The Crowd Loves An Idea, But They Hate Playing The Odds

By Rupert Taylor on 2nd March 2016

Equity Crowdfunding

Investment wisdom tells us that valuation is the single most important consideration when choosing an equity investment.  The world is an uncertain place - even more so in the world of business.  As such only a fool would believe that they can predict the future with any certainty.  Seasoned investors tend to have learned this lesson.  Experience has taught them that even the best ideas come up against pitfalls as the un-predictable nature of the world conspires to obstruct, or even prevent, progress towards a plan.    Even Warren Buffett, master investor of Berkshire Hathaway fame, has the humility to acknowledge this. 

The Crowd Loves An Idea, But They Hate Playing The Odds


“At Berkshire, we make no attempt to pick the few winners that will emerge from an ocean of unproven enterprises.  We’re not smart enough to do that, and we know it.”


As a result the wisest investors will always explain that they play the odds.  Or as Buffett expresses it - ‘the margin of safety’.  They know they cannot be sure that a great idea will come to fruition, and so they ensure that probability is on their side.  More specifically they ensure that the implied probability of success is considerably lower than the actual likelihood of success.  They understand that success can never be guaranteed.  But if they back enough ideas with an 80% chance of succeeding, at an implied probability of 40%, then over time they will make money.  Even if some of the 80% shots do not in fact succeed.  Note that these percentages are not fixed.  According to this logic, backing an investment with a 30% chance of success at 10% implied is a better bet than backing an investment with a 90% chance of success at 95% implied. 


So where do I find the implied probability of success of my crowdfunding campaign?  Easy – it’s the valuation. 


Valuation is a measure of implied probability.  It’s crude, but it’s the best we’ve got.  To figure it out you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of pay-off.  Pay-off is what success looks like - it is what the company could be worth if everything turns out as planned.  Let’s take an example: 


  • A red hot fast growth brewery has revenues growing at 100% i.e. doubling every year. 
  • Revenues are £30m.  The valuation is £300m. 
  • Year 2 revenues will be £60m, year 3 £120m. 
  • Then inevitably growth will moderate to a less incredible 50%. 
  • Year 4 revenues are £180m. 
  • Followed by 3 years of 20% revenue growth. 
  • As a result, in year 7, revenues are £310m. 
  • The brewery now has significant penetration of its segments and growth is now 2x GDP – still incredibly impressive.  This would command a valuation of around 1x sales, i.e. 1 x £310m = approximately  £300m. 


The problem is I am being asked to pay £300m today.  £300m for something which if everything goes to plan will be worth approximately £300m!    i.e. if the company delivers perfectly then it will justify today’s valuation but no more.   In effect there is no payoff even in a perfect scenario.  And to make matters worst there is also considerable risk.  As an equity investment, start-up equity at that, if the company delivers anything less than perfection then I can expect to lose money – possibly all of my money.  Effectively the company is already priced for perfect execution. 


So let’s take this back to the idea of implied probability.  This company is priced for guaranteed success. Anything less and I will lose money. It might be such a strong brand, with such mystical management, that it’s a guaranteed success.  But it still will not allow investors to make any money.  Even if EVERYTHING goes to plan.  And in anything less than that golden scenario I would lose money. 


So what implied probability should I look for?  This is impossible to answer.  Except to say ‘less than 100%’!  Would I buy this priced at 50% of the implied best case payoff?  No.

30%?  Maybe. 

10%?  Definitely. 


Here at AltFi we have long expressed concern over equity crowdfunding valuations.  Our sense is that ‘the crowd’ gets lured by a great story without being sufficiently discerning about valuation.  Effectively they are prepared to accept far too low a potential pay off given how un-certain they should be of success. New research published today seems to confirm our fear. 


CROWDRATING is a service that offers ratings for crowdfunding campaigns.  They provide a score across three criteria: management; product; and investment.  Of these, ‘investment’ encompasses the company’s financials and valuation. 


Having rated 155 campaigns between April and December 2015 they can identify which factors determine whether or not a campaign is successful, i.e. if they score a campaign well or badly on those factors does it appear to have any effect on the crowds inclination to invest?  The results are startling. 


The crowd pays attention to management and product. Campaigns that scored highly in these categories had a better success rate of getting funded than those that scored poorly.  However, when it comes to financials, the pattern fails.  In fact, campaigns that scored badly for financials got funded.  Those that scored well struggled. 


Like all analysis done in this nascent sector, patience is required to support any findings.  It is early days and only time will allow us to see if valuations are being set at a level that allows the crowd to achieve an adequate pay off if a company succeeds.  However, unless the crowd is disciplined about the implied probability that they are prepared to accept, they should not expect to make impressive investment returns. If, however, the crowd can indeed predict the future with absolute certainty then Mr Buffett, and indeed investors everywhere, will be most keen to borrow the crowd’s crystal ball! 



08 Mar 2016 10:49am

Yeah, interesting take and thanks very much for the response. I do agree that at some point appetite for acquisition from the majors will slow and that a £300m target is less palatable, but I also still see this is as only small part growing pie and large part shifting preference. While I agree global beer consumption increases may very well subside at GDP or less, the trade off between traditional lagers/ales and craft beer is what is driving the increase trading volumes and valuations etc... Craft beer consumption is still growing massively compared to wider alcoholic beverage consumption and I think that is what is allowing for the increased competition and flurry of new breweries (particularly in the UK and US). I would also argue that could be partially why someone like Adnams might be trading at <1x sales, because of their lack of traction in addressing changing consumer preferences (not that they aren't trying of course) and the wider global appeal of craft beer compared to cask ales. That said I think I can take a guess at which one we are referring to here, which has a very strong foothold on the UK (branding being critical in this case as with most consumer products) and good inroads to the US, where the brand is certainly gaining traction. However I think that is one particular case and I understand your point is for the wider funding market overall. As an active "web" investor and an entrepreneur myself though I think that often these businesses (at least the ones I support) are addressing clear trends within sub-sectors of their wider respective markets, which may in many cases appear to be slowing or fairly stable in aggregate. This is also what may support the link between product and team vs. financials, which I think we both agree should often be taken with a grain of salt. For me part of the investment merit is managements ability to react quickly when things don't go to plan as they often do so I expect this. Still you do make good points overall and in some cases I have questioned the merit of the valuations, but at the end of the day those are opportunities I simply don't invest in. Good discussion regardless. Cheers

Rupert Taylor

08 Mar 2016 09:37am

Hi Mr Buffett. How right you are. When failure likely results in a 'zero' value to your investment then your payoff expectations should be commensurately higher to compensate for that risk. If you did ever join a roulette table, as an observer perhaps, i suspect that you would be alarmed to see retail investors accepting moderate payouts from backing extremely unlikely outcomes.

Rupert Taylor

08 Mar 2016 09:32am

Hi Jgrossling. Breweries trade at a range of valuations depending on the individual business and the time period in question. Bear in mind that Breweries of this size can also trade at alot less than 1x sales - last year Adnams an independent UK brewer of a similar size was trading on just 1/2x sales. And will acquisition premia persist? When majors are acquiring the minnows trade at a premium but that doesn't happen in perpetuity. What happens to the valuation of those that remain once the appetite of the majors has been sated? The majors only need to buy so many craft brands. And finally to the headline craft breweries you mention - of course they are at a premium - they are still growing at 20%+ as you report. But this cannot last for ever. Beer drinking volume trends in developed markets are in fact under-performing GDP so to expect growth at a multiple of GDP to persist makes no sense. Also bear in mind the explosion of competition. There is no barrier to entry in brewing. New entrants will increase competition and curtail growth of the peers. This is why long term GDP+ growth is not sustainable. And this is why long term history shows that 1x sales is a fair multiple once growth has moderated to a more steady state environment.

Mr. Buffett

08 Mar 2016 08:54am

Venture capital investments are not comparable to value investments. The game is different, the players are different. Playing the odds does not provide my 'margin of safety'. You don't see me at the roulette table.


08 Mar 2016 08:31am

Don't most brewery's trade at 2-3x sales? With acquisition premiums and current market trends I think exit values are soaring upwards of 4-5x turnover. That would suggest a much higher exit valuation based on those in your example and a much lower implied probability. Just curious, I do get that this represents a more conservative approach, but given that some headline craft breweries in the US (Boston Beer Co., Dogfish Head, Brooklyn Brewery etc...) are still experience 20%+ sales growth, I don't really see the sector slowing massively in the next 5 years especially here in the UK and continental Europe where the craft beer movement is a few years behind.