How can I set an appropriate valuation for my startup's seed round?

Im not sure if i understood your question, but here i go: There are a few metrics that can be used (typically thought at MBA programs) but obviously accessible to leveraged investors through advisors and or legal aids. These metrics give an idea on value based on marketable assets, capital investments, liquidity, etc. depending on the startup's nature. Aside from the above, an investor pretty much decides on the spot. My first startup was funder out a simple idea being pitched and funding got me through beta, at which point we saw it was not worth pursuing. My second startup I funded myself after selling a company and then a group of investors valued the startup based on users (freemium model) and potential market cap. - for a market cap number you have to be reasonable too. Just because the market is worth 100billion doesnt mean you can cap at that.- Depending on the amount you ask for and who you pitch to, an investor might want to do a combination of revenue, users, assets, patents, contracts, pre orders, etc... If you need help crafting a pitch or giving you feedback give me a call. Best of luck.

There is no valuation until you sell something. An idea or a company is only worth what its sales are. Once you have your initials sales, sales strategy and forecasting length (ie 9 months from first customer lead to close) then you have a formula for valuation. Valuation for start-ups is generally 3.5 x last years sales model should be the growth factor. When you are looking for investors, you will want to have atleast 9-18 months of SALES, not just pipeline and they will be looking at 5x revenue for a 3-5 year payback.

In short, someone was willing to pay $16bn, therefore it's worth $16bn. Trying to tie intrinsic value to private companies is tough, and doesn't follow a logical path. If you look at Facebook's angle, it becomes pretty clear: When you have 1 billion users, but still want to grow, you have to pay for it. FB looked at the WhatsApp acquisition purely from a user acquisition perspective, they paid $45 per user, which is a justifiable fee on their end. What makes it crazy is there were a lot of users involved. Because Facebook has become a mobile app company, and WhatsApp adds to the company portfolio, it makes long-term sense. Additionally, much of WhatsApps user base was international, which is a huge untapped chunk of the world for Facebook. Acquiring WhatsApp allowed FB to make a big international splash in no time.

"Based on the success we are able to achieve" suggests, to me, you are looking at a price that will be tagged to an earn out provision. In other words, the price of the deal will be contingent on you achieving specific revenue targets in the future. If I'm reading this wrong, please correct me because it's an important piece of information. Early stage startup typically suggests a focus on revenue growth with minimal focus on earnings. The most valuable acquisitions will be those that have growth in the top quartile of the industry along with an EBITDA that is also in the top quartile. Companies with these will have the highest multiples. Revenue multiples are also a function of the industry and the general character of the market. Currently, the IPO markets are doing pretty well and the overall M&A market appears to be pretty solid making multiples equally solid. In terms of industry, the media publishing industry has moderate to slow growth depending on the segment. I'm assuming there is a social or online component to your startup which would suggest that it would be part of the new growth side of the market. Generally speaking, market growth averages are at about 8% for larger companies suggesting that new entrants should be able to sustain low to mid double digit growth over a longer horizon. "Growth rates", i.e. percentages, can be meaningless for very small companies. For instance, a company that grows from $25,000 to $250,000 in a year has a massive growth rate..... but the value may be very low due to lack of track record and overall profitability. As such, it can be very hard to estimate multiples. That said, if I were putting forth a hypothetical, it would be something like the following: Assuming: The company has over $1M in revenue and is growing at an average of 12 - 15% per year. Assuming: The company is profitable, but barely, say something in the 10% EBITDA range. Assuming: The company is a service company with few assets but is not subject to significant brain drain (key people leaving would result in devaluing the company). If any of the above are wrong, it can change things significantly. Revenue multiples might be in the 0.7 - 1.15x revenue on forward looking and .9 - 1.25 on a trailing level. EBITDA Multiples could be in the 8 - 10 times on a forward looking and 10 - 12 times on a trailing level. Take it with a grain of salt because there are a lot of factors you don't mention and more information is important to make a meaningful diagnosis.

As you may know, we acquired Clarity recently and have done numerous acquisitions at Startups.co so we spend a lot of time thinking about this. I've also personally been acquired a few times so I've been on both sides. With that said I think the earlier comment about how much value you can bring to the acquirer is always a great place to start. For example, if your company had $100k in sales per year, no reasonable multiple of that is going to get you into a meaningful acquisition price. So scratch that. Instead - try to determine what kind of revenue the acquirer might generate in the first and second year post acquisition. That at least gives you a starting point. What you can't do is start thinking about what Instagram sold for. None of that type of silly math matters. Those are one of conditions where a company is in such hot demand is so singular in it's value (no one else was that big at that time in that particular segment) that they play by entirely different rules. What's nice about the 'what value can we bring' discussion is that it shows that you are thinking about what's in it for them, not just what's in it for you.