Category: Uncategorised

In a previous blog I provided an overview of Nesta’s first investment phase. In this post I aim to cover the period 2007-2012 when Nesta was actively investing in UK technology companies, with a particular focus upon medical technology, ICT and engineering/cleantech businesses.

Having emerged from the ‘seed’ investing phase with a portfolio of over 200 direct investments, a decision had to be made about how to focus Nesta’s strategy to create a more manageable portfolio and also to increase chances of financial success by building expertise around the core investment themes. At this stage Nesta was still a quango rather than a charity, and the focus shifted from general start-up support to fostering new technologies to power the next generation of the UK technology sector. This shift in strategy was made as the general availability of start-up capital was beginning to improve, following the long funding hangover from the tech crash of 2000.  Doing this well required us to make fewer, larger investments and to build more active relationships with those investees, in line with venture capital investing models.

Balancing our portfolio

Prior to launching this new investment activity in 2007, a review of the existing portfolio took place which concluded that of the 212 seed investments, 41 fitted within the new scope and would be transferred across to the new ‘Technology Venture’ investment activity. The remaining 171 investments were deprioritised and a decision made to reactively manage these assets through to conclusion (i.e. repayment, exit, wind-up, expiry of royalty arrangements), with no further capital being made available by Nesta to these companies.

Our ‘Technology Venture’ portfolio was initially made up of:

• 17 were medtech or life science companies
• 17 engineering or clean technology companies
• 7 digital businesses

Nesta had invested £6.7milllion into these 41 companies prior to the transfer. Over the course of the next 5 years, Nesta added another 19 companies to this portfolio, of which 9 were ‘digital / ICT’ companies, 6 medtech and 4 engineering, creating a relatively balanced portfolio across the three focus sectors.

At around the same time, Nesta lobbied and succeeded in obtaining an exemption from certain EU state aid laws affecting investments by government backed entities. This was an important development as it removed some of the restrictions which impinged on Nesta’s ability to build meaningful stakes in portfolio companies (e.g. total investment limits, private sector match funding). Added to this, Nesta’s trustees committed to invest up to 10% of Nesta’s endowment (i.e. c.£30million in 2007) into this Technology Venture portfolio, as part of its ‘high risk’ asset allocation.

Building on our experience

Since 2007, Nesta has invested an additional £10million in follow-on funding to the original 41 portfolio companies. On top of this, we have invested £16.7million into the 19 ‘new’ portfolio companies, bringing total invested across the portfolio of 60 to £32.9million. Results to-date from this activity (as of 31/3/2020):

	Portfolio	Invested	Realisations	Active companies	Holding value	Total Value versus Cost
Original portfolio	41	£16.4m	£4.8m	11	£4.1m	(£7.5m)
New portfolio	19	£16.7m	£8.7m	7	£13.0m	£5.0m
Total	60	£33.1m	£13.5m	18	£17.1m	(£2.5m)

 

It is interesting to observe that of the 18 active companies remaining in the portfolio, with a total holding valuation of £17.1million, 4 companies contribute £15.6million to this valuation, 7 contribute £1.5million and 7 are written off (i.e. we have valued at £0). This level of ‘value concentration’ is common in later stage portfolios as the more successful companies start to emerge.

It should be noted at this point that it is extremely difficult to value private businesses, as there is no daily listed share price or readily comparable companies to measure yourself against. Hence, the valuations we hold for our portfolio companies are based on the pricing by third parties in previous investment rounds, which tends to be a conservative basis for valuing a business. We hope (and believe) that we will generate more than £17.1million from the remaining portfolio, although predicting the timing and value of each exit is an imprecise science.

12 years after refocusing our investment activity towards early stage technology venture investing, we continue to provide follow-on capital, although on an increasingly selective basis. Of the remaining portfolio, we are bullish on the potential of Featurespace, Symetrica and Skimlinks to fulfil their commercial promise and deliver strong returns. Additionally, we are hopeful that some of our portfolio companies working on step-change technologies, for example eoSemi, Camfridge, DesignLED, Smart Surgical Appliances, CellCentric and Surface Generation will deliver commercial value from their technological promise.

Biggest realised ‘win’ – £4.9m realised from Sirigen (£1.25m invested).

Biggest money multiple return – 23x return from Cobalt Light Systems (£25k invested)

Biggest realised ‘loss’ – Gnodal £2.2m invested, £0 returned.

Some lessons /reflections:

1. Hardware is hard!

We experienced several late stage and/or expensive failures in companies developing hardware for health, engineering or ICT applications, for example Cellnovo, Veryan, Gnodal, Light Blue Optics. These businesses, and others, raised significant amounts of investment to develop and commercialise innovative hardware propositions, but ultimately found that either the technology did not work to the required standard or that the market had moved on.

2. Software is easier, but it’s a relentless quest for refinement and improvement.

Several of our remaining portfolio companies are software based and are starting to see strong commercial traction (including Skimlinks which was sold in May 2020 and which is not reflected in the portfolio figures above). All these companies have pivoted (i.e. changed their commercial proposition) at least once, but unlike hardware businesses, this can be done relatively cheaply and quickly. The predominance of venture capital investment into software companies is testament to the relatively easier journey such companies take to discover whether they will be a commercial success.

3. It’s a long journey!

As can be evidenced from our own experiences, and that of the venture capital funds that Nesta has backed, investing in early stage technology businesses is a long and potentially financially arduous journey. Whilst our shortest ‘hold period’ (i.e. the time between first investment and an exit) is 2.5 years, the average across our portfolio is 9 years, and in the remaining portfolio, there are several companies where Nesta first invested pre-2005.

4. The rewards are rewarding!

Whilst the journey may be long with an uncertain outcome, Nesta continues to provide investment to innovative companies seeking to make positive contributions to the world. The financial rewards for doing it well can be significant, but as important to Nesta are the ripple of positive effects that commercial success has on the innovation ecosystem that is seeking to positively disrupt the status quo.

In the next blog, I will cover Nesta’s investment experiences from becoming a charitable foundation in 2012, since when all new investments have been viewed through the additional lens of their contribution (or ‘impact’) to specific social outcomes.

 

Ishaan Chilkoti from our Impact Investment team will be discussing “Choosing the right Investor for your Venture” at The Business Funding Show’s flagship event on the 22^nd February.

Find out more about the show’s aims in this blog post.

The Business Funding Show aims to help Entrepreneurs to find information on their funding options and connections to the right lenders and investors, providing an overview of the diverse pool of funding options available to them – from crowdfunding and peer-to- peer lending to business angels and venture capital.

According to research by London merchant bank Close Brothers Group: “A lack of suitable advice and education is resulting in many utilising the wrong financial products for their circumstances and lifecycle stage, as well as being turned down for finance.” In the UK, both investment capital and the rate of new companies being founded are at an all- time high – and yet businesses are increasingly reluctant to seek outside funding due to the perceived difficulty of securing it.

The Business Funding Show (BFS), a London-based network of funders, entrepreneurs and business service providers, aims to tackle the problem by providing entrepreneurs in all sectors with an understanding of what it takes to obtain funding and connects them with the entire spectrum of finance providers.

The Business Funding show is scheduled for 22nd February 2018 at East Wintergarden, Canary Wharf, London. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further information and early-bird tickets are available at the event website, BFSexpo.com.

At Nesta Impact Investments, we have the privilege of investing in exciting, early stage businesses that aim to improve the lives of the people around us.

At the stage we look to invest, the businesses we speak to are at a pivotal point in their development. They have launched their product, secured their first users, and are looking to use investment from us to really kick off their growth and measure their impact.

When we invest in one of these businesses, it’s important for us to have a seat on the board of directors. We’re not unique in that, startups will find that most venture investors ask for a board seat. There’s a good reason for it: the board are responsible for supporting the business in making strategic decisions, such as fundraising, hiring or firing key people at the company, prioritising development opportunities or selling the business when it’s ready. These issues require careful deliberation with decisions taken in the interests of all stakeholders, but too often, the board is not managed in a way that enables the members to deliver the desired value to the business.

We recently got together as a team to reflect on our collective years of experience in investing, both at Nesta and in previous roles, to ask ourselves: “What makes a good board?” We’ve taken our whiteboard notes and summarised them into five areas: purpose, structure, transparency and culture, preparedness, and people.

Five elements of a good startup board

1 – Purpose

We believe the purpose of the board of directors is to both support and challenge executive management teams to enable them to achieve their potential as they grow their businesses. Directors direct. They identify destinations, set goals and measure progress.  They advise on strategy and guide management teams through the ups and downs of growing a business.

The board isn’t there to run the business, but it equally isn’t just for friendly chats. Too often boards are perceived as an encumbrance to a management team, imposing unhelpful process and information requirements on the business, or setting moving targets that complicate reporting. Executive and non-executive directors share a responsibility in finding the right balance, with executives proactively engaging with their boards, and non-executives ensuring that their requests from management are relevant, proportionate, and constructive.

2 – Structure

The typical structure of a board includes a chair, some number of non-executive directors, and at least the CEO of the business, but should ideally include other executives as well. Broad participation provides a more holistic view of the business, brings together insight from outside experience, and sets the tone for the board as a place for constructive discussion.

There is no right answer for the number of directors, but as a general rule, an odd number can prevent the risk of a tie if decisions come to a vote. Startups can manage the number of board members by carefully considering investment terms, creating separate committees to deal with the more administrative matters that require director input (such as a remuneration committee), or encouraging interested non-investors to join a thematic advisory board instead of becoming directors.

Once the board has been created, the roles of the people involved need to be clearly defined:

• The chair’s primary role is to manage the board, ensuring that board meetings run smoothly, intermediating between executives and non-executives and holding individual directors including the CEO accountable for their performance. The CEO and chair should communicate regularly outside board meetings as well.
• The CEO communicates information to the board about company performance as well as challenges and opportunities to equip directors with the knowledge needed to take decisions effectively.
• Other executive board members, such as a COO or CFO, contribute to this upward information flow and represent their specific areas of delegated authority.
• Non-executives should not only attend every board meeting, but also dedicate sufficient time to prepare for the meetings to be able to ask meaningful questions, celebrate successes, highlight concerns, and offer help where they can.

Finally, boards should agree upon a regular schedule for meetings, with each meeting following a clear agenda. We ask the boards of our portfolio companies to meet monthly, for at least two hours. Whilst this structure might not fit all boards, what matters is for sufficient time to be given to the meetings for them to be genuinely meaningful to the business and executive team.

3 – Board preparedness

Board meetings are only as good as the information shared within them. The management team should compile a consistent board pack for each meeting and distribute it early enough to allow for a thorough review of the information by the directors. We think that board packs should, at a minimum, contain:

• The minutes from the prior board meeting, which should include any follow-up actions that had been agreed.
• CEO/management report on significant information that has changed since the previous board meeting, ie updates on product development, sales and commercial performance, customer experience, hiring, and any other major changes.
• Management accounts for profit and loss, cash flow, and balance sheet. The accounts and other operating performance information should be reported on a consistent and accurate basis over time.
• Performance on agreed-upon impact metrics according to the impact plan for the business.
• Any other ad hoc items that the board should be aware of or needs to discuss.

Too much information can cause as much inefficiency at board meetings as too little. In our experience, directors have a limited amount of time to review the packs, so board meetings can be vastly improved when management share consistent and relevant information, which clearly identifies change from month to month.

4 – Transparency and culture

Establishing the right culture with the board from the outset leads to success in the long run. Executive and non-executive directors should work together to build a culture of trust to allow for open, honest, and sometimes difficult conversations with a clear understanding that everyone involved has the best interests of the business and its stakeholders in mind.

By taking a board seat, investors and independent directors are signing up to a statutory responsibility to look after the interests of the stakeholders of a business. Board members should think like owners and be aware of the needs of customers, staff and management, pitching in to help when the business needs it and knowing when to leave the management team to do their jobs.

5 – People

The effectiveness of boards ultimately comes down to the people. The ability to capitalise on the previous four points in our list depends entirely on the level of commitment and engagement from the people involved. We have seen businesses thrive when the executive and non-executive directors on the board are engaged and aligned on the strategic direction of the business, and we have seen them falter when the board splits into factions. It is incumbent upon each person to commit the time and energy needed to make the board work for the benefit of the business.

When it comes to boards, everyone will get out what they put in. Resource and manage a board with intention, and the business will reap the rewards.

We recognise that we don’t have all the answers, so we’ve included links to other resources that provide helpful insights, and we’d appreciate hearing your thoughts as well.

Other helpful resources

• The Secret to Making Board Meetings Suck Less
• SpencerStuart’s guide to boardroom best practices
• How to build a great board of directors for your startup from The Path Forward
• Hacking Your Board – Make Your Board Work for You
• Governance for Startups: How to build and manage a Board from Seedcamp
• Mistakes To Avoid With A Startup Board Of Directors
• Deloitte’s Centre for Board Effectiveness

 

This blog orginially appeared on the Nesta website here: https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/critical-success-factors-startup-boards

This article is part of a series of blogs offering our tops tips on surviving the process of raising impact investment. Investment raising is difficult and time consuming, and the process can seem daunting if it’s your first time.  We have written this series of blogs as a way to share some insight in to what impact investors are looking for.

---

Social entrepreneurs are always thinking big right?

Well, I’d agree that the scale of the problems we see them taking on are large. Those tackling financial exclusion, for example, are faced with 8m people who can’t get access from banks.

But do social entrepreneurs really think about and plan for some other aspects that are key to scale? I’m going to look at three aspects of scale I think are important: scale of delivery; scale of capital required; and economies of scale.

1. Meaningful scale relative to the size of the problem

Meaningful scale is one of those subjective terms we use a lot in our office, assuming we know what each other means, without ever writing it down. So here’s my attempt to do so: the solution could be delivered to 10% or more of the population experiencing the problem. So 800,000 financially excluded people; 85,000 dementia patients etc. Right from the start, I think we need to be designing and supporting solutions that can credibly claim they could be delivered at meaningful scale.

2. Recognise the scale of capital investment and identify sources

So once we’ve thought about meaningful scale, we need to think about what it will take to build an organisation that can supply at that level: usually a lot of money, much more money than social entrepreneurs expect/plan for.

So, for example, if you want to make affordable £500 loans to the 2m people currently confined to payday lenders, you’ll need access to £1bn plus the capital needed to build the capability to deliver on this scale (£20m+ surely?). Even to deliver on a meaningful scale, you’ll still need access to £100m to cover 10% of the affected population.

My point is not that you shouldn’t bother because those numbers are massive. Rather, those numbers take us into territory that the social impact investment market and grant makers can’t service at their current scale.

3. Economies of scale and improving economics with scale

If we have an intervention that can achieve meaningful scale it’s likely that the cost per person served could come down – you just have to focus on trying to achieve this as well as increase your sales. There are a number of reasons why this should be true:

• Economies of scale – getting things cheaper when you buy in bulk
• Economies of utilisation – sharing the cost of fixed items like an office across more units
• Value engineering – improving the design of the product/service and way you deliver it to make it cheaper
• New technology enables you do it differently (think skype call rather than face to face)

Remember that the cost of the Motorola mobile phone in 1983 was $4000 and nobody would have told you the problem of being able to call anybody from anywhere was an easy one to solve. Adjusted for inflation over the period 1983 – 2015 the cost of a mobile phone today should be £12,000. But instead it’s more like £25 for a basic model.

Scale doesn’t just happen. The best innovators design – and plan their venture – for scale.

---

By Joe Ludlow – Nesta Impact Investments 

This article is part of a series of blogs offering our tops tips on surviving the process of raising impact investment. Investment raising is difficult and time consuming, and the process can seem daunting if it’s your first time.  We have written this series of blogs as a way to share some insight in to what impact investors are looking for.

---

You’ve done all the hard work of securing interest from the investor you’ve had your eyes on – you’ve given your pitch, met the fund’s executives, and discussed heads of terms. So, what do you do now to survive the due diligence process? 

We enter into detailed diligence with about 1 in 20 of the companies that we review the business plans of.  Sometimes the combination of the volume of work along with the very high stakes can make it feel like quite a daunting process (for both parties!), so here are some tips on how entrepreneurs can survive the diligence process:

1. Know your facts

To help evidence the stage of your business, investors will be looking for data on your performance to date, such as user numbers, traction, impact data etc.  Having this information to hand, as well as showing how you analyse and react to it, makes for a very good start.

2. Curb your enthusiasm

To save yourself the head (and heart!) ache of missing targets in the future, try to present and agree a realistic plan at this stage of the process.  Promising the world and failing to deliver doesn’t make anyone feel good, so balance out your ambition with a healthy dose of realism.

3. Get the home advantage

Being on home turf can be great for a boost in confidence, so invite investors to your place so they can see you in context, meet the team, and get into the heart of the action.

4. Plan carefully

To help keep things on track, agree a detailed plan and timeline with your prospective investors and check-in with them regularly to make sure things don’t slip.  If organisation doesn’t come naturally to you, enlist a colleague to help.

5. Be patient

Due diligence can be a time consuming and demanding process, but take a timeout to remind yourself why it is you approached your investors in the first place and of the value you believe they will bring.

 

---

By Isabel Newman

This article is part of a series of blogs offering our tops tips on surviving the process of raising impact investment. Investment raising is difficult and time consuming, and the process can seem daunting if it’s your first time.  We have written this series of blogs as a way to share some insight in to what impact investors are looking for.

---

Creating your first financial model should not be rocket science.

You can easily work out that if you are selling hot dogs that cost you £3 each, you need to sell them for at least £3.01 to make a profit. In the same way, your financial model should be a reflection of your money in and out -which we sometimes call your business model – at different points in time.

 

1. Make it logical.

Avoid the complications of accounting and just think about it in a rational way. Going back to the hot dog business, if I assume that I can sell 200 hot dogs a day by standing and shouting outside Camden Town station, my business model is as simple as the cost involved in being able to sell 200 hot dogs a day and the money that I am making out of them as a product of my effort and expenses.

2. Keep it clean and simple.

Make sure you give enough detail of the main levers/drivers of your business, like revenue (price x volume) and costs (cost x volume, salaries, marketing, etc.). Don’t waste your time detailing things that are hard to predict and would probably not affect your profits much.

3. Allow flexibility and NEVER EVER mix inputs with formulas

Make sure you have a separate tab or another colour on the cells that have numbers that you are assuming as inputs. You want to make sure you can change these assumptions. Don’t simply assume that you will grow from selling 200 hot dogs a day to selling 5000 in 1 month without some data. Make it easy to change and adapt it as you start getting more real-life data.

4. Make sure your model is connected

Make a model that reflects how things might change if you alter certain variables. For example, if I hire more people who have a similar ability to sell 200 hot dogs a day, I want to make sure I can input this into the model and automatically see how, instead of selling 200 hot dogs, my business is now selling 400. This might sound obvious, but it is amazing how many people forget to link their models correctly to reflect the most important possible changes.

5. Don’t forget the bigger picture

Go back to your logical analysis and, every time you look at each result, ask what it is telling you. You want to avoid just staying at the detail level and start looking for the strategic implications of your numbers. If you are forecasting that you will grow to sell more than 100,000 hot dogs a day, take a reality check – are more than 100,000 people even coming out of the Tube Station in a day? Maybe, but will all of them buy a hotdog? Definitely not!

6. Perform some scenario tables or “sensitivities”

As we all know, especially in early stage ventures, things hardly ever go to plan as a lot of your assumptions are unproven. Perform some scenarios to evaluate the impact of changing your main business drivers. If you can see what the cash impact is of selling less hot dogs – having already purchased the buns that will probably go to waste, for example – you’ll probably rethink your forecast and make sure they are realistic.

So, keep it simple, flexible and logical!

---

By Mireya Alvarez

 

Social entrepreneurs are always thinking big right?

Well, I’d agree that the scale of the problems we see them taking on are large. Those tackling financial exclusion, for example, are faced with 8m people who can’t get access from banks.

But do social entrepreneurs really think about and plan for some other aspects that are key to scale? I’m going to look at three aspects of scale I think are important: scale of delivery; scale of capital required; and economies of scale.

1. Meaningful scale relative to the size of the problem

Meaningful scale is one of those subjective terms we use a lot in our office, assuming we know what each other means, without ever writing it down. So here’s my attempt to do so: the solution could be delivered to 10% or more of the population experiencing the problem. So 800,000 financially excluded people; 85,000 dementia patients etc. Right from the start, I think we need to be designing and supporting solutions that can credibly claim they could be delivered at meaningful scale.

2. Recognise the scale of capital investment and identify sources

So once we’ve thought about meaningful scale, we need to think about what it will take to build an organisation that can supply at that level: usually a lot of money, much more money than social entrepreneurs expect/plan for.

So, for example, if you want to make affordable £500 loans to the 2m people currently confined to payday lenders, you’ll need access to £1bn plus the capital needed to build the capability to deliver on this scale (£20m+ surely?). Even to deliver on a meaningful scale, you’ll still need access to £100m to cover 10% of the affected population.

My point is not that you shouldn’t bother because those numbers are massive. Rather, those numbers take us into territory that the social impact investment market and grant makers can’t service at their current scale.

3. Economies of scale and improving economics with scale

If we have an intervention that can achieve meaningful scale it’s likely that the cost per person served could come down – you just have to focus on trying to achieve this as well as increase your sales. There are a number of reasons why this should be true:

• Economies of scale – getting things cheaper when you buy in bulk
• Economies of utilisation – sharing the cost of fixed items like an office across more units
• Value engineering – improving the design of the product/service and way you deliver it to make it cheaper
• New technology enables you do it differently (think skype call rather than face to face)

Remember that the cost of the Motorola mobile phone in 1983 was $4000 and nobody would have told you the problem of being able to call anybody from anywhere was an easy one to solve. Adjusted for inflation over the period 1983 – 2015 the cost of a mobile phone today should be £12,000. But instead it’s more like £25 for a basic model.

Scale doesn’t just happen. The best innovators design – and plan their venture – for scale.

---

By Joe Ludlow

 

You’ve had months of presentations, meetings, knock backs, negotiations, then finally a ‘yes’, followed by a legal completion process which always feels harder than it should.

But what happens after the investment has been raised?  Are there any lessons about how you make that capital really deliver on impact and value?

Every organisation is different, every entrepreneur is different but after 20 years of investing, first in the venture capital field and now in impact investing, there are a few common observations that I can make:

1. Building your product 

Spend wisely on product development and engage with your target customers as early as you can.  Lean Startup guru, Eric Ries, highlights the importance of the minimum viable product. Essentially, don’t waste money building a product or service that users don’t want – test, get feedback, iterate until you have something that delights users and then look to scale

2. Don’t hire in a hurry 

A large proportion of invested capital is used to hire and build up a team. Hopefully you will have identified your next hires already and know them well but getting the right team takes time and getting it wrong can be costly. So hire with caution and from networks you trust

3. Think carefully about marketing 

Don’t waste too much capital building demand if the product isn’t ready. Really think through the marketing mix to make sure that when you are set to go you can reach your market cost effectively

4. Capture data 

Monitoring and responding to trends – as well as ensuring you record what investors, customers and your own team need to run the organisation – is really important

5. Be honest and open with your shareholders

They have backed you, your team and your idea. Share challenges and successes with them – the worst thing you can do is surprise them with bad news.  The sooner an issue is shared, the sooner you can work together to make changes

6. Track the money carefully

Be on top of every pound, who owes you money, what your commitments are and plan with rigor. It may seem obvious but I have seen many early stage organisations with small but growing revenues, suddenly finding that the cash is flowing out pretty quickly. If you can’t do the accounting and planning then find someone who can.

This list isn’t exhaustive and with every new investment I still learn lessons. But remember the amount of time it took to raise money: investment capital is precious and you really only want to raise it again when you have delivered impact, grown value and have investors calling you!

 

You’ve done all the hard work of securing interest from the investor you’ve had your eyes on – you’ve given your pitch, met the fund’s executives, and discussed heads of terms. So, what do you do now to survive the due diligence process? 

We enter into detailed diligence with about 1 in 20 of the companies that we review the business plans of.  Sometimes the combination of the volume of work along with the very high stakes can make it feel like quite a daunting process (for both parties!), so here are some tips on how entrepreneurs can survive the diligence process:

1. Know your facts

To help evidence the stage of your business, investors will be looking for data on your performance to date, such as user numbers, traction, impact data etc.  Having this information to hand, as well as showing how you analyse and react to it, makes for a very good start.

2. Curb your enthusiasm

To save yourself the head (and heart!) ache of missing targets in the future, try to present and agree a realistic plan at this stage of the process.  Promising the world and failing to deliver doesn’t make anyone feel good, so balance out your ambition with a healthy dose of realism.

3. Get the home advantage

Being on home turf can be great for a boost in confidence, so invite investors to your place so they can see you in context, meet the team, and get into the heart of the action.

4. Plan carefully

To help keep things on track, agree a detailed plan and timeline with your prospective investors and check-in with them regularly to make sure things don’t slip.  If organisation doesn’t come naturally to you, enlist a colleague to help.

5. Be patient

Due diligence can be a time consuming and demanding process, but take a timeout to remind yourself why it is you approached your investors in the first place and of the value you believe they will bring.