One of the biggest threats to scientific innovation has always been the lack of capital. Venture capital only really makes sense if companies can grow rapidly, and most other equity investments tend to be illiquid until an exit is found.

Brian McConnel at Gigacom takes a look at ‘Class R’ stock, a possible investment model that is halfway between a conventional investment and a loan. Here’s how it works.

Let’s say for rough numbers that a group of angels invest $500,000 for a 10 percent stake in an early-stage company and 5 percent of gross revenues with a 5X cap (total payout: $2.5 million). The company does OK and turns into a nice small business with revenues of $2-$3 million dollars a year. Happy with that, the owners decide not to sell or try to grow much bigger. The investors in this situation will be receiving $100,000-$150,000 per year (off $2-$3 million/year in revenue), which is not a bad annual return, and will get up to $2.5 million over the life of the agreement. In other words, everyone wins — the entrepreneur is rewarded for creating a viable business, and the investors do well without having to force a sale. And they still have 5 percent equity so that if, 20 years later, the founder retires and the company gets bought, they are very happy vs. just merely happy.

Of course there is no downside protection, but then again there rarely is. However it does address one of the major problems with commercialising technology, that of what happens if the company is just a nice company, rather than a spectacular success. In some respects it’s not too different from paying a dividend, which most companies prefer not to do, certainly in the early stages, but it may be a way , combined with tax breaks, that would actively encourage much needed angel investment.

PS it’s worth looking at the comments for some other alternatives.

Tagged with:
 
Creative Destruction - Hindu Style

Creative Destruction - Hindu Style

In October 2008, I was asked at the World Economic Forum along with other experts to address the main challenges facing nanotechnology. While environmental, health and safety concerns had been the preoccupation of many for 2008, this question posed by the WEF combined with the world economic crisis led me to consider the challenges of funding and commercializing of nanotechnology and other emerging technologies for 2009.
We can expect to hear much more of Joseph Schumpeter’s ideas of Creative Destruction  this year as the world comes to terms with the credit crunch, or recession as these events used to be known.  While the depths of a recession can be the best time to start a business, Microsoft is an oft cited example, this is scant consolation for the tens of thousands of companies that will not survive, and the millions who will lose their jobs as a result. An alternative scenario is Nietzsche’s earlier Shiva inspired version of creative destruction, with the new morality standing in the ruins of the old, which may be the long terms fate of a number of financial institutions and economies.

As a result, we published a note today looking at the five most significant issues which we see impacting the world of nanotechnologies in the coming year.

Feel free to disagree on the blog or contact us for more specific information.

Tagged with:
 

Darrell Brookstein at Nanotechnology.com casts more light on the Nanodynamics IPO that wasn’t

“In mid 2007 and into last week, one single, unlucky investment bank raised ARWR $16.5 million at $5.78 per share with ¼ warrants at $7.06 (it’s now $2.10). They raised NANX $10.6 million at $5.92 (now $3.21). Now, oddly, they were unable, for whatever reason (amazed neither the company itself nor the underwriter have yet to release details at this late date), to bring private company, Nanodynamics, public on the Dubai Exchange last week.”

Tagged with: