Fintech Payments

Valuation compression in fintech hitting bitcoin/blockchain in 2016

Valuation compression in fintech hitting bitcoin/blockchain in 2016. Image: Iman Mosaad CC0
Written by George Samman

What caused value compression in startups, and will the cracks widen in fintech? Story by George Samman.

In 2016, expect what has already become an increasingly difficult funding climate to become even more challenging. Thus far, fintech has been immune to this, but there are cracks starting to form even in the hottest sector in startup land. The trickle down effect has led to difficulty even among VC darlings and the white-hot bitcoin and blockchain segments. This post will explore what has happened to cause value compression in startups and why it’s leading to compression all the way down the chain (pun intended).

Valuation compression

Throughout startup land, we’re starting to see valuation compression. Some of the darling companies of days past have suffered from down rounds (Foursquare), the effects of ratchets (Chegg and Square), going public at prices lower than their last round of funding (Square), being acquired at prices much lower than their last round of financing (Good Technology), or their valuations being written down from where companies invested in them (Snapchat by Fidelity). Read here for the effects of ratchets on Square and Chegg. These are all symptoms of valuation compression.

Valuation compression can occur for many reasons. In times of easy money, investors are willing to invest large amounts of money into companies at friendly valuations, multiples expand and this trickles into all startups as a whole. Essentially, companies raise money at the valuations they want and this leads other companies to raise at these levels or higher. Investors begin to have fear of missing out (FOMO) and want to get a piece of companies in hot sectors. As more money flows and valuations rise, the expansion continues unabated, until it doesn’t. Private markets follow public markets (or so the theory goes) and as those markets deteriorate or get shaken (as they have been since China devalued the yuan and the Fed raised interest rates), questions start to arise throughout the whole capital spectrum. This is when VCs and other investors start questioning business models, wondering how companies will make money and looking at the global macroeconomic environment; they start wondering if the good times are coming to an end.

The real question becomes what is company X really worth and is the industry it is in as a whole really as big as it once appeared? Are there too many companies competing for too little pie? The answers to these questions are inevitably always yes, and that’s when the consolidation phase begins, but it starts with multiple compression and ends with funding becoming harder and harder. Warnings of a bubble have been heard for years and have gone largely ignored, except within the media and some circles. (I’m not saying a bubble has formed.)

It all starts in search of returns and money flows to where it can make money. VCs are always the first ones in and have benefited the most from the spectacular rise in private company valuations. Then a funny thing happened on the way to the theater: hedge funds such as Tiger Global, financial institutions such as Fidelity and T. Rowe Price started investing in late-stage rounds for private companies because they saw opportunities they weren’t getting in their other business lines and the public markets. This, to me, is where the beginning of valuation compression started.

Even some closed-ended mutual funds were formed to capitalize companies such as GSVC Capital (GSVC). GSVC invested in companies such as Twitter and Facebook before they were public. GSVC defines itself as:

‘Externally managed, non-diversified closed-end management investment company. The Company’s investment objective is to maximize its portfolio’s total return, principally by seeking capital gains on its equity and equity-related investments. It invests principally in the equity securities of venture capital-backed emerging companies. It seeks to deploy capital primarily in the form of non-controlling equity and equity-related investments, including common stock, warrants, preferred stock and similar forms of senior equity, which may or may not be convertible into a portfolio company’s common equity, and convertible debt securities with an equity component. It seeks to acquire its investments primarily through Private secondary marketplaces and direct share purchases, and direct investments in private companies.’

With such successes in its portfolios, you would think its stock price would be up in this boom for private companies. Ummm, not so much. In fact, it trades way below Net Asset Value (NAV). This is commonly referred to as trading at a discount, and while there are many reasons for this, it’s generally not a good thing unless there are extreme market distortions (not to be discussed in this blog post). Below is a chart of the performance of GSVC since it first started trading.

A chart of the performance of GSVC since it first started trading.

And this is the portfolio of GSVC. Companies such as Lyft and Palantir remain.

IPOs are the new down round

Another sign of what’s coming is that there were only two IPOs in December, one of them being Atlassian, which was a big success. However, the numbers for IPOs are shockingly bad according to this article:

‘The two measly IPOs in the US in December brought the total for the year to 170, down 38% from 2014, according to Renaissance Capital. By that measure, it was the worst year since 2012. In terms of dollars, only $28.7bn in IPOs were booked in the US in 2015, down 48% from 2014, and by that measure, according to Thomson Reuters, ‘their worst year since 2009′.’

“We will see several unicorns come public below their highest late stage private rounds,” predicts Max Wolff, chief economist at Manhattan Venture Partners. “This is part of an overdue and long-term healthy reset.”

This certainly has implications for fintech.


Fintech has been spared for the most part, as it has been one of the hottest sectors for VC/private capital over the last few years. 2014 was a record-setting year for investment in fintech according to Accenture, and 2015 will be bigger when the final numbers are out. In the past five years, 10% of all VC money has gone into fintech, and those companies have produced 20% of all private companies valued at 1bn+ (unicorns).

872 fintech startups have benefited from significant investments in 2015. Some have been huge winners, and below is a list of fintech unicorns whose valuations have been lifted to lofty levels:

SoFiUSP2P lending$1.2bn$5bn
AvantUSLending marketplace$725m$2bn
One97 CommunicationsIndiaMobile payments$680m$2bn
LufaxChinaP2P lending$500m$10bn
Credit KarmaUSPersonal finance$175m$3.5bn
ProsperUSP2P lending$165m$1.9bn
AdyenThe NetherlandsPaymentsUndisclosed$2.3bn

Many of these companies will probably look to go public at some point to capitalize on these numbers, but as the environment starts to change, it will be time to separate the wheat from the chafe. If we look to the top fintech IPOs and the spinoff of PayPal, performance of these companies has been pretty rotten overall.

Top fintech IPOs

If we look at the charts below, the public companies can be seen as the fintech canaries in the coal mine. While fintech has been donned as the hottest sector in startup land, the performance of many of the darlings hasn’t been so great. This is what value compression looks like public-market-style. The story of Square provides a harrowing tale, and while the chart doesn’t look terrible since the IPO, remember where Square’s valuation once was as a private company. Click here to read the full story of Square in case you’re not up to speed. Of course, time will tell if it’s a success, but the point of this blog is to talk about the beginning of valuation compression for fintech all the way down to bitcoin and blockchain.

The remittance space as an example

The SaveOnSend blog is something I read whenever a new post comes out and I highly recommend it to all. One of the hottest spaces in fintech has been remittance, and this is because the market size is massive (~.6tn USD) There a couple of behemoths in the space, particularly Western Union and to a lesser extent MoneyGram. The startups have raised an enormous amount of money, as the chart below shows:

Funding rounds for remittance startups. analysis

Xoom was acquired by PayPal at $25 per share, in what the SaveOnSend blog describes succinctly, despite revenue and gross sending volume falling off a cliff, because PayPal wanted a piece of the remittance pie. The public markets are not always the smart money, as can be read in full here.

Xoom: change in growth trajectory. analysis

The main point is that these startups are competing with incumbents and among themselves for funding, customers and valuations, and there are a few ways to do this: through increasing revenues, through differentiation, and by competing on price in top remittance corridors. Competing on price has been the way they’ve been trying, and this has led to declining revenues and margins (which can be read in detail here). The point is when the funding dries up, these businesses can’t continue burning through cash and generating losses. SaveOnSend hits the nail on the head:

So, based on the above, will these and other remittance startups be around for a while? Only very few, like TransferWise. Long-term, current valuations don’t seem to be justified in a market with declining revenues, rising costs, and increasing competition. It has been relatively easy to raise money for ‘payments-mobile-fintech’ startups, but when another downturn comes in 2016, 2017, or 2018, investors will again remember the millennial-old adage: ‘Eventually, all businesses are valued as a multiple of earnings.’

This is one example, but can be extrapolated to all other sectors of the fintech landscape.

VC funding of bitcoin and blockchain

Inevitably, this even trickles down to what’s been labeled the hottest of the hot: bitcoin and blockchain. While this market is still in its infancy, it has attracted a fair amount of money, though it hasn’t reached the levels of other sectors within fintech. In 2015, 21 Inc raised $116m, Coinbase raised $75m, Circle raised $50m, Ripple raised $32m and Chain raised $30m. However, since the Chain raise, funding has decreased on the bitcoin and shared ledger sides of the table; R3CEV, Abra and Align Commerce are the most notable. The CoinDesk VC database shows all the companies and amounts that have raised since September:

Bitcoin Venture Investments: CoinDesk

Tim Swanson of R3CEV provides a nice chart showing bitcoin funding by month over the last two years in his most recent blog post. The chart can be found below:

Bitcoin funding (by month) over the last two years. Image: Tim Swanson

What has happened to cause this?

As mentioned above, it’s a general valuation compression affecting the whole of startup land. However, it seems that bitcoin and blockchain/shared ledger has run into some problems independent of fintech, which hasn’t been hit this hard yet. In fact, the hot blockchain space has hit peak interest, as this Google Trends chart shows:

Google Trends, blockchain

A recent article by Nathaniel Popper in the New York Times has shown that some of the more well-known companies in the shared ledger space have run into trouble in their fundraising efforts, despite extraordinary financial leaders at their helms. The reasons for this range from valuations to technology. There certainly seems to be a bloat in the shared ledger space, as many companies have pivoted away from bitcoin and are looking to work with banks in many areas where shared ledger technology makes sense. Many new entrants have also entered the space. While there are many companies working on this, banks also have their own internal projects, as well working side by side (and possibly in competition with) some of the companies in the space. There are also questions on different model types: consortium or private chains.

Until the space becomes more developed, and projects with financial institutions more defined, it may be a wait-and-see approach for funding companies if the technology actually lives up to all of its promises. This could mean a pause in funding until design and implementation are developed properly.

This has caused many bitcoin startups to suffer, too, because there are now questions of which chain will win, as there has become a great divide between using bitcoin’s blockchain or the shared ledgers being developed. This has probably left many VCs on the sidelines to see what shakes out.

Other problems with bitcoin as far as funding goes could be around the ‘blocksize’ debate and how that shakes out from a community perspective and a technology perspective. Many of the older companies continue to look for ways to monetize, and for the ‘killer app’. While the bitcoin price increased in the last quarter of 2015, this hasn’t caused a renewed interest in funding companies yet. In fact, interest in bitcoin over time remains low despite the price enjoying an uptrend.

Google Trends, Bitcoin interest over time

The reality is we’re starting to see valuation compression happening to fintech, and bitcoin and blockchain startups will not be spared this fate. There always comes a time when you batten down the hatches and build. Execution becomes the key and metrics begin to matter. It seems the time has come.

– This article is reproduced with kind permission. Some minor changes have been made to reflect BankNXT style considerations. You can read the original article here. Main image: Iman Mosaad, CC0

About the author

George Samman

George Samman is the former CMO of Fuzo, which is using blockchain to bring financial inclusion to the developing world. He is also committee chair of the Wall Street blockchain Alliance (WSBA) for blockchain and financial services. He co-founded, now magnr, a bitcoin trading platform, and is a former Wall Street senior portfolio manager and market strategist, as well as technical analyst.

Leave a Comment