Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2009

Wall Street tried to resume it upward run on Tuesday, after taking in another round of “less bad” economic news — this time, from the slumping housing market.

Construction companies like KB Home, the Centex Corporation and Toll Brothers paced gains in the broader financial markets after the government reported that new-home construction in February rose 22 percent from January to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 583,000. It was the biggest percentage gain since January 1990 and the first increase since April.

Economists had expected housing starts to decline slightly as home builders pulled back in the face of dwindling demand and competition from a flood of foreclosed properties.

In the last hour, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 131 points or 1.8 percent while the broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was 2.4 percent higher. The technology-heavy Nasdaq gained 3.1 percent.

Crude oil settled at $48.89, up $1.54 a barrel in New York trading.

Stocks ended just below the break-even point on Monday after four days of gains that had lifted the markets some 10 percent last week.

The government also said that wholesale prices in the United States edged up slightly in February, but flatter energy prices and the continuing global economic downturn kept any price increases to a minimum.

The Labor Department reported that its producer-price index rose by a less-than-expected 0.1 percent last month from January. The so-called core index, which excludes volatile food and energy costs, rose by 0.2 percent, a shade more than economists had expected.

To read the full NY Times article, click here.

Read Full Post »

Here is a good reflection from VentureWire and a few selected vc´s. Makes for a good read.

“When I first began working for VentureWire in 2004 after laboring as an editor on Dow Jones Newswires’ public-equities desk, I studied up on the mechanics of venture capital – how funds work, how term sheets are structured, all the financial minutiae that makes the industry tick.

I learned about the people and companies that shaped its origins, the emergence of Sand Hill Road and Silicon Valley, the boom years that created overnight rock stars and the ensuing bust that tore them down just as quickly.

And while I’m continuously fascinated by all these changing dynamics, what really keeps me going as the editor of a venture-capital trade publication are the stories behind the stories. For very few people can spin a yarn as well as a longtime venture capitalist.

In that spirit, and to celebrate VentureWire’s 10th anniversary this week, our reporting and editing team asked VCs to give us one of their favorite personal memories of the venture capital business in the past decade or so. Some VCs had trouble choosing just one memory, while others recounted the colorful story behind an investment. The following is an edited compilation of selected answers. While this is just a minuscule sampling, we wanted to give our readers a chance to reflect on something positive at a time when gloomy news is the norm.”

To read the full article by Scott Austin at Ventures, click here.

Read Full Post »

Scott Smith is a professional domainer and President of TelCartel (www.telcartel.com), a registered reseller of domains which specializes in the distribution and promotion of .tel domains. Telnic is the registry for .tel (www.telnic.com).

The late 90’s ushered in one of the most prominent “they were the best of times, they were the worst of times” eras the world has seen. The widespread acceptance of the then infant Internet as a creditable place to do business underpinned a modern day gold rush of epic proportions. Millions of new “surfers” went online and quickly became intoxicated by the ease at which they could communicate and buy and sell goods and services online. The true Internet boom had begun. Billions of dollars of profits were generated, seemingly out of thin air, as entrepreneurs exploited the power bestowed on them by fat cat venture capitalists and few well-chosen letters to the left of the dot in “dot com”. The Internet went mainstream and the dot com TLD extension was quickly established as the 800 lb. gorilla with domain names often changing hands for multi-millions of dollars.

But as is often the case, in a relative heartbeat, in March of 2000, the boom … bust.

The bubble burst.

Poof.

Since then, with lessons learned, the rebuilding began. Over the last nine years generations of people have ingrained the progeny of the Internet into the fabric of their daily lives. One would be hard pressed to find someone who has never heard of, or are members one or more of MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Linked In and hundreds of other social networks. Add to that all of the associated tubes, mash-ups, wikis, rss feeds, IMs, iTunes, text messages, tweets, blogs, pokes, flickrs, smileys, screen names, passwords, phone numbers and the like, it’s no wonder we’re submerged (or sinking) in a dysfunctional communications funk. We’re in a virtual communications Armageddon!

Surely there is a way to simplify this whole communications mess?

Enter the dot com killer. Welcome simplicity. Welcome Dot-tel.

Dot-tel (.tel) is the new kid on the block, the new ICANN approved TLD that will revolutionize the way we communicate. .tel will push the boundaries of communications and the internet to the next level, putting the power back into the hands of the individual when it comes to using and sharing contact information.

.tel domains enable you to store contact information, keywords and location information and to publish it to the internet quickly and securely without having to build a website.

Henri Asseily CTO and Chief Strategist at Telnic, the. tel registry, is widely quoted today saying,

“This fundamental change in the use of the internet will break open the ability for anyone to now own a domain and be found from any device. This is the biggest innovation to hit the internet and communications and it seems fitting that we have achieved this on the 133rd anniversary of the first use of the telephone. From today, people will be able to dial a .tel name to connect with people. The future of communications is now wide open to innovation.”

Skeptics may chime in saying that – “What do you expect from the COO of Telnic, surely they are going to sing the praises of their new product. They need to push a ton of domains to recoup their multi-year, multi-million dollar investment” That may be so. But here are only a few reasons why I think that .tel will be a smashing success:

  • .tel domains are unique: .tel is the only TLD extension designed from the ground up link directly to contact information stored in the DNS
  • .tel domains save money: .tel domains do not require websites to be built and hosted and aside from annual renewals, there are no fees for ongoing maintenance and development
  • .tel domains are easy to use: a .tel domain can be populated within minutes with all types of contact information, including the use of premium rate telephone numbers, payment via SMS premium rate short codes for content downloads and links to e-commerce sites ranging from third-party hosted auction pages through to fully-fledged e-commerce shops
  • .tel domains will be difficult to cybersquat: .tel domains can only be registered by registrants who provide at least one piece of verifiable contact information. Violators can quickly be identified and actions undertaken by the appropriate authorities
  • * .tel domains have already been purchased by the big players: The New York City Police, American Idol, the X Factor, Britain’s Got Talent, Australian Idol, Pop Idol, Star Academy, BBC, BSkyB, Virgin Media, ITV, Fox, CBS, Discovery, HBO, MTV, Canal+, the Movie Channel, Yellow Pages and thousands of major corporations from around the world.

I could go with many more examples but let me share the single biggest reason why I think .tel will, over time, leave all other domain extensions floundering in its wake.

I have been a professional domainer for nearly 10 years. I have witnessed and/or actively participated in all of the new domain releases dating back to the 2002 .US landrush (which NeuStar thoroughly cocked up), up to and including .biz, .info, .eu, .asia, .name, .asia, .me and dozens of others.

In all of my years of domaining I have never seen a registry so proactively reach out and engage their audience like Telnic has. Having taken a page from the respective books that made the MySpace’s and the Facebook’s of the world so wildly popular, Telnic is embracing the community, joining the blogs and forums, asking people for their input and feedback and actually following up on promises to make the changes that will make .tel more user-friendly and ultimately more valuable for everyone. Senior executives actually return phone calls and emails, often within minutes of being sent.

Let me repeat – they follow up. Man is that refreshing! Telnic makes many of the executives at some of the other registries (NeuStar, listen to your colleagues!), look like pikers.

I’ll finish with this anecdote. The aforementioned Henri Asseily, COO of Telnic weighed in on a thread posted at http://www.telsters.com, one of the emerging, leading .tel forums, thusly. Henri answered the technical question posed and ended with this comment:

“Maybe once the community starts growing a bit we should have a simple poll.”

That’s it! Let’s ask the community what they want and see if we can make it work. Pure genius. After this next proclamation, it’s highly likely that my fellow domainers will take up a collection to have the men in the white coats come and drag me off to the loony bin. But here goes… I predict that within 4-6 years the .com TLD will be usurped from it’s lofty perch and be forever supplanted by .tel or one of its innovative contemporary TLDs.

Scott Smith is a professional domainer and President of TelCartel (www.telcartel.com), a registered reseller of domains which specializes in the distribution and promotion of .tel domains. Telnic is the registry for .tel (www.telnic.com).

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. In the past 60 months, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in maximizing value for 51 Technology, Life Science and Medical Device companies and their Intellectual Property and has restructured/terminated over $770 million of real estate executory contracts and equipment lease/sub-debt obligations. Since inception, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in over $2.2 billion of financings, restructurings and M&A transactions.

Gerbsman Partners has offices and strategic alliances in Boston, New York, Washington, DC, San Francisco, Europe and Israel.

Read Full Post »

What the industry needs is not a bailout, but some sensible policies

By Stephanie Marrus

Biotech is in trouble, again.

125 of the 370 US-based public companies have less than six months of cash — a 90% increase in close-to-broke companies compared to 2007, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). And that number does not take into account the private companies suffering; about 40% of small private biotechs have less than one year of cash.

Venture capitalists are hoarding cash or closing their doors; private equity firms are retrenching, the public markets are in tatters. Big Pharma is shopping with a discriminating eye; the companies that most need to be saved are the least likely to be bought. The industry expects many bankruptcy filings, clinical trial cancellations, layoffs and sell outs.

The JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, arguably the premiere healthcare investment conference in the world took place in San Francisco last month. There is no better venue to dial into industry sentiment. Big Pharma, biotech CEOs, executive search consultants, attorneys, accountants, Wall Street analysts, institutional investors, investment banks, venture capitalists, hedge funds were all there. The conference buzz was: “No buzz.” “Cautiously pessimistic.” “Wait two years and come up for air.” “The well is dry.”

Drug development has always been a tough game. Most companies live in a hand-to-mouth existence, hoping that their science progresses far enough with successful results to look appetizing to funding and sources. It takes 10-15 years before you know if you have a drug that passes human clinical testing, hundreds of millions of dollars in development cost.

Companies with hot technologies or exciting drug candidates get funded either by venture capital, pharmaceutical partnerships, acquisition or the public markets. In past downturns, a small number of biotechs have merged or disappeared but most managed to survive. 2009 is different.

Some will argue we are due a bailout. Surely the biotech industry is as deserving as the automobile industry. We discover and develop medicines that can save human life, a higher calling that should entitle us to at least as much help as the makers of gas-guzzling autos. There is no question that the cost of discovering and developing a pharmaceutical is off the charts and the failure rate is astronomical.

On the other hand, there are too many biotech companies with non-viable businesses. It is a widely held opinion that many companies are “science projects” rather than real businesses. Companies with complimentary technologies or programs could benefit by pooling resources rather than maintaining their own duplicative infrastructures. Management teams have a vested interest in keeping their company intact to the detriment of their shareholders. Is it finally going to be the time to rationalize the industry?

Some companies should continue life only as part of a merged entity. Some companies should sell their assets. Other companies may have to bite the bullet and shut their doors. Management needs to act responsibly for the shareholders even if it means their jobs will end.

For the many firms that have created real value, there should be a future even in these economic times. For that to happen, though, government policy needs to facilitate the continuation of these firms, not obstruct it. Here are a few key policy changes that would help.

FDA: Appoint a respected leader for the FDA and resource the agency properly. Do not go overboard with control in the post-Vioxx era, thereby preventing life saving drugs from coming to market. Let informed patients choose — sick people without good options are willing to take some risk.

Price controls: Do not make the mistake of interfering with free market pricing mechanisms. If a drug is overpriced relative to its efficacy, it will not sell. Setting a ceiling or instituting other price controls will only serve to insure that new drugs are not developed. Industry must see an economic return to invest in highly risky drug development or it will opt out.

Intellectual property: Intellectual property protection is the lifeblood of the industry, and the reason investors will fund companies without revenue. Set policies to enhance and extend protection, not dilute it. Do not weaken the predictability, value and enforceability of patents such as provisions of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which made it through the House but thankfully stalled in the Senate last year.

Funding sources: Increase NIH funding so that fledgling companies have a pre-venture capital source of funds. NIH funding has remained stagnant for a number of years as costs continue to rise. Consider the national venture capital fund model used in other countries to provide financing during the “Valley of Death,” the period when companies are engaged in translational research to bridge academe to industry and not yet fundable by venture capital.

It is in the public interest to help the beleaguered biotech industry. Biotech companies have discovered hundreds of therapies, vaccines and diagnostics that impact human life. Biotech is increasingly serving as a productive engine for new drug development, replacing big pharmaceutical companies as innovation leader. We have accomplished much with scarce resources and deserve to survive and prosper.

Stephanie Marrus is a life sciences management consultant/ interim executive based in the Bay Area who advises firms on strategy, business development, communications, operations, restructurings and M&A. She can be reached at portfoliostrategies@gmail.com.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Here is a good piece from FierceMobileContent

Social networking is now the most popular web activity, surpassing even email, according to a new study issued by information and media firm Nielsen. Active reach in what Nielsen defines as “member communities” now exceeds email participation by 67 percent to 65 percent, the firm reports–among all Internet users worldwide, two thirds visited a social networking site in 2008. Facebook now leads the pack: Three out of every 10 web users visit the site at least once a month, and in all, Facebook experienced a 168 percent increase in users in 2008, galvanized by growth among the 35-to-49 demographic.

Mobile social networking is most popular in the U.K., where 23 percent of mobile web users (about 2 million subscribers) now visit social networks via handsets–the U.S. follows at 19 percent, or 10.6 million subscribers. Mobile social networking usage increased 249 percent in the U.K. in 2008, and grew 156 percent in the U.S. Nielsen notes that the most popular social networks via PCs and laptops mirror the most popular services on the mobile web–Facebook is the most popular in five of the six countries where Nielsen measures mobile activity, with Xing proving most popular in Germany. In addition to the mobile web and dedicated mobile social networking applications, users are also interacting with their social networks via SMS–according to Nielsen, at the end of 2008 almost 3 million U.S. users were texting Facebook on a regular basis. For more on social networking’s growth: – read this Nielsen report

Related articles: Social networking tops mobile search queries, Facebook in mobile social networking talks with Nokia

Other blog  comments: techblips, USA Today

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »