Feeds:
Posts
Comments

2011 marked another strong year for venture capital, but will it continue?

By Peter Delevett

pdelevett@mercurynews.com

For the venture capital industry, 2011 was a year of superlatives — the highest level of investment in Internet companies since the dot-com bust and the highest level in cleantech ever. But it also was a year that ended on a worrisome downward swing.

Venture capitalists pumped $28.4 billion into nearly 3,700 deals, according to new numbers from the National Venture Capital Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Both numbers were an uptick over 2010, which itself had marked something of a turnaround for the industry after two years of declines.

But the fourth-quarter numbers limped across the finish line, showing a drop both in dollars and deals compared to the third quarter. And that third quarter represented a decline in activity compared to the second quarter, when investor enthusiasm soared after LinkedIn’s initial public offering of stock. During the second quarter of 2011, venture firms poured $7.5 billion into 966 deals. In the most recent quarter, those figures were $6.6 billion and 844.

Experts disagree on whether the declining numbers mean trouble for Silicon Valley’s startup economy.

Mark Cannice, a professor at the University of San Francisco who conducts a quarterly poll of venture capitalist confidence, reports that venture capitalists grew increasingly pessimistic as 2011 wore on. If venture firms continue to back fewer startups, he asked, “What great firms aren’t going to launch that we don’t even know about?”

Please click on link for rest of story.       http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_19990431?source=pkg

Personal Finance: YoBucko talks money for 20-something

Published: Sunday, Feb. 19, 2012

When it comes to managing money, there’s no lack of advice online, on everything from figuring out a budget to calculating your retirement plan.

But for 20-somethings? Not so much.

And that’s the concept behind YoBucko.com, a new personal finance website aimed squarely at those in their 20s. It’s the brainchild of Eric Bell, a 28-year-old Washington, D.C., entrepreneur who sees a void in personal finance guidance for his generation.

What Bell lacks in years, he’s made up in passion for personal finances. While in college, Bell started money-management workshops at four universities in his native Arkansas. After graduating in 2006 (“one of the last group of graduates to easily get jobs”), he spent four years in the private banking division of Citigroup. Now finishing an MBA program at Georgetown University, he just finished two years as president of the Greater Washington, D.C., Jumpstart Coalition, a national nonprofit that promotes financial literacy in schools.

It all led to November, when he founded YoBucko, which offers advice to 20-somethings on budgets, debt, savings, insurance and more.

This week, he talked by phone about his website and his generation’s attitudes on work, taking risks and the recession’s lasting impact. Here’s an excerpt:

For obvious reasons, I like the YoBucko name. Where’d it come from?

I wanted a name that made people laugh. There’s so much out there on personal finances but not a lot you can laugh about … . Real problems come from personal finances. But people aren’t receptive to the message if they can’t smile about it.

 

Why focus on 20-somethings?

I focus on 20-year-olds and up because I am one. I understand the challenges they’re facing … . When I was in college, I wanted to take classes on money management but nothing was available. … I’m trying to get in front of problems and (help prevent) a lot of what we’ve seen with credit card debt, bad mortgages, etc.

Like many college graduates, you’re saddled with $100,000 in student loans, the legacy of finishing your Georgetown University MBA. Does that make you more – or less – credible with your audience?

From my perspective, it adds to my credibility. I’m in the trenches with people, not speaking to them from my ivory tower. Some of the most successful people in the personal finance field are folks who faced real financial issues and got through them successfully. … So rather than hide behind the facts and pretend to be someone I’m not, I prefer to share my story openly so I can speak from experience, not theory.

Student loan debt is estimated to hit $1 trillion this year and take decades to repay. What’s your advice on student loans? And how are you tackling your own debt?

Tuition and the rising cost of education is the downfall of our generation … . (Students) should think long and hard about why they’re going back to school. If you’re trying to switch careers or add to your current job skills, there can be a payoff. If you’re just going because you don’t know what you want to do, it may not be the best investment.

I’ve already paid off a chunk of my loans, the higher-interest rate loans first. I’m looking at my repayment options: lowering interest rates, consolidating loans, income-based repayment plans.

For your generation, what are the lasting lessons of the recession?

There are three major takeaways:

• Bad things happen to good people. The recession demonstrated this very clearly and instilled a little fear in our generation. Prior to the recession, there was an eternal sense of optimism about our future and our potential. The recession (gave) us a wake-up call and helped us realize that we need to protect ourselves by saving for a rainy day, living below our means and hedging our bets.

• Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. People now see how being too concentrated in one asset – whether it’s real estate, stocks, cash or 401(k) plans – is a risky proposition. The concept of diversification makes more sense to our generation now than it did before.

• Be skeptical. While there are a lot of great people in the financial services industry, a few bad apples caused a ton of financial problems globally … . For our generation, it translates into being skeptical of individuals and companies that sell financial products and services.

Part of the “wake-up call” is setting aside some savings. How do people do that?

People talk a good game about saving. But it’s like you know you’re not supposed to eat sausage, biscuits and gravy, but you do until you have a heart attack. … As a country, we’ve lived through a small heart attack and are finally listening to the fact that we should be prepared if it happens again. … Look at your 401(k). Set up direct deposit. Create a budget so you have a snapshot of your money and where it goes each month. (For detailed tips, see accompanying box, “12 Ways to Save More Money in 2012.”)

According to a recent Pew Research Center study of 18-to-34-year-olds, the ragged economy forced many to move back in with parents (24 percent) and postpone marriage (20 percent) or kids (22 percent). Nearly half said they took a job they didn’t like just to pay the bills. How else did the recession change your generation?

It’s forced us to curb our expectations. That dream home at age 35 isn’t likely. … In 2006, when I got out of college, I’d go hang out with friends and buy drinks and an expensive dinner. Now, I’ll cook at home. And that’s not a bad thing … . With careers, you have to have a backup plan. Our sense of loyalty (to a company) is gone because many of us got laid off. We’ve seen people lose their homes. Parents are having to admit to their kids their house is being foreclosed on and they can’t pay for college. Or they don’t have the money for retirement. It’s a scary time. We came into the world where everything was provided to us. Many more of us are now cynics.

Why start a business in tough times?

It was a calculated risk. I’ve probably learned 10 times more from this experience than what I’ve learned from my MBA. … I’m not married; I don’t have kids. I can afford the risk. … If it doesn’t work out, it won’t be because I didn’t try. I believe in what I’m doing. We’ve already helped some people. If I can help a lot more people, it’s even better.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/19/4272661/personal-finance-yobucko-talks.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

Software startups reaped lions share of venture capital investment in fourth quarter

By Peter Delevett

pdelevett@mercurynews.com

Posted:   02/18/2012 03:17:00 PM PST

Maybe they should start calling it Software Valley.

Venture capitalists, who provide much of the funding that keeps startups growing, poured twice as much money into software companies in the last quarter of 2011 than into any other sector.

Venture firms nationwide put $1.8 billion into software, spreading the wealth among 238 deals. That was more than double the number of deals in the second-largest sector, biotechnology.

The trend was even more pronounced in the Bay Area, where one-third of all venture money went into software.

The data was reflected in the latest MoneyTree report, prepared by the National Venture Capital Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers using data from Thomson Reuters.

“The big story was software as a service — very hot,” said Debby Farrington of StarVest Partners, speaking of the MoneyTree findings. Her New York-based venture firm focuses on so-called SaaS or cloud-based software, which companies can rent online rather than buy at steep prices.

The wider adoption of cloud software also is being driven by the fact that more workers are bringing their personal smartphones and tablet computers to work and want the freedom to access their files anywhere, she added.

Internet-specific companies also received a healthy dose of attention from venture capital firms in the quarter, the MoneyTree report found. With VCs eager to find the next Facebook,

Groupon or Twitter, the sector received $1.3 billion, shared across 239 deals.But the software and Internet sectors both saw funding drop in the fourth quarter compared to the third, perhaps driven by sub-par Wall Street debuts by Groupon and fellow social media stalwart Zynga.

In fact, biotech was the only one of the five sectors the MoneyTree report tracks that saw gains in both dollars and deals in the quarter.

But while Tracy Lefteroff, who heads the venture capital practice for PricewaterhouseCoopers, called biotechnology “a hot spot” in 2011, his enthusiasm was tempered by the fact that biotech funding — particularly for early stage companies — has been on the decline for several years. In part, that’s because companies in the sector face high regulatory hurdles and steep costs to reach significant size.

The same factors, Lefteroff notes, plague cleantech. Even though the green energy category took in more venture funding in 2011 than ever before — $4.3 billion — the number of deals in the fourth quarter declined 14 percent compared to the previous three months.

The Advantages of a “Date-Certain” Mergers and Acquisition Process Over a “Standard Mergers and Acquisitions Process”
Every venture capital investor hopes that all of his investments will succeed. The reality is that a large percentage of all venture investments must be shut down. In extreme cases, such a shut down will take the form of a formal bankruptcy or an assignment for the benefit of creditors. In most cases, however, the investment falls into the category of “living dead”, i.e. companies that are not complete failures but that are not self-sustaining and whose prospects do not justify continued investment. Almost never do investors shut down such a “living dead” company quickly.

Most hope against hope that things will change. Once reality sets in, most investors hire an investment banker to sell such a company through a standard mergers and acquisition process – seldom with good results. Often, such a process requires some four to six months, burns up all the remaining cash in the company and leads to a formal bankruptcy or assignment for the benefit of creditors. In many instances, there are a complete lack of bidders, despite the existence of real value in the company being sold.

The first reason for this sad result is a fundamental misunderstanding of buyer psychology. In general, buyers act quickly and pay the highest price only when forced to by competitive pressure. The highest probability buyers are those who are already familiar with the company being sold, i.e. competitors, existing investors, customers and vendors. Such buyers either already know of the company’s weakness or quickly understand it as soon as they see the seller¥s financials. Once the sales process starts, the seller is very much a wasting asset both financially and organizationally. Potential buyers quickly divide the company’s burn rate into its existing cash balance to see how much time it has left. Employees, customers and vendors grow nervous and begin to disengage. Unless compelled to act, potential buyers simply draw out the process and either submit a low-ball offer when the company is out of cash or try to pick up key employees and customers at no cost when the company shuts down.

The second reason for this sad result is a misunderstanding of the psychology and methods of investment bankers. Most investment bankers do best at selling “hot” companies, i.e. where the company’s value is perceived by buyers to be increasing quickly over time and where there are multiple bidders. They tend to be most motivated and work hardest in such situations because the transaction sizes (i.e. commissions) tend to be large, because the publicity brings in more assignments and because such situations are more simply more fun. They also tend to be most effective in maximizing value in such situations, as they are good at using time to their advantage, pitting multiple buyers against each other and setting very high expectations. In a situation where “time is not your friend”, the actions of a standard investment banker frequently make a bad situation far worse. First, since transaction sizes tend to be much smaller, an investment banker will assign his “B” team to the deal and will only have such team spend enough time on the deal to see if it can be closed easily. Second, playing out the process works against the seller. Third, trying to pit multiple buyers against each other and setting unrealistically high valuation expectations tends to drive away potential buyers, who often know far more about the real situation of the seller than does the investment banker.

“Date Certain” M&A Process

The solution in a situation where “time is not your friend” is a “date-certain” mergers and acquisitions process. With a date-certain M&A process, the company’s board of directors hires a crisis management/ private investment banking firm (“advisor”) to wind down business operations in an orderly fashion and maximize value of the IP and tangible assets. The advisor works with the board and corporate management to:

1. Focus on the control, preservation and forecasting of CASH;
2. Develop a strategy/action plan and presentation to maximize value of the assets. Including drafting sales materials, preparing information due diligence war-room, assembling a list of all possible interested buyers for the IP and assets of the company and identifying and retaining key employees on a go-forward basis;
3. Stabilize and provide leadership, motivation and morale to all employees;
4. Communicate with the Board of Directors, senior management, senior lender, creditors, vendors and all stakeholders in interest.

 
The company’s attorney prepares very simple “as is, where is” asset-sale documents. (“as is, where is- no reps or warranties” agreements is very important as the board of directors, officers and investors typically do not want any additional exposure on the deal). The advisor then contacts and follows-up systematically with all potentially interested parties (to include customers, competitors, strategic partners, vendors and a proprietary distribution list of equity investors) and coordinates their interactions with company personnel, including arranging on-site visits. Typical terms for a date certain M&A asset sale include no representations and warranties, a sales date typically two to four weeks from the point that sale materials are ready for distribution (based on available CASH), a significant cash deposit in the $100,000 range to bid and a strong preference for cash consideration and the ability to close the deal in 7 business days.

Date certain M&A terms can be varied to suit needs unique to a given situation or corporation. For example, the board of directors may choose not to accept any bid or to allow parties to re-bid if there are multiple competitive bids and/or to accept an early bid. The typical workflow timeline, from hiring an advisor to transaction close and receipt of consideration is four to six weeks, although such timing may be extended if circumstances warrant. Once the consideration is received, the restructuring/insolvency attorney then distributes the consideration to creditors and shareholders (if there is sufficient consideration to satisfy creditors) and takes all necessary steps to wind down the remaining corporate shell, typically with the CFO, including issuing W-2 and 1099 forms, filing final tax returns, shutting down a 401K program and dissolving the corporation etc.

The advantages of this approach include the following:

Speed – The entire process for a date certain M&A process can be concluded in 3 to 6 weeks. Creditors and investors receive their money quickly. The negative public relations impact on investors and board members of a drawn-out process is eliminated. If circumstances require, this timeline can be reduced to as little as two weeks, although a highly abbreviated response time will often impact the final value received during the asset auction.

Reduced Cash Requirements – Given the date certain M&A process compressed turnaround time, there is a significantly reduced requirement for investors to provide cash to support the company during such a process.

Value Maximized – A company in wind-down mode is a rapidly depreciating asset, with management, technical team, customer and creditor relations increasingly strained by fear, uncertainty and doubt. A quick process minimizes this strain and preserves enterprise value. In addition, the fact that an auction will occur on a specified date usually brings all truly interested and qualified parties to the table and quickly flushes out the tire-kickers. In our experience, this process tends to maximize the final value received.

Cost – Advisor fees consist of a retainer plus 10% or an agreed percentage of the sale proceeds. Legal fees are also minimized by the extremely simple deal terms. Fees, therefore, do not consume the entire value received for corporate assets.

Control – At all times, the board of directors retains complete control over the process. For example, the board of directors can modify the auction terms or even discontinue the auction at any point, thus preserving all options for as long as possible.

Public Relations – As the sale process is private, there is no public disclosure. Once closed, the transaction can be portrayed as a sale of the company with all sales terms kept confidential. Thus, for investors, the company can be listed in their portfolio as sold, not as having gone out of business.

Clean Exit – Once the auction is closed and the consideration is received and distributed, the advisor takes all remaining steps to effect an orderly shut-down of the remaining corporate entity. To this end the insolvency counsel then takes the lead on all orderly shutdown items.

About Gerbsman Partners

Gerbsman Partners focuses on maximizing enterprise value for stakeholders and shareholders in under-performing, under-capitalized and under-valued companies and their Intellectual Property. Since 2001, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in maximizing value for 69 Technology, Life Science and Medical Device companies and their Intellectual Property, through its proprietary “Date Certain M&A Process” and has restructured/terminated over $800 million of real estate executory contracts and equipment lease/sub-debt obligations. Since inception, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in over $2.3 billion of financings, restructurings and M&A transactions.

Gerbsman Partners has offices and strategic alliances in Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Alexandria, VA, San Francisco, Orange County, Europe and Israel. For additional information please visit www.gerbsmanpartners.com or Gerbsman Partners blog.

GERBSMAN PARTNERS
Email: steve@gerbsmanpartners.com
Web: www.gerbsmanpartners.com
BLOG of Intellectual Capital: blog.gerbsmanpartners.com
Skype: thegerbs

Article by Tony Fish. Member of Gerbsman Partners Board of Intellectual Capital

In my book titled  “Mobile Web 2.0″ (published in 2006) Ajit (co-author) and I identified that mobileweb2.0 holds that the mean and mechanism by which I was uniquely identified by and could be associated with, which was a number; no longer holds true.

The key aspect of this is that in the old world I was found, contacted utilising and was identified by numbers, this may have been a phone number or a passport number. In the new world I will be found and identified by tags, centred on who I am as identified by my name.  Further; it will not just be me, companies are identified by brands but we have to-date contacted or connected to them by numbers, now companies, using their brands and product names will be uniquely identified by these names.  Is there a real difference, in the consumers eyes; yes!, In deep technical aspects, probably not, since there will still be a mechanism for resolving names and numbers, but the value of resolving numbers (directories) and its controlling influence has passed.

What does all this mean for me as an individual ?

Image001

I am a tag not a number.  In the very old days I had one number, in fact it was not mine either, if was the shared Fish Family home phone number.  People could, if the so wished, call up directory enquiries or look up in the phone book this number. Eventually having only one number passed an in the modern age I have several numbers (mobile, Skypein, office, DDI, home, home office, to name a few)  If someone wants these numbers, they would need my business card, may be linked to Linkedin or Plaxo or could go to each of the service providers directory services and eventually get my numbers.

However, why did you want the numbers, why have I got some many numbers.  Because I can be reached in a variety of means, depending on where I am and the cost of telephony I wish to suffer.  In essence however, all you wanted to do was to “speak” with me.  Actually, all you wanted was to connect with Tony Fish or Ajit Joaker who wrote about mobileweb2.0 in London in June 06.

However, there is another way.  Instead of worrying about using the telcom operators directory search, not knowing which operator I am with, how about using a web search engine to connect.  Imagine, you type in my name, the search engine now responds with not a pile of numbers, but offers you a choice of what you would like to do.   Do you want to call, message, lowest call route (LCR), VoIP call. You click yes. The search engine has now become the telco, not by offering infrastructure but by offering the directory resolving feature, and I am now a name not a number.  So why tags?

Lets assume that as you read this, download the slides, look for the update of the book, you store this new data on your computer and you tag the information with something useful.  Suppose you tag it with Ajit or Tony.  Suppose, as I have tagged the same information on my computer with Ajit and Tony and Mobileweb2.0 etc etc.  Suppose also that I have tagged my contact details with my name.  Now a tag based search engine could resolve the search, and hence draw out the connection opportunities, and can even then set up the connection.  If would be possible that I have set preference for my location, and therefore you could be offered to meet me in the Starbucks on Berkeley Street, W1 opposite my office as I am in there at the moment!

What becomes evident is that none of this depends on knowing a number or how connection happens and it is certainly not fixed mobile convergence! There is someone who may perform the task, but nobody needs know.

Surly this all breaks down when you have many people with the same name! The simplicity of the tags is that everyone will uniquely tag is different ways, each of these will build unique identifies for people with the same name.

Now how does this extend to the corporate.  Corporate discovered many years ago that Vanity numbers worked.  This being 0800 Flowers etc.  There was no need to remember the phone number, you could type in the name on an alpha numeric key pad.  This developed into short codes on the mobile and is likely to introduce a whole new mobile vanity number opportunity.

It is possible that you will dial COKE, BMW or TAXI, FLOWERS and be connected.  A corporate will be able to remove the cost of reprinting different number for customer services or for competitions by geography.  Instead all one number.  But better, this number will be available from fixed, mobile and PC based origination devices.  Calls will automatically be least cost routed saving customer and supplier cash.

Mobile will be the first to drive these changes, and will be the driver.  It will be the there at the point of inspiration to capture ideas, but also there when you need to connect and find, without the requirements to have it all stored locally.

Read more here.

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.