A Case Study on
Fast Ion Battery
Group-62-B
2
Group Profile
Group-62
Serial No. Name MBA ID
1. Sheikh Saifullah Khalid 2027
2. Nusrat Jahan 2009
3. Md.Ullash Hossen 2227
3
About Fast Ion Battery
Fast Ion Battery was formally incorporated in May 2008
Address the need for radical innovations in the energy storage landscape
Cleantech investors have decided to pull back from investments
Fast Ion failed to identify a clear market segment that would use its technology
Technology and marketing teams were constantly being pulled in different
directions
Made some progress in developing a product for industrial customers
Facing difficulties in getting funding
4
Analysis of Economy
Venture capitalists reduced new capital commitments in clean-tech
sector
A123 systems struggling with large-scale layoffs
Advancement of cloud-computing that reduced the cost of learning
Open sources technology getting popularized
High chance to decline substantially cleantech start-ups
The investment needed to learn about the viability
Industry Analysis of
Fast Ion Battery
6
Porter’s Five Forces
Bargaining Threat of
Bargaining
Rivalry power of substitutes
Threats of power of
among customers
New suppliers
competitors
entrants
HIGH Moderate Low Low High
7
PESTEL Analysis
Political Factors Economic Factors
P E Consumer Disposable Income GDP
Regulatory frameworks Political Economic Trend & Rate of Economic Growth,
Pricing pressures Factors Factors Price Fluctuations in all Markets
Social Factors Technological Factors
Aging population S T High acceptance of technology
Social Technological Increasing internet users
People Interested in technology Factors Factors
Legal Factors
Environmental Factors Intellectual property right
Populated country E L protection
Environmental Legal Favorable business laws
Ignoring the activity that may Factors Factors
hamper the environment
Company Analysis of
Fast Ion Battery
9
SWOT Analysis
Strengths Weakness
Developing batteries for electric vehicles
High industrial customers
Qualified employees
S W Confliction between technology and
marketing team
Strengths Weaknesses Bad management
Cash insufficiency
Opportunities Threats
New innovations New innovations by competitors
Welcoming venture capital investors
Have chance to access new skilled
O T Large investment by foreign
investors
Opportunities Threats Appointment of new CEO may vary
and experienced investors
the firm value
10
Risk Analysis of Fast Ion Battery
Business risk Financial risk
Undefined business model Unavailability of fund
Improper customer Venture capitalists losing
segmentation motives to invest in cleantech
CEO issue industry
Bad management issue
Risk: High Risk: High
Problem Statement of
Fast Ion Battery
12
Problem Statement
Improper business model
CEO issue
Funding problems
Require $5 million bridge
financing for operation
13
Alternatives Considered by Venture Capital Companies
Probable alternatives:
▸ Bridge financing without warrants or Pay-to-play
(PTP)
▸ Bridge financing with warrant but no PTP
▸ Bridge financing with both warrants and PTP
Additional decision tools:
▸ Decision tree with value of abandonment
14
Valuation Input Estimations
▸ Bridge round starting date: December, 2011
▸ Required rate of return estimation*:
Failure risk premium 3%
Riskless rate of return 1%
Service premium 13%
Financial risk premium 5%
Illiquidity premium 29%
Required Rate of Return 51%
*Source: Marco Da Rin and Hellmann, T. (2020). Fundamentals Of Entrepreneurial Finance. S.L.: Oxford Univ Press Us, pp.184–186.
15
Decision Tree Assuming Series C Investment
▸ Series C June 2014 ▸ IPO December 2016
Pre money $378 mn
Post money $210 mn
Pre money $175 mn
Failure $0
16
Alternative 1: 5 million Bridge Financing
Before Series A:
Ownership at exit
Founder’s Common Ware Street
Ownership 55.6% 17 Capital
% 24 Franconia Ven- Bluelock Ven-
19
% tures tures
% 10%
▸ Value at exit 23.8% 7%
24%
Series B Investor Series C Investor
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bridge Financing
Base (1,500,000) (2,250,000) - (2,500,000) (5,000,000) - (5,000,000) - 90,000,000
NPV (1,172,101)
17
Alternative 1: Simulation Analysis
18
Alternative 2: Warrants but No Pay to Play
Before Series A: Ownership at exit
Founder’s Ownership Common
55.6% Ware Street Capital
10% Franconia Ventures
▸ Value at exit 24%
16%
Bluelock Ventures
19%
Series B Investor
24% Series C Investor
6%
24%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Warrant only (1,500,000) (2,250,000) - (2,708,333) (5,000,000) - (5,000,000) - 92,184,466
NPV (1,158,649)
19
Alternative 2: Simulation Analysis
20
Alternative 3: Both PTP and Warrants
Before Series A: Ownership at exit
Founder’s
Ownership 55% Common Ware Street Capital
10%18% Franconia Ven- Bluelock Ventures
tures
19%
▸ Value at exit 26%
Series B Investor Series C Investor
1% 26%
26%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PTP and Warrant (1,500,000) (2,250,000) - (2,708,333) (5,000,000) - (5,000,000) - 99,468,547
NPV (980,172)
21
Alternative 3: Simulation Analysis
22
Recommendations
Alternatives NPV Value at exit
No warrant, no PTP (1,172,101) 23.8%
Warrant but no PTP (1,158,649) 24%
Both warrant and PTP (980,172) 26%
Decision: WSC and Franconia should not engage in financing
Fast Ion