Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for December, 2009

Here is an article from earth2tech.

“Will 2010 be the year for greentech IPOs? When lithium ion battery maker A123Systems successfully debuted on the Nasdaq back in September, there was much speculation that the move would ready the market for a following of greentech IPOs. The notion seemed over-enthusiastic then, but three months later solar power startup Solyndra has registered for an IPO, which will likely happen in 2010, and we’ve heard rumors that Tesla is plugging away at its S-1 (Reuters also reported an upcoming Tesla IPO).

Then there’s Silver Spring Networks, which just raised $100 million and looks like it’s getting to that stage where it’s too big to be acquired but will need more financing to compete in the smart grid infrastructure market. Silver Spring isn’t commenting on any IPO rumors, but it is clearly one of the best candidates in the greentech world. If these three — Solyndra, Silver Spring and Tesla — do go public in 2010, it’ll make investor Steve Westly look like a pretty solid market forecaster — he predicted in May that these three would go public by early 2010 and he’s already good for one out of the three.

Out of any of the venture capital investment sectors, greentech has the most bullish outlook in 2010 from a VC standpoint. According the National Venture Capital Association, more than half of a group of venture capitalists surveyed predicted that clean technology would see higher investment levels in 2010. According to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, venture capital investing in cleantech already rebounded sharply in the third quarter of 2009 to $898 million in 57 deals, up from $475 million in 49 deals in the second quarter of 2009.

The IPO market in general is also looking better to VCs. VCs surveyed by the NVCA are predicting “a mild improvement” in the number of venture-backed IPOs overall in 2010, with 74 percent of respondents saying they think there will be more than 20 IPOs in 2010. However, according to this Reuters article, greentech companies’ offerings represented only a small portion of the overall U.S. IPO market in 2009, ranking fifth by dollars raised in 2009 in the IPO market, and accountng for 8.5 percent of issuance by companies going public in 2009.”

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Here is some interresting thoughts from MondayNote.

“Limited Partners, LP, institutions or individuals put money into the fund. We, the General Partners, GP, make and manage the investments and we split the profits with the LP as the sole compensation for our services.

Over time, the split has varied with the industry’s prosperity and the fund’s reputation, it went as high as 35% of the profits for the GP but, as this WSJ story belatedly explains, is now back to about 20%. In our vernacular, that number is called the Carried Interest or, for short, Carry.
A second number, the Management Fee, needs a bit more elaboration.
As the Carry did, it varied and went up to 2.5% of the fund’s capital; it is now pegged at a fairly standard 2% per year. The Management Fee provides the money needed to run the firm’s operations, pay the rent, associates’ salaries, travel expenses and the like. It also provides fodder for misunderstandings.

The Management Fee is a loan, not a stipend. For the GP to get its 20% of the fund’s profits, both the capital, the money invested by the LP and the Management Fee must be repaid first.
When funds become very large, say a billion dollars or more, the Management Fee gets correspondingly large and can encourage spending habits, thus generating criticism the GP is more interested in the fee than in making money for its investors.
But, you’ll object, the advance must be repaid before profit-sharing kicks in. Yes…, and what happens if the fund doesn’t make money? Are the LP losing money while the VC enjoys a good time, living off the Management Fee? The answer depends upon the way the fund agreement is written. If it contains a Clawback clause, the GP is obligated to return the “unearned” fee. As you can imagine, this leads to interesting exchanges during the fund’s formation and, much later, if it turns out it loses money.

To summarize: profit sharing (Carry) of 20%, a yearly advance of 2% of committed capital (Management Fee), to be repaid before profit sharing kicks in.

Let’s move to the heart of the matter: making investments. Here, let’s focus on a basic, oversimplified but usable formula:

We like to invest between $3M and $15M to end up with 20% of a company worth $250M when it “exits”.
“Exit” can mean going public through an IPO (Initial Public Offering). IPOs are rare these days, they’ll come back when the economy does. In the meantime, exits are achieved through M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) deals, that is the company is sold to a larger one such as Cisco, Google and countless others who thus get access to valuable technology and/or people. In may respects, we, the VC, have become an engine of “externalized” R&D, of technical innovation for larger companies. We make and manage speculative investments in riskier technologies on the big companies’ behalf. This is a meaty topic all unto itself, maybe for a future Monday Note.

Going back to the numbers, they need three qualifications. First, they’re only valid for a mid-size fund, in the $200 to $400M range. Larger funds, billion of dollars, can’t make “small” $5M investments, they deal with bigger projects requiring larger amounts of capital such as infrastructure investments, semiconductors or biotech.
Second, the $3M to $15M bracket covers the total amount poured in over the life of the investment, that is 2, 3 or more rounds, over 3, 5 or more years.
(Add to this we never invest alone, for financial reasons, more capitak, and psychological, we don’t want to “fall in love”, a small (2 to 5) group of investors, called a syndicate, provides more viewpoints, more objectivity.)

Lastly, the $3M, $5M, 20%, $250M set of numbers is a neat simplification, reality gets much more complicated, from outright failures, to so-so, middling results, to the occasional “out-of-the-park” success. It’s not called venture capital (capital risque in French) for nothing.
If we invest “only” $3M and get 20% of $250M, that is $50M, this is more than 15 times our investment. If we risk the “full” $15M, we get about 3 times our money. Either way, it looks good, even if you keep in mind a few hard failures.
But you need to introduce time: how many years did the adventure take? 3 times your money over 7 years yields “only” 17% in compound interest, but 44% if the exits happens after 3 years. (Readers interested in geekier Excel simulations of cash-flows can go back to the May 17th, 2009 and May 24th, 2009 Monday Notes.)

The permutations, the possibilities for success and failure are, pardon the bromide, endless; they make our profession so fulfilling as it engages so many dimensions of human endeavor, from technology to psychology, from the fleeting desires of customers to the hard realities of time-expiring cash.”

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Here is a good article from Daily Markets.

“The technology sector has always been about The Next Big Thing, and while next year will be no exception, products and services purchased will more reflect the needs of consumers and businesses – unlike the past when more tech buys reflected “wants.”

Call 2010 the year of “necessary technology.”

While 2009 has seen a dramatic turnaround in the world’s stock markets, the rest of the key economic indicators – such as manufacturing, inventories, and jobs – have lagged behind. This has prompted less discretionary spending on technology, and even a postponement of some necessary purchases.

Slowly but surely businesses and consumers – while still extremely cautious – are seeing their own turnarounds. To aid them with their own recoveries, necessary technology that has emerged in the last two years will grab more mindshare as well as market share.

These necessary technologies will result in the deferred purchase waiting period seen last year coming to an end in 2010, giving a boost to three key technology businesses, including:

  • Semiconductors: The industry’s leading indicator is already making a comeback, and is poised for growth on the backs of almost every other business in the industry. One company in particular could see huge gains in the burgeoning smartphone market, and chances are you haven’t heard of it.
  • Mobile Devices: Taking computing on the road – be it in the form of a smartphone, netbook or tablet – will become more commonplace. The ripple effect from this will present a wide range of investment opportunities – from carriers to advertisers to the companies that make the phones.
  • Software and hardware: ” Do more with less,” already an oft-heard phrase in the jobless recovery, will continue to be heard. But new software and hardware doesn’t require an annual salary and benefits, so expect this category to finally bounce back.

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Here is a good summary from Shai Goldman on top events in the VC and tech industry of 2009.

“Given that we are just about at year-end, I wanted to provide a recap of some of the most memorable moments that took place in the venture capital and technology ecosystem.  Below is a list of  the 10 most important events:

First VC backed technology IPO –  OpenTable goes public at $20/share on May 21st.

First VC backed acquisition (above $500M) – Pure Digital acquired by Cisco for $590M.

First VC backed cleantech IPO – A123 goes public at $17/share on September 23rd.

Khosla Ventures raises $1.1B – in 2009 most VC funds were shrinking in size, yet Khosla Ventures was able to raise $1.1B, this event was a sign that Limited Partners (L.P.s) we actively seeking investment opportunities in the VC sector – September 1st.

Tesla Motors receives $465M from the D.O.E – First technology company to receive a loan guaranty – June 23rd.

Twitter raises a $100M VC round of financing – at a time when there are questions about the consumer internet sector, this funding provided some positive support that $ can be made in the sector – September 25th.

NASDAQ closes above 2,000 – August 3rd- the previous time NASDAQ was above 2,000 was September 30, 2008.

Dow Jones Industrial Average closes above 10,000 – October 14th – the previous time the Dow was above 10,000 was October 2, 2008.

Apple App Store gets more that 100,000 applications published – November 4th – as you may recall the App Store launched on July 10, 2008 and the creation of the iPhone and App Store has created opportunities for both VCs and Startups to make $$.

Facebook Connect is widely adopted by 60M users and 80K sites – the utilization of Facebook Connect has allowed startup companies a way to reduce the time / effort for their users to sign up for a particular service.”

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Here is some IPO news from Marketwatch.

After recent optimistic comments about an upcoming rebound in technology initial public offerings by several Silicon Valley venture capitalists and investment bankers, I decided to see if the reality lived up to the hype — and hope — and trolled through several regulatory filings to see what technology companies are in the queue to go public.

Last week, wheeler dealers at the Venture Summit Silicon Valley conference said there were a slew of technology companies working on S1 filings, the core regulatory document for an IPO. At least 50 venture-backed companies could seek to go public next year, possibly as high as 100, dealmakers said. See column on venture capitalists’ optimism here.

“It’s certainly going to start a lot more robust than 2009, which was completely dead,” said Scott Sweet, senior managing partner of the IPO Boutique. “The last three months of 2009, though, have been quite busy.”

Currently, though, it’s a rather motley crew of tech companies that have filed S1s to go public, and nothing yet that might have the buzz — or shall we say hype — of some of the widely-anticipated Silicon Valley names like Facebook, Zynga, or Tesla Motors.

That said, many look to be solid citizens, with revenue growth and earnings, but some firms are still losing money, not exactly an example of the new, improved IPO. Sweet said two tech IPO names that have the most chatter in this batch are Calix Networks Inc. and Fabrinet, both of which were founded during — and survived — the dot-com bubble and bust.

Calix Networks develops broadband access equipment for network service providers. Revenue jumped in 2008 to $250.5 million, up from $193.8 million in 2007. It’s still losing money and lost $17 million in 2008, an improvement from its loss of $26 million in 2007. Founded during the boom in August, 1999, Calix is based in Petaluma, Calif., a farming area north of San Francisco, dubbed Telecom Valley, a once fertile area for telecom startups as well. Earlier this year, it raised $100 million in additional venture.

Fabrinet was also founded in August 1999 and started operating in January 2000. Its corporate headquarters are in the Cayman Islands. It offers contract manufacturing services for developers of optical communications components, one of the most-hyped hardware areas of the late ’90s. Fabrinet designs and makes products like application-specific crystals, prisms, mirrors and laser components for six of the ten largest optical communications components companies worldwide.”

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »