Dragons' Den VC Duncan Bannatyne

Anyone who watched this week’s brutal episode of Dragons’ Den may have been surprised to find Theo Paphitis talking about sticking pins in his eyes and Duncan Bannatyne behaving a bit like a spoiled toddler who’d just been handed a carrot instead of a lolly – should business angels adopt the modus operandi of the VCs in Dragons’ Den?

I watched with interest the pitch from entrepreneur Guy Jeremiah who arrived at the Den hoping to secure £100,000 of investment in return for 10% of his plastic bottle business.

The pitch seemed convincing enough to begin with. “Buy into my folding plastic bottles and save all the waste from this other great pile of plastic bottles I’ve brought in”. With investment in eco products now all the rage Mr Jeremiah thought he was onto a surefire winner. Afterall he was offering the dragons the chance to gain a slice of the £multi-billion bottled water industry and save the planet.

What ensued was a study in cringe-worthy TV as the fatal flaws in the entrepreneur’s business plan were ruthlessly exposed by each of the dragons in quick succession. The folding bottles were only going to add to pollution and waste, Duncan Bannatyne felt that they would bulge his pockets spoiling the lines of his suit. Theo Paphitis reacted by saying “aw wanna stick pins in my eyes.”

A visibly enraged Bannatyne added that he re-uses the bottles he buys several times. Not only that he has plenty of room in his “shports bag” where he keeps his “trainarsh” before adding something about public fountains being the best and most environmentally friendly place in the world to get your water. This was only the prelude to him crunching up the bottle and lobbing it in the direction of the crestfallen entrepreneur. Cue camera zooming in on mangled bottle in the far corner of the room and back to Mr Jeremiah who looked as crushed and mangled as his eco bottle RRP £4.99. He probably left the Den feeling like he had the green credentials of a senior BP executive.

But I couldn’t help but wonder while watching whether it is right that when an entrepreneur appears in front of you with a business idea, he should be given a good ear bashing and have his gear thrown at him? We’ve come to expect this kind of behaviour on TV Shows like X-Factor and Celebrity Come Dancing, but it is now filtering into business programmes on BBC 2. The stand before the all knowing judging panel format.

Ok Dragons’ Den is an extreme case, they need to keep viewers interested and what could possibly make better TV than seeing “sophisticated”, sullen faced investors who might kick off any minute for seemingly insignificant reasons and throw wads of cash at people or launch products into the four corners of the room?

Behaviour like this certainly puts the entrepreneur under pressure and if business angels began acting this way – perhaps some already do – then there will need to be a rebranding exercise. But it might be useful to have a less extreme sense of this fear factor in place during negotiations. When the entrepreneur’s pitch is done and the questions begin, it might be useful for the business angel to take a less friendly approach, put the entrepreneur under pressure and extract anything that might be misleading in a pitch.

This year the TV Dragons reflect a more conservative attitude that is pervading the VC investment sector and filtering down into the angel sector at the moment. We know that VCs are investing less in seed stage businesses than they were, so they are even less likely to fall for the sales patter in an unconvincing pitch.

In this climate entrepreneurs will need to try harder to convince potential investors of their credentials and demonstrate the bottom line – that their business idea can and does make money. Business angels will also need to play their part and encourage entrepreneurs to develop or improve on their ideas, some of which may turn out to be a genuine attempt to solve an everyday problem in a new way.

Caution isn’t a bad thing, it helps us avoid costly errors, but it can also lead to missed opportunities. Perhaps those plastic bottles so ruthlessly cast aside by Mr Bannatyne will go on to make millions more than the £700 they’ve made so far. Perhaps we might see Duncan lose it altogether in a future episode.  It will be interesting to find out.   

Archaeologists have just discovered a small fleet of 18 m boats just off the coast from Rome, Italy.

The boats date from 5th top 7th century BC and were full of cargo – wine, olive oil, garum (a favourite Italian fish sauce).  The trade – probably between Spain and the nascent Roman empire, is an indication of business risk and investment 2,500 years ago.

In addition, the number of boats found, suggests that a fleet sailed in convey and that in turn, this suggests that the trade route was a regular one, with well known ports and middle men ready to buy and sell the goods at both ends of the trip.

So, were these the ancient business angels?

Perhaps not.

The trading activity, although ancient, was mainly an entrepreneurial activity, ie. individual merchants risking their own life, limb and cash to sail their own boats and purchase their own goods (often sleeping on them at night). There might have been a family or series of friends who supported the venture, but this could not really be called business angel investing as it remained an informal structure.

Instead, the first business angels began to appear once a trading company was formed. This trading institute was set up apart from the national government to purchase and provision boats for long voyages. Nearly always, it would obtain a royal charter – an exclusive right or monopoly – to trade certain products.

A trip to the spice islands, around cape of Africa, might take 18 months, including a number of trading legs along the way, and deliver a profit of 500%.

The sailors – many of whom did not return, along with lost boats – took a share in the profits or were allowed to trade their own goods on the ship, in return for their risk and effort. They were rarely, please note, paid salaries.

The returns, in some cases, were fabulous, which encouraged further investment and better institutions.

These informal coalitions gave birth to the major corporations – the Dutch East Indies Company and the English East Indies Company in 1604 and 1602 respectively.

The major difference between these two institution was the role of capital. In the case of the English, the capital was initially lent to fund a single voyage after which everything was sold (including boats and sailors released) and profits taken.

The Dutch, on the other hand, had a remarkable commitment to leave their money in the company to allow profits to be reinvested in future voyages and conquests with investors receiving a steady dividend.

The Dutch company therefore, took on features that we would recognise in a global publicly listed company today. Where as the English company, in its first instance, was a narrowly defined business angel investment – with a time horizon of between 18 and 24 months.

Both trading companies went on to become major corporations in their own way and sporned many competitors, however, they are both early examples of individuals financing a company in a formalised fashion, and so, is the best example of where business angel or VC funding began.

And, given the recent report from Nesta about 7 years to realise a return on investment for successful angel investments, funding a highly risky 18 month voyage doesn’t seem so risky after all (that is, so long as you didn’t have to crew a boat).

It is also worth noting that each company obtained its charter or monopoly prior to the voyage begining and no doubt planning the voyage would have been a one to two year activity.

In today’s world, the monopoly or patent or intellectual property (IP) is just as important. But how many entrepreneurs know that business angels want to see the IP before they commitment to invest?

Looking for a business angel network in the UK? Well, look no further, that the

If you are providing services to business angels, please feel free to click here to add your free business angel lisiting too if you have a suitable service. Each entry will be reviewed and added if appropriate.

The global financial crisis and the resulting recession made a deep impact on seed funding

New venture funding is the lowest it’s been for a decade according to Nesta’s July report; Venture Capital Now and After the Dotcom Crash and that’s not all…

The BBAA’s glittering annual awards dinner and conference took place last Wednesday providing an  opportunity for business angels to meet up and share their experiences over the past 12 months. I wonder how many of those attending had read Nesta’s report on VC funding. Ok so we haven’t really witnessed the end of seed stage funding, but there has certainly been a huge decline.

The findings of this latest report which follows Nesta’s business angel report last year will likely have provided a sobering topic of conversation. What is interesting about this latest report is that it takes us back to the Dot Com crash of 2000 and compares it with 2009. It makes three alarming conclusions :

•    Fundraising in 2009 is the lowest in the past decade.
•    The situation now would be far worse without public funding.
•    It is taking longer for investors to see returns on their investment.

You could say this is all about VC investments and not really indicative of the likely performance of investments made by business angels. You might also think that it is understandable given the scale of the financial crisis and a deep global recession that there would be a temporary loss of appetite for risk – considering the millions rather than thousands VCs tend to invest.

But this report suggests something more than a temporary blip. It highlights a longer term decline in the performance of VC investments made in the past decade. It is worth remembering that 2009 was the start of recovery when most countries were beginning to move out of recession. Yet fundraising was also lower than it was in the last recession.

What is also alarming is that it was investment in seed and start-ups which suffered most between 2007-2009 dropping by 58 per cent. And this is an area that would be of concern angel investors who use their own money to help those early stage businesses.

Looking at these figures there appears to have been a marked loss of confidence amongst VCs and a dramatically reduced appetite for the risks involved in early-stage investing. So will business angels be filling in those funding gaps? Possibly, but rather than dive in and exploit all those growth businesses the VCs are missing out on it might be worth finding out why VCs have seemingly abandoned seed stage businesses.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m guessing the biggest reason lies in the time taken to exit. I recently read with interest a blog which talked about angels finally getting in on the act with all those seed stage businesses, however it won’t be a simple as a VCs out, business angels in scenario.

Owners of those businesses shouldn’t get their hopes up. The reason VCs are pulling out of investing in seed stage businesses is down to the time it takes to exit. Typically the patient investor would want to see a nice return on their cash and an exit in three or four years.

What this report tells us is that exit is more than likely going to come in seven years or more. Seven years is far too long. While not all exits will take this long, clearly there will need to be a considerable commitment. The landscape appears to have changed dramatically in the 10 years since 2000 when it took on average three years less to exit a company in the UK.

More worrying still is that the report says there is greater uncertainty now about the time taken to exit and there are likely to be more funding rounds now before flotation than ever before.  So more money is being pumped in than ever before and it takes longer to get your money back out again, if you make any at all and that is far from guaranteed according to last year’s report. This doesn’t sound attractive. The impact on those promising growth companies that should be helping to boost economies should also be considered.

On this evidence things can only get better and at that glittering awards ceremony in Manchester there was much to celebrate, but this latest report from Nesta certainly provides some food for thought.

However the Index also reveals that the total number of venture capital investments in both North America and Europe has declined, which provides further evidence that confidence has yet to fully return to the sector following  the recession. In North America there has been a decline in both total number and total amount of tech investment in Q2 2010.

In Europe after an encouraging start to 2010, the amount of venture capital in Europe has continued to grow into the second quarter of the year, with the total amount invested in European companies rising from US$632m in quarter one 2010 to $740m in quarter two. However the total number of investments has continued to decline, falling from 178 in quarter one to 144 in quarter two. In terms of the total number of North American investments, these fell from 496 in Q1 2010 to 333 in the second quarter.

The Cleantech sector has shown good growth, with solar demonstrating a resurgence, as well as there being a large number of follow on rounds. The relative inactivity of Europe’s VCs seems to have offered opportunity for US based funds to make some interesting investments into some of the region’s top-rated start-ups including a $10m round for Huddle.net led by Matrix Partners, and a $7m round into Criteo led by Bessemer Venture Partners.

Commenting on the findings Philip Boyd, Partner at Calibre One London, said, “As the venture capital industry recovers, we’re seeing a new optimism emerge led initially in the US and now filtering through to the European market as well. VCs are still being cautious with their investments but optimism is growing. As a business we are seeing an increase in US companies expanding into Europe, and European businesses looking to strengthen their domestic management teams and expand internationally. ”

There is a tendency among entrepreneurs to chase money wherever they find it. The pressure to find the financial resources so necessary to build a business can be over-mastering. Most of the time the partnerships which form between founders and angel investors are productive but, in a few cases, I have seen it turn very destructive. Companies that should have realized success have been held back by investor partnerships that have severely limited their potential or, in some cases, doomed them to failure.

Look Beyond the Checkbook

It may be hard to be discriminating when you are in the heat of the ‘money hunt’ but the sins of omission you commit while chasing investors can return ten-fold to destroy any chance of success. The problem can become acute because of the incredible range of circumstances, experience and interests that angel investors bring to the table. Their having money to invest is not enough. You need to understand their basic motivations and what is driving them to act as an angel investor. You also need to understand that all investment money is not the same. Some money will help you succeed while other investments will be a poisoned pill that will reduce your chances of building the business you envision. Here are some ‘sacred cows’ that you need to slaughter:

• Angel investors are in it for a return on their investment: Well, how can you argue with that? You would assume that the primary driver is always a return on investment. But, as you will read further on, that is not always the case. I know angel investors who are simply bored and looking for something to do and others who are frustrated CEO-wannabees. For some investors, it is all about a return but for others the return is secondary. You need to sort these two groups out. Do not listen just to what they say; it is what they do that is important.
• They have money so they must be smart: This is another fallacy. Some of the dumbest and most self-destructive people I have ever met are wealthy. I have found only a weak correlation between wealth and intelligence and a slimmer one between wealth and wisdom. Many a destructive hubris has been built on a fat bank account. Investors have an important role in start-ups but pretense, omnipotence or omniscience can warp an investor’s understanding of that role. Smart investors play their part in a highly professional and constructive manner. Seek them out; they are most likely the winners you want to associate with.
• They have been successful in business so they will know how we can be: Past success is not always a good indicator of wisdom going forward. In fact, great success can be counter-productive when they decide to work with start-up companies. I know one investor who continually regales his CEOs with stories of how he ran his company. Of course, the company was running over one hundred million annually when these stories took place. The CEOs, wanting to emulate his success, take steps that are entirely premature. The result is wasted resources and a dysfunctional corporate culture. Past business success is not a good indicator of professional performance as an investor. Remember, you are seeking an investor, not a shadow CEO.
• They will become my close personal friends and advisers: Not a good idea; the correct focus of investors should produce a tension in the relationship with management. If you want a friend, buy a dog.

The Bad and the Very Ugly

The problem with writing about angel investors is that they come in an amazing variety. I have met lots of them and there is always something different about each. The ease of entry into the field may have something to do with it. The only real entry requirement is wealth beyond current needs. That’s all it takes to become an angel investor. There are no educational requirements, courses to take or certifications to merit. Only a bank account and a decision to ‘invest’ are required to hang out a shingle and open up for business. Watch out for the following:

• The Shadow CEO: I have met investors who purposefully pick weak or inexperienced CEOs to work with. Their real agenda is to run your company from the back seat. These investors are very intrusive and will push you to make decisions and commit resources that will put your company at risk. They are mostly successful entrepreneurs who have built and sold a business. In the process, they have lost touch with the necessary energy levels and passion that is essential to building a start-up into a going business. Mostly they remember the later stages of their company and the extended staff they had. Then they turn the CEO into a kind of executive assistant and attempt to run the company by proxy. Most of the companies in the portfolio of this type of investor remain very small. They generally have very complex Excel spreadsheet projections and poor records in meeting them. Stay away from the Shadow CEO; they are very dangerous investors.
• The Crazy, Rich Uncle: This is probably the most dangerous type of angel investor because they are so easy on the management team. They are mostly retired and living comfortably. Their mission in life is to ‘give back to the younger generation’. A clear indication of this type is the total lack of performance metrics and a weak statement of expectations. They can be very seductive to entrepreneurs but there is a dark side. Without stiff set of performance metrics, the company can develop a culture of permissiveness. That will feel good until the money runs out. A key indicator of this type is the feeling that the amounts of money involved are, at least initially, not sufficient to cause them concern. The expenditure patterns are not carefully monitored and discussions do not turn serious until the money is spent and the wolves are at the door. As an entrepreneur, you need to seek out investors who will be hard on you; insisting on strict performance metrics and precise definitions of roles. Take the easy way out and you will be in for a ride to nowhere with a crazy, rich uncle. Sure you will enjoy the ride but, in the end, you will be let off the bus in the middle of nowhere with a tarnished reputation for failure.
• The Gaggle: Remember the old saying about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? These gaggles are fond of that kind of engagement. The investments that they make are very often selected in a very casual way and supervised fairly loosely. The problem comes as the group itself is very loosely organized. Different participants might have significantly different understandings of what it mean to be an investor and what that status entitles them to. This can range from complete indifference to total immersion in the management of the company. This situation can result in lots of pulling and pushing of the management team without an overarching strategic vision. Investments should be made based on clear and concise understandings codified in a detailed investment agreement.
• The Bottom Feeders: You will meet some investors who are really only interested in your intellectual property. They ‘drag the bottom’ of the entrepreneurial community looking for weak teams with good ideas. Mostly they insist that their funding be used to develop the technology rather than developing revenues. Once the money runs out, they regretfully inform management that they are closing the company down and taking the intellectual property as compensation for their investment.
• The Lead Broker: I have seen these lead brokers promote themselves into central roles in companies without putting much of any of their own money on the line. The net result is that the bulk of the investor group gets involved without much direct knowledge of the business or the management team. In one case, such a broker put together an investment in excess of one million dollars without making any investment of his own. He still managed a seat on the board and a dominate role in the management of the company. Be particularly careful of the broker who can invest but does not. This situation can turn nasty if expectations are not met. Finger pointing and recriminations can come to dominate the relationships among the investors. This could seriously damage chances of follow-on investments by the group.

The Good

Good angel investors always take a highly professional approach to the process and their portfolio companies. They generally focus in industries that they are familiar with. It is a good idea to avoid angel investors whose portfolio companies do not fit a close pattern. The best angel investors will often forgo the option of claiming a board seat and, instead, insist that an independent board member with professional experience be appointed. Beware of investors who seem to see investment in your company as an opportunity to enhance their reputation by sitting on yet another board. Here are some positive things to look for:

• Success Breeds Success: There are angel investors who have the knack to help their portfolio companies thrive; while others seem to doom them to failure or stagnation. I know of one angel who specializes in little deals and has a well developed ability to keep them that way. Other investors seem to have the opposite skill. Their companies grow and prosper. It is a good idea to do some diligence on the track record of the investor. Go with the successful ones even if the deal terms are less generous.
• The Investment Agreement: There ought to be a detailed investment agreement agreed to before any funds are transferred. This agreement should be very specific when it comes to the roles and responsibilities of each party. The best agreements provide for an earn-in by management based on performance. It also sets the ground rules for further investment. Good angel investors will require this as a matter of course. The worst ones will simply require a term sheet and then write a check. Remember that the absence of planning is the road to failure. Think of the investment agreement as a strategic plan for the relationship.
• Strategic Agreement on Roles and Responsibilities: Good angel investors will insist that the roles and responsibilities for each party be very well understood from the very beginning. These roles will be codified in the investment agreement and specify the actions that each party will be able to take under a range of possible outcomes. Although such an agreement can complicate initial negotiations, it will help greatly when performance does not meet expectations and realignment become necessary.
• Use of Proceeds: I have seen investors write rather large checks without insisting that there be an agreed upon use of proceeds. You can imagine what happened then. Entrepreneurs initially like the freedom to simply take the money and spend it as they see fit. But, more often than not, this leads to waste and spending on things that do not connect directly to the success of the company. One company, upon receiving funds in this way, spent a lot of the money on new laptops and cell phones with expensive service plans. They replaced very serviceable units. Another CEO kept paying his salary, even through results fell far below projections, and failed to pay suppliers. The result was a law suit that is almost certain to shut down the company. It is good business practice for the angel investors to insist on a detailed use of proceeds and for control over the spending of their money.
• Insistence on Performance Metrics: As a CEO you should be insisting on performance metrics for every member of your team. That is just good management. Your investors should take the same approach. It may seem initially easier to deal with angel investors who are very lax about this, but it is far from best practices. I am not just talking about Excel spreadsheet metrics. They have to be much more detailed than that. Good performance metrics detail the responsibilities of each member of the management team and the way their performance will be measured. Everybody from the CEO to the receptionist should have a job description with metrics attached. And the metrics should be sufficiently detailed to drive evaluations based on performance. Performance should be the driver in determining both compensation and earned-in interest in the company. Performance metrics are a sign of a professional and productive organization. Start-ups with that culture have a much higher chance of success.
• Focus on Governance Issues and Oversight: “Who’s minding the store?” If the answer to that question is “nobody but us entrepreneurs”, consider that a red flag. In the short-term, it may feel good to be free from oversight but, in the long-term, you are guaranteed to make more mistakes and waste more opportunities. The board of directors has a very important role to fill in any corporate structure and it is not just making sure that the investors get to a liquidity event as soon as possible. Good governance means overseeing the strategic planning process, dealing with issues of succession, audit and compensation, and providing for the protections and expansion of shareholder value. This fiduciary relationship with the shareholders is an important part of the corporate structure. Without it, management is under no effective supervision and the investment looks more like a roll of the dice than an investment.

Keep This In Mind

An angel investment creates a relationship that will help determine how successful you are going to be. Your skill in crafting that relationship is a test of how dedicated you are to the success of your company and team. If you take the easy way out, your chances of success will drop significantly. If you opt for the limp relationship with an inattentive investor, your prospects will suffer. Angel investors, the good ones, bring much more than money to the table. The good ones have helped their companies succeed and will help you do the same.

© Dr. Earl R. Smith II

~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Smith is Managing Partner of The Federal Circle. The Federal Circle partners with teams and existing companies. We help them up their game and win big in the Federal space. We also arrange funding for acquisitions and expansion by acquisition. Our model is based on the belief that, if you select the very best and work with them in a highly professional and focused manner, the results will be truly amazing. He is the author of Amazing Pace: Turbo-charged Business Development – a book that shows how Advisory Boards can dramatically increase revenue. Dr. Smith is also the author of Dream Walk: Parables for the Living – a book of Raven Tales and exploration.

The deal is intended to boost  links between high growth companies, investors and research organisations in Oxfordshire. The Harwell Science and Innovation Campus is being developed into one of the world’s leading locations for scientific, academic and business collaboration through a joint venture between global property group Goodman, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Science & Technology Facilities Council (one of the UK’s seven research councils). The campus is home to over 100 science and technology companies as well as the Diamond Light Source, the UK’s national synchrotron science facility.

The sponsorship deal will see the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus provide support for the OION Network, which helps technology companies secure funding from £200,000 to £2 million, and its sister network, Oxford Early Investments (OEI), whose remit is early stage companies requiring proof of concept funding from £25,000 to £250,000.

Belfast-based SOPHIA Search Limited a technology company focused on enterprise search and unstructured content management has secured funding of £800k ($1.2M), the largest ever angel investment made in Northern Ireland. The funding will be used to assist the company with expansion into the USA. The company has appointed a safe pair of hands in Dr. Chris Horn who is regarded as one of the most successful technology entrepreneurs in Ireland and formerly of IONA Technologies PLC as chairman.

SOPHIA has developed advanced search technology which helps businesses to internally search for quality information much more quickly and accurately. There are many applications for the technology with significant global markets. Initial products have been released that assist in researching information, cross-referencing and reducing the duplication of data. Funding recieved by the company included a significant contribution from a newly formed Belfast based Angel syndicate – ‘Volcano’. SOPHIA Search’s clients include IBM and Accelrys.

My-Wardrobe is British company that sells “accessible” fashion labels such as Ralph Lauren and Mulberry via its website. The company hopes that the money can be used to help push its expansion into Europe. the clothing retail sector has come under pressure in the past two years but this particular group of investors clearly believe that the clothing business has the potential to make them a good return judging by the size of their investment.

Eileen has held senior leadership roles at Yahoo!, Skype, PalmSource, Openwave, Sun Microsystems, Apple and Verizon Wireless. She is currently involved in establishing White Bear Yard in London for technology innovation and startups, Eileen is also an advisor to Ambient Sound Investments.

What made you decide to become a business angel?
After Skype I teamed up to work with the founding engineers again, who had set up a small early stage venture fund, Ambient Sound Investments (www.asi.ee), and through the course of evaluating potential investments for them I realised there were certain projects or teams that I wanted to personally support – even if ASI elected not to.  It’s a habit or tendency I’ve been trying to break ever since…!

What do you look for in a business you decide to invest in?
The most important facets of a business I would invest in are its founding team – and the people behind it, starting it and/or also supporting it.  I think life is too short – and there are too many interesting projects out there – to spend one’s time with people who don’t somehow enhance your working/general life and day to day interactions.

How important has your expertise in technology been in helping you choose the right businesses?
I believe that it’s been helpful, but you never do know what you don’t know, so I may actually not have as much expertise as I’d like to think!  I feel that it helps the most in being able to relate to technology founders and in assessing the challenges and decision points in building and growing an early-stage technology business.  By the same token, I try to only evaluate businesses in which I have some basic level of understanding, so for example I would stay away from robotics or artificial intelligence, genomes or an area in which I had no understanding.

Should anyone who hopes to invest in this area have the right technical knowledge to help them make the right decision?
I believe it helps, but with early-stage investment decisions, one’s gut and intuition is often what makes the final call.  So whatever data points will help to influence that are always helpful.  Perhaps sometimes the people (and existing support around those people/team) are enough.

What do you think will be the next big thing in Internet technology?
If I knew that I’d be strictly focused on that – and not investing in or working on anything else!  That said, I don’t know what I feel will bring the biggest change from a “technology point of view”, but I think a lot of opportunities lie in how the technology will be applied, consumed or impact on existing commercial models and products/services.

Is now a good time to start a business in the UK?
I think it’s always a good time to start a business, but particularly now as there is a talent pool established and some tastes of success to whet entrepreneurs, employees and investors’ appetites.

According to the British Business Angels Association only 5% of business angels in the UK are women, why do you think the numbers are so low?
I couldn’t really say and have wondered the same thing myself, but at the same time I feel it’s important to take this statistic into context with the larger business world.  So for example, as I understand it, only 3% of FTSE 100 companies are run by women.  If that’s the case, perhaps the fact that 5% of business angels are female is a positive sign.  Women’s participation/involvement in business (either as employees/team members, executive leaders, directors, advisors or investors) in general needs to be considered – and once that grows, so will the proportion of business angels I’m sure.

What advice would you give to other women looking to get involved in angel investing?
Please go ahead and get started, and feel free to contact me if you want any encouragement or suggestions on where or how!

http://www.linkedin.com/in/eileenburbidge, Twitter handle @eileentso

White Bear Yard website: http://whitebearyard.com