Table of Contents
Hello, cybersecurity enthusiasts! Brian Ahern, CEO of CyberMaxx, here with another week of LinkedIn content to share!
With three posts last week, I promoted our company’s innovative “Offense Fuels Defense” security principle, broke down different ways investors could value a company, and compared two common types of capital investment partners.
To provide a seamless educational experience for our valued customers, partners, and other stakeholders, we’ve compiled this week’s post into a blog post — easily accessible to our audience from the CyberMaxx blog.
So, without further ado, here’s a summary of each post, plus links to access the full LinkedIn article.
Offense Fuels Defense
“Offense Fuels Defense” is a principle we at CyberMaxx live by and is core to our entire SecOps strategy. So, it only made sense to outline the concept to my LinkedIn followers.
The idea is that by understanding and simulating offensive cyber tactics, an organization can build better defense measures. I not only cover this in my post but also highlight the benefits of “Offense Fuels Defense” to our managed detection and response (MDR) customers:
- Lets you better understand an adversary by getting insights into attack methods so you can anticipate a threat actor’s next move
- Enhances threat detection; SecOps teams can create more accurate indicators of compromise (IoCs) to track and develop behavioral analysis to detect anomalies and threats.
- Strengthens vulnerability management by spotting weaknesses and potential points of attack on a network and proactively mitigating them
- Helps build better defenses through realistic attack simulations that can evolve with emerging threats
- Provides a framework for creating an effective incident response plan that minimizes cyber attack impact
- Supports hands-on learning and skills development to improve security training
- Fosters a security culture that takes threat awareness seriously and empowers employees to stay safe
- Helps in meeting regulatory compliance requirements and demonstrates a strong commitment to security
Get the complete scoop on the “Offense Fuels Defense” concept in the LinkedIn article here.
Pre-Money/Post-Money 101
Since many of my followers are business owners and startup leaders, I thought it made sense to address company valuation strategies you could apply to raise capital. In my August 7th post, I break down two methods investors could use in their valuation and their implications.
First was pre-money valuation. This uses a company’s current assets, intellectual property, market position, and growth potential before any new capital or financing is added to determine the value. It determines the (% or # shares) equity an investor will receive in a company — typically negotiated based on market conditions, comparable company valuations, and revenue or growth projections.
The other is a post-money valuation. As the name suggests, it’s the value of a company immediately after an investor’s capital injection. It’s equal to the pre-money value + the new investment amount and determines the percentage of a company the investors will own. Ownership percentage equals the new investment divided by the post-money value X 100.
I then explained the implications of these valuation strategies. For instance, a higher pre-money valuation means less shareholder dilution for the founders, while a lower pre-money value allows investors to maximize ownership. I also highlight how founders must understand where new investments can dilute ownership via these valuation methods. Similarly, investors use pre and post-money valuations to assess potential ROI, so accurate growth projections are vital to financial planning and setting targets.
Need help navigating these company valuation strategies? Check out my LinkedIn article here.
Venture-Backed vs. PE-Backed Partners
As someone who has led various companies through different capital investment partners, I wanted to share my thoughts and compare venture-backed vs. PE-backed. More specifically, my August 8th post sought to break down the pros and cons of each type.
Ideal for innovative startups, venture-backed companies are growth-focused and great for rapidly expanding businesses and supporting cutting-edge products. They tend to offer experience and mentorship through their industry knowledge and allow businesses to get access to more funding through multiple rounds and IPOs.
Taking this route, unfortunately, means you dilute your equity and are heavily under the investor’s influence and power. They also focus on high-risk, high-reward businesses — putting tons of pressure on a company’s management while always focusing on an exit strategy. Because of the risk tolerance, venture-backed partners have higher fail rates.
As for private-equity-backed companies, these partners are best suited for businesses needing to operationally improve, increase financial stability, and enable sustainable growth. These groups focus on value creation within the operation and strategic restructuring. They’re more long-term focused and seek to improve financials by restructuring debt, acquiring other businesses, and pursuing other similar strategies.
The downside is that you lose control and autonomy since private equity often brings in new management and changes strategic direction. They also prefer highly leveraged strategies that use a lot of debt financing — which can strain cash flow and increase risk during downturns. While private equity firms have long-term goals in mind, they, too, bring on pressure to exit, which pushes leadership to prioritize short-term profitability over long-term innovations.
Get the complete comparison of these investment partners in my LinkedIn article here.
