Fact: Of these 500,000 new businesses less than 1,000 received venture capital funding.

There are vastly more entrepreneurs seeking start-up funding than there are available funding sources and investment pools. This is a fact. And yet, 499,000 incorporations occurred in 2005 without the cover of an investment funding commitment. Many of these new businesses will fail. Nevertheless, the urge to seek the fulfillment, financial security, freedom and the satisfaction of overcoming the odds still drives us to try.

The lingering doubt, and hurdle each of these new entrepreneurs confront is this, “where does the money come from”? We look at, on average, 600 submissions per year in my consulting business. The absolutely, number one reason, most of these presentations will not ever make it beyond the idea stage is an unrealistic understanding on the role of investment and sources of available start-up funds.

My first assessment of an opportunity is always the idea itself. Assuming the submission passes our layered analysis, the next hurdle is the inventor or prospective entrepreneur. Is he a dreamer, or a doer? And the first disqualifying trip wire for a dreamer is the expectation that they can have someone incur all of the financial risk, 100%, while they commit nothing. When I say nothing, I mean no patent filings, no production quality prototypes, no qualified research, no testing, etc. They have only an idea.

Angel investors do exist, but even they do not very often consider investment in dreams, cocktail napkin designs or untested theory. And yet we eliminate 60% of the product opportunities we view, many with interesting commercial potential, simply because the submitter can not, or will not invest in their own opportunity. If you do not believe in yourself, your opportunity, why would anyone else?

The development monies for patent and trademark filing, design, research, creating working models is what the funding world calls 3-F money. 3-F money comes from friends, families or fools. This is very high risk and usually very small amounts are needed. Most of the products we see require from $12,000 to $20,000 to put in a professional presentation that could be of interest to investors, licensees or partners. Most of the people that submit to firms like ours have jobs, homes, and investments. Many love to chat about their boat, second home or recent safari vacation. But they claim to have no money to invest in a project that they state is an absolute winner, and will make millions for everyone involved.

This is an absolute deal killer, a non-starter. We are constantly solicited to become the inventor’s partner, hundreds of times per year. Investors must see passion, commitment, confidence and an inventor with skin (dollars) in the game. The lack of personal commitment one brings to a project is proof that a dreamer is impersonating an entrepreneur.

Friends, family and fools assist in funding, investing or partnering most of the 499,000 new incorporations filed in 2005. This does not include the huge number of sole proprietorships established each year. Most new businesses do not require the involvement of venture capital funding sources, blind pools or investment banks. Their scale is too small for consideration by firms seeking larger investment opportunities with huge harvest (cash out) potential.

Many entrepreneurs have used credit cards, personal savings, a home equity loan, sell that antique car, tap a retirement account, or utilize an inheritance to fund their new enterprise. Just remember however, this is high risk and more business start-ups fail than succeed. Nevertheless, securing the initial development funds in this way shows commitment and can advance a project to the point where deal placement is a real possibility.

During the 1990’s a gold rush mentality occurred that distorted the financial markets. Money for many investment types was readily available. Due diligence was morphed by theory and new age abstract business models. The sky was the limit.

Well the sky was not the limit. The bubble burst and in the first decade of the 21st century we are now in an investment cycle where cynicism rules. Every deal is thoroughly vetted and re-vetted. Terms are very strident. A submission must be absolutely professionally researched and presented. The market allows for no shortcuts or errors in assumptions made. With this reality in hand, and the knowledge that self-funding, or 3-F funding are the most prevalent options for startup monies, are there any other options? What are they? There are several, and I will be writing specifically in more detail on each. Consider:

My first assessment of an opportunity is always the idea itself. Assuming the submission passes our layered analysis, the next hurdle is the inventor or prospective entrepreneur. Is he a dreamer, or a doer? And the first disqualifying trip wire for a dreamer is the expectation that they can have someone incur all of the financial risk, 100%, while they commit nothing. When I say nothing, I mean no patent filings, no production quality prototypes, no qualified research, no testing, etc. They have only an idea.

Angel investors do exist, but even they do not very often consider investment in dreams, cocktail napkin designs or untested theory. And yet we eliminate 60% of the product opportunities we view, many with interesting commercial potential, simply because the submitter can not, or will not invest in their own opportunity. If you do not believe in yourself, your opportunity, why would anyone else?

The development monies for patent and trademark filing, design, research, creating working models is what the funding world calls 3-F money. 3-F money comes from friends, families or fools. This is very high risk and usually very small amounts are needed. Most of the products we see require from $12,000 to $20,000 to put in a professional presentation that could be of interest to investors, licensees or partners. Most of the people that submit to firms like ours have jobs, homes, and investments. Many love to chat about their boat, second home or recent safari vacation. But they claim to have no money to invest in a project that they state is an absolute winner, and will make millions for everyone involved.

This is an absolute deal killer, a non-starter. We are constantly solicited to become the inventor’s partner, hundreds of times per year. Investors must see passion, commitment, confidence and an inventor with skin (dollars) in the game. The lack of personal commitment one brings to a project is proof that a dreamer is impersonating an entrepreneur.

Friends, family and fools assist in funding, investing or partnering most of the 499,000 new incorporations filed in 2005. This does not include the huge number of sole proprietorships established each year. Most new businesses do not require the involvement of venture capital funding sources, blind pools or investment banks. Their scale is too small for consideration by firms seeking larger investment opportunities with huge harvest (cash out) potential.

Many entrepreneurs have used credit cards, personal savings, a home equity loan, sell that antique car, tap a retirement account, or utilize an inheritance to fund their new enterprise. Just remember however, this is high risk and more business start-ups fail than succeed. Nevertheless, securing the initial development funds in this way shows commitment and can advance a project to the point where deal placement is a real possibility.

During the 1990’s a gold rush mentality occurred that distorted the financial markets. Money for many investment types was readily available. Due diligence was morphed by theory and new age abstract business models. The sky was the limit.

Well the sky was not the limit. The bubble burst and in the first decade of the 21st century we are now in an investment cycle where cynicism rules. Every deal is thoroughly vetted and re-vetted. Terms are very strident. A submission must be absolutely professionally researched and presented. The market allows for no shortcuts or errors in assumptions made. With this reality in hand, and the knowledge that self-funding, or 3-F funding are the most prevalent options for startup monies, are there any other options? What are they? There are several, and I will be writing specifically in more detail on each. Consider:

This is an absolute deal killer, a non-starter. We are constantly solicited to become the inventor’s partner, hundreds of times per year. Investors must see passion, commitment, confidence and an inventor with skin (dollars) in the game. The lack of personal commitment one brings to a project is proof that a dreamer is impersonating an entrepreneur.

Friends, family and fools assist in funding, investing or partnering most of the 499,000 new incorporations filed in 2005. This does not include the huge number of sole proprietorships established each year. Most new businesses do not require the involvement of venture capital funding sources, blind pools or investment banks. Their scale is too small for consideration by firms seeking larger investment opportunities with huge harvest (cash out) potential.

Many entrepreneurs have used credit cards, personal savings, a home equity loan, sell that antique car, tap a retirement account, or utilize an inheritance to fund their new enterprise. Just remember however, this is high risk and more business start-ups fail than succeed. Nevertheless, securing the initial development funds in this way shows commitment and can advance a project to the point where deal placement is a real possibility.

During the 1990’s a gold rush mentality occurred that distorted the financial markets. Money for many investment types was readily available. Due diligence was morphed by theory and new age abstract business models. The sky was the limit.

Well the sky was not the limit. The bubble burst and in the first decade of the 21st century we are now in an investment cycle where cynicism rules. Every deal is thoroughly vetted and re-vetted. Terms are very strident. A submission must be absolutely professionally researched and presented. The market allows for no shortcuts or errors in assumptions made. With this reality in hand, and the knowledge that self-funding, or 3-F funding are the most prevalent options for startup monies, are there any other options? What are they? There are several, and I will be writing specifically in more detail on each. Consider:

Friends, family and fools assist in funding, investing or partnering most of the 499,000 new incorporations filed in 2005. This does not include the huge number of sole proprietorships established each year. Most new businesses do not require the involvement of venture capital funding sources, blind pools or investment banks. Their scale is too small for consideration by firms seeking larger investment opportunities with huge harvest (cash out) potential.

Many entrepreneurs have used credit cards, personal savings, a home equity loan, sell that antique car, tap a retirement account, or utilize an inheritance to fund their new enterprise. Just remember however, this is high risk and more business start-ups fail than succeed. Nevertheless, securing the initial development funds in this way shows commitment and can advance a project to the point where deal placement is a real possibility.

During the 1990’s a gold rush mentality occurred that distorted the financial markets. Money for many investment types was readily available. Due diligence was morphed by theory and new age abstract business models. The sky was the limit.

Well the sky was not the limit. The bubble burst and in the first decade of the 21st century we are now in an investment cycle where cynicism rules. Every deal is thoroughly vetted and re-vetted. Terms are very strident. A submission must be absolutely professionally researched and presented. The market allows for no shortcuts or errors in assumptions made. With this reality in hand, and the knowledge that self-funding, or 3-F funding are the most prevalent options for startup monies, are there any other options? What are they? There are several, and I will be writing specifically in more detail on each. Consider:

Well the sky was not the limit. The bubble burst and in the first decade of the 21st century we are now in an investment cycle where cynicism rules. Every deal is thoroughly vetted and re-vetted. Terms are very strident. A submission must be absolutely professionally researched and presented. The market allows for no shortcuts or errors in assumptions made. With this reality in hand, and the knowledge that self-funding, or 3-F funding are the most prevalent options for startup monies, are there any other options? What are they? There are several, and I will be writing specifically in more detail on each. Consider: