pumped about the combination. Since then, SAP has swapped CEOs.
The Exchange explores startups, markets and money. You can read it every morning on Extra Crunch, or get The Exchange newsletter every Saturday.
At the time, the deal not only made waves within the business realm, it also helped put Utah’s startup scene on the map. (An $8 billion deal makes an impact.)
Current commentary on the spin-out idea seems to rotate on the idea of unlocking value: That if SAP can float a good chunk of Qualtrics’ shares, the market may give that equity a good price. Then, the value of Qualtrics that SAP will retain will gain implicit value, perhaps boosting the value of its own shares. Making the point, CNBC quoted analysts from Bernstein Research, which said it believes “many SAP investors do not fully understand Qualtrics,” and that the spin-out might “help at least as it relates to better understanding its value.”
What is Qualtrics worth? If we can understand that, we’ll know if the current commentary regarding the spin-out makes sense. So this morning, let’s remind ourselves how big Qualtrics was heading into its IPO, what it might have been worth, how much it has have grown since and what that might be worth at today’s super-high software valuations.
Did SAP overpay? Did it get a deal? Let’s find out what Qualtrics might look like in 2020.
Before SAP stole it from the public markets, Qualtrics was looking for $18 to $21 per share on the public markets, valuing the company at around $3.9 billion to $4.5 billion. SAP had to pay up for Qualtrics stock, obviously, to get the deal done given how hot the Utah-based firm was at the time.
Qualtrics had growth and profits, two things that combine to create lots and lots of market value. Here are some key Qualtrics numbers from the time:
Powered by WPeMatico
The TechCrunch Exchange newsletter launched this morning. Starting next week, only a partial version will hit the site, so sign up to get the full issue.
Welcome to The TechCrunch Exchange! I’m incredibly excited that this newsletter is finally in your hands. There’s so much to chat about, dissect and grok. We’re going to be very busy.
What will we do each Saturday? First, we’ll expand on the themes that The Exchange covers for Extra Crunch on weekdays. We’ll also run through key startup-related news from the public and private markets. Our goal is to stay firmly abreast of the biggest stories in the realms of startups and money.
Another way we’ll use this newsletter is to provide a space to share interviews, details and stories that didn’t fit neatly into a piece, but really deserve their own time all the same. If you like what TechCrunch reports and want more, this missive will have it.
And finally, we’ll take a little time at the end for something fun. We’re talking about money on a day off, so we deserve some joy to go along with the math.
Sound good? Let’s jump in.
Coinbase is expected to go public in 2020 or 2021, with most expecting its filing early next year. Though given how hot the IPO market is today (more here), perhaps we’ll see the document sooner rather than later.
Regardless of when, the Coinbase debut will be a big deal, providing a booster shot of cash to investors who put over $500 million into the startup and crypto as a thesis. For you and I, the IPO will also mean an S-1 filing chock full of notes about how the crypto space looks for a mature trading platform.
But there’s another company in Coinbase’s space that doesn’t intend to go public: Binance. The Exchange caught up with its voluble founder, CZ, on Friday to chat about the possible Coinbase IPO. According to the CEO, a Coinbase debut would be “very good for the [crypto] industry,” which makes sense; if Coinbase can go public it would lend credibility to its market in a way that few other business transactions can.
But Binance, which funded itself partially through a 2017 ICO, plans on staying private. CZ says because his company has largely not raised capital from traditional sources, it doesn’t have to answer to investors. This means it isn’t pressured to go public or make money folks happy in other ways.
Like charging more for its products, CZ posited. Companies that raise extensive external capital have an “ethos” to maximize their rates so that they can “maximize shareholder value,” he said. In CZ’s view, Binance doesn’t have to do that so long as it keeps making money and doesn’t run low on cash.
Private commerce without exit events feels strange because it locks up shareholder value — external investors aside. Still, the crypto world is providing us with a live business case of two competing philosophies regarding how to run a business; one following a more traditional venture approach and one building off the back of a newer model.
Which will come out on top? It’s not clear, but the eventual Coinbase S-1 is going to be big in helping us better understand one half of the question.
Powered by WPeMatico
On the heels of Hippo’s funding round and our exploration of how the private markets appear to be more conservative than public investors at the moment, we’re asking a new question: are a bunch of insurtech startups undervalued?
Hippo — an insurtech startup focused on home insurance — put together a $150 million round at a $1.5 billion post-money valuation after growing its gross written premium to $270 million “in the past 12 months.” At that valuation, and at pre-adjustment premium scale, Hippo is super-cheap compared to Lemonade, another venture-backed insurtech startup that just went public.
The Exchange explores startups, markets and money. You can read it every morning on Extra Crunch, or receive it for free in your inbox. Sign up for The Exchange newsletter, which drops Saturdays starting July 25.
There’s no need to relitigate Hippo’s valuation and how the private markets have valued the firm. But our work yesterday does give us the chance to do some fun math on other players in the neo-insurance space, namely, Root and MetroMile. Using data accrued from financial filings and valuation data from Pitchbook and Crunchbase, we can grok how much the two firms are worth using Hippo’s and Lemonade’s current premium multiples.
If you aren’t familiar, the cohort of startups we’re looking at have raised well over $1 billion as a group; VCs really believe in them. How they are priced then, and how they exit, will help determine the results of many a venture fund.
So, are other players in the startup insurance market cheap at their last private price when compared to Lemonade and Hippo? Did their venture backers overpay? Let’s find out.
Powered by WPeMatico
Startup buzz comes in waves, with a particular thesis or focus coming into vogue at certain times. Remember the short-lived boom in chat bots? That was good fun. And there was the ICO craze, which lead every startup you’ve heard of to consider the financing option for at least a weekend.
We’ve also endured the early-AI bubble, the blockchain rush and a cannabis-driven wave as well. Even subtheses can see spikes, such as the neobanking industry, say, or roboadvising. Hell, we saw minicrazes in insurtech marketplaces and OKR software this year alone.
Fads in startups are not new. Today, as venture investment tilts toward enterprise software, we’re in something of a SaaS craze. Inside of today’s SaaS surge, however, is a smaller trend that I want to explore more: no-code and low-code startups.
Largely, low-code and no-code refer to tools that allow nondevelopers to either employ little (low-code) to no code while either building logic inside of software, or full applications. Low/no-code development often features drag-and-drop interfaces (Techopedia, TechTarget), but not all low-code and no-code tools are used to build apps.
Defining the sector and its focus is difficult. PitchBook says low/no-code development platforms “expedite the creation of new applications with minimal coding requirements and offer tools for nonprogrammers.” A recent TechCrunch article by a couple of venture capitalists argued that low/no-code work is “not a category itself, but rather a shift in how users interface with software tools.”
A bit like how AI and fintech are squishy categories, low-code and no-code have a wide remit.
After talking to a number of entrepreneurs lately who built these capabilities into their startups’ applications, it appears that today founders expect the capabilities to more helpful for nondevelopers reordering logic inside apps for their own needs, instead of building whole-cloth applications.
Powered by WPeMatico
Welcome to The Exchange, an upcoming weekly newsletter featuring TechCrunch and Extra Crunch reporting on startups, money and markets. You can sign up for it here to receive it regularly when it launches on July 25th, and catch up on prior editions of the column and newsletter here.
It’s Saturday, July 18, and this is The Exchange. Today we’re wrapping our look at second-quarter VC, capping off the recent IPOs of some venture-backed startups, and digging into the hottest VCs while peeking at a new startup trend.
As July rubs along we’re getting deeper into the third quarter of 2020, meaning it’s time to close the books on Q2. To that end The Exchange combed through all the second-quarter VC data that we could this week.
But, despite working to grasp the health of the global venture scene, the United States’ own venture capital totals, and diving more deeply into AI/ML startups and how women-founded startups fundraised in Q2, there’s still more data to sift.
Keeping brief as we are a bit charted-out, New York City-based venture capital group Work-Bench released a grip of numbers detailing the city’s enterprise-focused startups’ Q2 VC results. Given that Work-Bench invests in enterprise tech, the data’s focus was not a surprise.
The numbers, per the firm, look like this:
The data is not surprising. B2B startups are raking in a larger share of venture capital rounds as time goes along, so to see NYC’s own enterprise-focused startups doing well is not shocking. (And if you add in the recent $225 million UIPath round, the Big Apple’s enterprise startups are even closer to their 2019 venture dollar benchmark, though the UIPath deal came in Q3.)
One last bit of data and we are done. Fenwick & West, a law firm that works with startups, released a report this week concerning Silicon Valley’s own May VC results. Two data points in particular from the digest stood out. Chew on these (emphasis TechCrunch):
The percentage of up-rounds declined modestly from 71% in April to 67% in May, but continued [to be] noticeably lower than the 83% up-rounds on average in 2019. […] The average share price increase of May financings weakened noticeably, declining from 63% in April to 43% in May. The results for both April and May were significantly below the 2019 average increase of 93%.
The Q2 data mix then shakes out to be better than I would have expected with plenty of highlights. But if you look, it isn’t hard to find weaker points, either. We are, after all, in the midst of a pandemic.

nCino and GoHealth went public this week. TechCrunch got on the blower afterwards with nCino CEO Pierre Naudé and GoHealth CEO Clint Jones. By now you’ve seen the pricing pieces and notes on their companies’ early performance, so let’s instead talk about why they chose to pursue traditional IPOs.
Our goal was to understand why CEOs are going public through initial public offerings when some players in the venture space have soured on traditional IPOs. Here’s what we gleaned from the leaders of the week’s new offerings:
nCino: Naudé didn’t want to dig into nCino’s IPO process, but did note that he read TechCrunch’s coverage of his company’s IPO march. The CEO said that his firm was going to have an all-hands this Friday, and then get back to work. Naudé also said that becoming a public company could help the nCino brand by helping others understand the company’s financial stability. The company’s larger-than-expected IPO haul (one point for the old-fashion public offering, we suppose) could provide it with more options, we learned, including possibly upping its sales and marketing spend.
GoHealth: Jones told TechCrunch that GoHealth’s IPO was oversubscribed, implying good pre-IPO demand. When it came to pricing, GoHealth worked through a number of scenarios according to the CEO, who didn’t have anything negative to share about how his company finally set its IPO valuation. He did bring up the importance of collecting long-term investors.
The method by which a company goes public is only a piece of the public-markets saga that companies spin. Once public, either through a direct listing or SPAC-led reverse-IPO, all companies become lashed to the quarterly reporting cycle. Even more common than complaints about the IPO process among Silicon Valley is the refrain that public investors are too short-term-focused to let really innovative companies do well once they stop being private.
Is that true? TechCrunch spoke with Medallia CEO Leslie Stretch this week to get notes on the current level of patience that public investors have for growing tech companies; are public markets as impatient as some claim?
According to Stretch, there can be enough space in the public markets for tech shops to maneuver. At least that was his take a year after Medallia’s own 2019 IPO (transcript edited by TechCrunch for clarity; additions denoted by brackets):
[Our] partnership with public investors has been phenomenal. They really test you, you know? They really test your proposition, [and] they test your operational resilience in a way that just makes you better. And they give you feedback. Our philosophy is feedback always makes you better.
What people want to do is they want to crest the really big growth rate [that] is unassailable, it can’t be challenged. And then you come out in public, and it’s a no brainer. And some companies managed to do that. But of the [thousands of Series] A rounds that took place in early 2000s, you know, only 75 companies made it public. Right? We’re one of them.
I’m not fearful. I don’t think people should be fearful of [going public]. They should partner with public investors. The stock price, and the quarter-to-quarter, will be what it will be. Don’t worry about that. It’s what are you building for the long term, and make sure you have enough cash, of course, to meet your ambitions. [But] also a bit of fiscal discipline actually makes your products better, because you think how about how you invest, and harder about your priorities. That’s my view on [the] public piece.
Who wants to bet that unicorns keep putting off their IPOs anyways?

Let’s wrap with some fun stuff, kicking off with the TechCrunch List, a dataset that set out to figure out which VCs were the most likely to cut first checks. I’ve already used it to help put together an investor survey (stay tuned). It’s in front of the Extra Crunch paywall, so give it a whirl.
If you are part of Extra Crunch, Danny also pulled out an even more exclusive list that we built off the back of thousands of founder comments.
And I have two trends for you to think on. First, a wave of startups are trying to make our new, video-chatting based world a better place to be. It will be super interesting to see how much space is left in the market by the incumbent players currently battling for market leadership.
Second, some startups are raising extension rounds not only because they need defensive capital, but because they’ve caught a tailwind in the COVID era and want to go even faster. So, from a somewhat safe move, some extension rounds these days are more weapons than shields.
And that’s all we have. Say hi on Twitter if there’s something you want The Exchange to explore. Chat soon!
Powered by WPeMatico
As Zoom and Microsoft and Google hammer it out for video-chat hegemony, startups are developing apps and services that either add on or compete with the major players.
There hasn’t been enough activity — yet — to call it a boom, but there’s enough going on to warrant our attention. Call it a boomlet, if you will, of startups looking to ride the wave of demand that video-conferencing has seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Exchange explores startups, markets and money. You can read it every morning on Extra Crunch, or receive it for free in your inbox. Sign up for The Exchange newsletter, which drops Saturdays starting July 25.
The big players are not sitting still. Zoom has spent lots of 2020 on platform security after a surge in popularity exposed some frayed ends. Google has been working to make Meet, its own video-chat service, better and easier to find. And Microsoft has been hammering Teams’s abilities into stronger form as it uses the same product to fend off both Slack and Zoom, which is a tall order.
Other giants are getting into the mix. Reliance Jio, the Indian telecom subsidiary of megacorp Reliance, recently launched JioMeet, which has turned heads for looking rather similar to Zoom. It also quickly raced to millions of downloads. (That Google just put billions into JioMeet’s parent is an odd twist in the video-chatting wars; Google has effectively helped fund a competitor in the country, it appears.)
TechCrunch’s parent company, Verizon, recently bought BlueJeans, giving the American telecom company its own video chatting service. (It’s also eyeing the Indian market.)
But that’s only part of the action. More recently we’ve seen interesting rounds for video-chat software startups Macro and Mmhmm. And we’ve seen money go into companies like Daily.co, which want to let any company bake video-chatting capabilities into their service. And Y Combinator-backed Sidekick has been in the press lately, after building a hardware solution in mind for today’s remote workers who need video comms.
An upstart boomlet, then, amid a war of the majors. But should we have expected anything less from the huge wave of demand that COVID-19 kicked off? Zoom was growing quickly before the pandemic. Now the public company and a host of rivals, big and small, all want a larger slice of an expanding pie.
The two most interesting recent venture rounds for video-conferencing startups are those belonging to Mmhmm and Macro.
Powered by WPeMatico
The Q2 2020 venture capital market did not bring a catastrophic slowdown to either the global private investment scene or the U.S.’s own VC scene. But inside the rosier-than-anticipated private capital results of the second quarter, there were pockets of weakness, and strength, that we should understand as we look to the rest of 2020 and the continuance of the pandemic-driven economy.
The Exchange explores startups, markets and money. You can read it every morning on Extra Crunch, and you can now receive it in your inbox. Sign up for The Exchange newsletter, which will drop Saturdays starting July 25.
This morning we’re exploring trends detailed in the PitchBook-NVCA Q2 venture report, adding to our coverage of similar data sets produced by competing venture and private business information sources CB Insights and Crunchbase.
The NVCA data provides a useful cross section of venture activity beyond the usual quarterly totals, allowing us to better understand the diverging fortunes of domestic venture investment into business-serving startups (which appear strong), and investments into consumer-serving startups (which appear weak).
It also provides a peek into AI/ML-focused investing, a topic that TechCrunch has covered extensively this year. And, finally, we have a lens into recent U.S. VC results for startups that have at least one female founder, or were founded by all-women teams.
Some of the news is positive, and some of it is less so. But we owe it to ourselves to understand all of it. So to wrap up our week’s dive into Q2 VC activity, let’s get into our final look at the data, focusing today on the nuances of the United States’s own venture results.
As 2019 came to a close, TechCrunch wrote about a notable trend: Seed investors shifted their attention from consumer-focused startups to business-focused startups. Seed deals had moved from majority-B2C to majority-B2B, in other words.
Powered by WPeMatico