The Wall Street Journal points to further evidence of the collapse of Venture Capital.  Typical of the doom laden quotes is this:

“Dallas is an entrepreneurial city, but it won’t be driven by venture capital going forward,” said Daniel T. Owen, a venture capitalist at the 16th-floor firm H02 Partners, which plans to wind down its venture business over the next few years. “The pure venture-capital model is really thriving in just Silicon Valley and Boston.”

The bottom line is, in this case the bottom line, as VCs who haven’t managed to make any money for their investors are left bemused by the unwillingness of anyone else to hand over cash. I’m bemused as to whether that’s an arrogant or stupid view of the world.

Toto, This isn’t 1997 any more!

Tagged with:
 

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:
 

Zettacore Change Tack

Interesting to see Zettacore raising a $21m series C, some six years after they first started our promising to replace silicon with molecular memories, although that’s not the application that is attracting interest right now.

As Nikkei Electronics reported last week – they look to have a customer for their Molecular Interface (aren’t most interfaces molecular?) technology that helps with conventional semiconductor manufacturing. While their initial plan for global domination of the memory business seems to have been elbowed aside with the fall in price of flash memory from a dollar a Mb 2001 to less than a dollar a Gb 2009, the R&D does seem to have been useful for something…

ZettaCore said MI technology enables deposition of copper on smooth dielectric, and lamination of dielectric on smooth copper in high-performance IC substrates, HDI boards, high-speed boards, flexible PCBs, and wafer level packaging. Since surface roughening is eliminated, customers can realize finer line/space dimensions and improve signal integrity while using conventional materials and processes.

“ZettaCore MI technology offers IC substrate customers the ability to leverage their manufacturing infrastructure and yet realize finer line/space design rules. For example, customers can advance interconnect geometries with the current GX-13 material beyond what is possible with conventional roughening technologies. Since the interfaces are smooth, losses related to skin effect are minimized which would improve system performance,” said Takao Sakurai, general manager of Specialty Chemical Dept, Ajinomoto Co Inc.

By working with Ajinomoto, ZettaCore is offering a complete and seamless solution to substrate manufacturers.

“Ajinomoto GX-13 build-up resin has a dominant market share in flip-chip IC substrates. Customers can now realize 10µm line/space design rules and beyond by using ZettaCore MI technology in conjunction with GX-13 material,” said Srinivas Nimmagadda, VP of Business Development at ZettaCore.

That’s another set of rebels assimilated into the world of CMOS then.

Tagged with:
 

Angels vs VCs

Stephen Fleming at Academic VC has an interesting article about the diverging interests of angel investors & VCs. The basic premise is that the high returns required by venture funds drive them to take decisions which are neither in the interest of the founders nor the early stage (Angel) investors.

I’ve seen this happen in a number of companies, and it’s not pretty. As a result, the founders often end up with next to nothing, even if there is an exit.

Tagged with:
 

British scientists are hopping mad about comments from Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King, who recently argued against increased science funding, presumably on the grounds that all the money had already been spent on health and safety agencies, totally ineffective government agencies and bailing out Scottish Banks.  I would expect the Governor of the Bank of England to understand a little bit of basic economics and that economic growth has always come from technology (think of the Industrial Revolution which created the British Empire) rather than bulldozing money into a pit and setting fire to it. I think I’m hopping mad too.

With lunatics like this running the asylum its hardly surprising the UK economy is in its present state.

Sir Roy Anderson, rector of Imperial College is being firmly diplomatic rather than hopping mad, and calling for a £1bn venture capital fund to support small high technology companies, an ideas as insane as Mervyn Kings. For all the whinging about the UK venture capital industry, it’s not too bad. It’s not Silicon Valley but it’s much better than most of the rest of the world. However, like their UK counterparts it doesn’t work too well, and shovelling yet more public money into another lame duck industry won’t do any good either.

It’s hard to believe that the finest minds in the country can’t come up with a better idea for an economic stimulus package than chucking loads of public money at things that don’t work. Putting their underpants on their heads and shouting at the traffic would   have as much effect and be a lot better value for taxpayers.

Despite its recent woes, there is enough liquidity in the VC industry to continue doing what it does, but what it doesn’t do is invest in early stage technology companies. In fact not many people do and that’s where the money really needs to go, to support early stage companies and get them to the stage where they can attract further capital from customers, banks or even VCs.

As I wrote in February, Let a Million Flowers Bloom!

Given that the returns on most asset classes are now negative, entrepreneurs are one of the few places where some wisely invested cash will give a decent return. Imagine what would have happened if governments had refused to bail out the banks and put the cash into technology, entrepreneurs and small businesses instead? We’d still be a few hundred billion in the hole, but at least there would be some chance of getting some of it back and stimulating the overdue reinvention of the economy.

Tagged with:
 

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article about how “with their core business in shambles, some venture capitalists are
changing their stripes, styling themselves as investors in distressed assets and public companies.”

Here’s why:

Start- ups today take a median 6.6 years to go public or get sold, up from 5.4 years in 2005, according to research firm VentureSource. Through the first nine months of 2008, venture funds lost 4.3%, according to Cambridge Associates. Those figures don’t take into account the severe decline in asset values since mid-September.

For limited partners, the investors in Venture Capital funds, this is proving a little worrying. One asset manager commented in the WSJ that “Traditional venture capitalists work with young private companies and they should stick to that niche.” It is a little odd that if a company with a platform technology wants to exploit it outside their initially defined area then their VCs will get rather shirty with them, but it seems perfectly OK for VCs to start dabbling in things outside their own core competence.

My feeling is that this is just the beginning, and the traditional dividing lines between venture capital, hedge funds and even banks will become increasingly blurred as a result of both the current financial meltdown and the impending new regulations on both sides of the Atlantic. Taking an existing structure such as a venture capital find and tacking a bit of distressed asset financing or PIPES (private investments in public equities) onto it is like fixing a broken windowpane with some masking tape and brown paper.

What is needed is a more joined up policy that can help unleash the technologies that we, as taxpayers, have already funded through the academic system, and get this out into the wider economy.

Tagged with:
 

Umair Haque, whom I’ve referenced before, has a nice post echoing some of the sentiments expressed here and at a growing number of other places – namely that a new economy needs both new financing models and some more creativity. In Yorkshire we’d say it was a clapped out old nag that was only fit for the knackers yard, but here’s that translated into Harvard Business School speak

We can’t reinvent the economy without, well, investing in reinventing the economy. So here’s a distinction you might want to draw. VC 1.0: “monetizing”, aka selling the same old mass-produced junk to tuned-out “consumers”. VC 2.0: seeding better economies, industries, and markets for a 21st century bereft of value creation, aka radical structural transformation.

The problem is, of course, that venture capital is a very hidebound industry, if it was a person you’d expect it to be shouting at the television and complaining about the age of policemen and the things the younger generation get up to. Venture capital is a 20th century industry perhaps as ill equipped for the current age as General Motors, and there seems to be a growing sentiment that it is a model that should either gracefully retire, or at least transform itself into something more relevant to the 21st Century.

Tagged with:
 

The slowdown in the pace of China’s development has been one of the consequences of the current economic woes, but may also provide some great opportunities as James Fallows explains in the Atlantic. It’s an excellent article going far beyond the usual post Olympic slowdown stories and looking at how battery companies such as BYD with their electric vehicles are innovating faster than their western rivals.

The shift in attitude is neatly summed up in BYD SVPs Stella Li’s comments “Designing the car, building the car, that is the easy part” – or in other words once you have the battery technology right you don’t need Ford or GM any more, enabling you to capture the entire value chain, at least in a market for low cost basic vehicles such as China.

Coupled with the news that China is also the world’s most robust emerging market for private equity and venture capital finance and catching the US in both quantity and quality of nanoscience publications it looks as if the real innovation crisis is occurring in Europe where academic excellence has no easy outlet.

If we look beyond the short term, and try to understand what the economy of 2014 will begin to look like, it would be unwise to bet against the US or China, but I do worry about Europe, and the UK in particular where there still seems to be no coherent policy for getting academic innovation into the economy.

Tagged with:
 

Why VCs Hate Science

Georges van Hoegaerden has an interesting comparison between how the venture capital model is supposed to work (the Vinhod Khosla model), and how it actually works (the Subprime VC model) these days – as illustrated by the charts below.

khosla_model

It’s a nice comparison and neatly illustrates how the low risk subprime model forces VCs to invest in technologies where much of the risk can be minimized, such as Web 2.0 businesses rather than anything particularly ground breaking which, if it is science based, will probably need quite a bit of investment beyond half a dozen laptops and a serviced office required for a web business.

subprime_model

Of course if you don’t take risks you can’t expect to participate in the upside, so the subprime model is a self defeating and illustrates why so many funds have had so much trouble returning anything except lame excuses about how tough it is out there at the moment to their investors recently.

I’m almost ready cut out the tongue of the next person who uses the excuse that “it’s tough out there” for sitting on their backside and wringing their hands. Looking out of the window I can see that it’s raining out there, so when I pop out I’ll take an umbrella.

Tagged with:
 

Thomas Friedman in this weekends New York Times echoes my recent thoughts on how to get us out of the credit crunch recession:

As we invest taxpayer money, let’s do it with an eye to starting a new generation of biotech, info-tech, nanotech and clean-tech companies, with real innovators, real 21st-century jobs and potentially real profits for taxpayers. Our motto should be, “Start-ups, not bailouts: nurture the next Google, don’t nurse the old G.M.’s.”

I think the same is true in Europe. We do have world class science on which to base innovation, and a whole host of dinosaurs that will become extinct whether we as taxpayers fund them or not, but my US colleagues do have the impression that most European entrepreneurs still try to work a 35 hour week and take 8 weeks vacation per year.

Isn’t quite that bad, but in terms of entrepreneurial culture the US ‘can do’ attitude goes a long way to getting technologies off the ground despite the problems I highlighted. Some of the more interesting deals I have been involved with recently are ones where the entrepreneurs made sure that I “got” it though sheer perseverance. Once we are past that stage, getting the deal done can be even more challenging, especially when dealing with companies, lawyers and investors in time zones ranging from Bangkok to San Francisco, but good entrepreneurs (and investors) shouldn’t let a little thing like sleep get in the way.

The current situation may be rather trickier than the dot com years, but economic turmoil often throws up a host of new opportunities for anyone still watching out for them. I’m seeing some fantastic deals, with some great technologies at sensible prices, and doing more of that and less of the bailing out of lame duck industries is where our future economy will lie, and my bank manager (Barclays) keeps exhorting me to tell everyone that they are still lending money and doing deals.

Page 1 of 212