Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2012

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.

Read Full Post »

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 http://www.gerbsmanpartners.com or Gerbsman Partners blog.

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

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

Don’t get mad at me for not finding seven stories for you to read this weekend. I have been busy with some other stuff and as a result I have not been able to spend as much time reading as I normally do. Regardless, here is an abbreviated recommendation list. Hope you enjoy them.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Re-Inventing Education for the 21st Century

The Internet is staring down the College Cartel. And the Internet will win. College costs cannot continue to rise at three times the rate of inflation, as they have for the last thirty-five years.

My friend Jack Biddle, co-founder of VC firm Novak Biddle, and an early pioneer in online education companies (Blackboard, 2Tor, Fidelis and others) puts it this way:

“Since WW II, GDP has grown at 3% per year but health care and education have and continue to grow at 7%. They are now on a path to reach 50% of GDP. For that to continue, it means that EVERYTHING else that people consume has to shrink by 4% per year. That is simply not going to happen. Herb Stein’s law says that that which is unsustainable, shall stop, and this is unsustainable.”

The Internet has brought efficiency and cost-reduction to so many industries over the last fifteen years: retailing, financial services, advertising, music, news, movies, books, and gaming. The $1 Trillion Education market is next.

Education hasn’t changed much since the days of Plato and the first Academy which he founded in 387 BC in Athens – where the wise teacher filled the brains of his students with his wisdom and knowledge. With 16 million students at 2,400 US Colleges today, that same “wise teacher” paradigm is used in hundreds of thousands of college classrooms and lecture halls each and every day.

Yet the world has changed. Today, across the Internet, more knowledge exists online about any given topic than does in the mind of any one professor at any one school. With access to the Internet, students collectively are wiser than their professors. Companies like Koofers, which helps students prepare for tests in virtual study halls, whether on the same campus taking the same course, or at completely different schools but taking the same course type (Introduction to Economics) are harnessing this collective wisdom.

Salman Khan, who started posting YouTube videos for his family, to help them better understand math being taught in school, is turning education upside down. The Khan Academy suggests that learning should be done online, and classroom time reserved for teachers to help students better understand material they have learned, but perhaps not yet mastered.

2Tor is helping brand-name universities extend their programs online, to reach students around the world. Those online students graduate with the same degrees as their counterparts who attend brick and mortar classes.

The revolution is upon us.

I see four rich veins for entrepreneurs to mine in the higher education space. A lot of wealth will be created here in the next twenty years.

First and foremost is international. The rise of the middle class in India and China alone is creating a college-eligible audience larger than the 16 million college students in the US today. Validating the credentials of these students, helping to match them with US Colleges, preparing them for college from a language or culture standpoint, and educating many of them online represents an industry perhaps as large as the entire US education market today. A new $1 Trillion market.

Second is brand extension by the top US Universities. For most, admission into college is not hard. Only 2% of US Universities are ultra-selective, accepting fewer than 25% of their applicants. These 53 out of 2,041 Universities have brands that are recognized worldwide. It might be more difficult to expand branded undergraduate offerings online, because of the breadth of the curriculum and the socialization needs of the students at that age. But brand expansion, online, for graduate programs can be a very big business. 2Tor is attacking this space dead on.

Third is what I call an “On-Campus Virtual College.” I believe that students go to college for three primary reasons. First is the social experience of college. Making friends for life, having fun, going to parties, and learning how to live and act independently from your parents. Second is to get an education and a degree that is valuable to employers in their field of choice. Third is to find a job upon graduation. Academics only comes to play in the second instance. The other two are much more pragmatic. And nothing says that the three functions can’t be split.

I foresee a day where students will go off to a campus with classrooms, teaching assistants, dorms, sports teams and cafeterias – but with no professors. Students will go to class together and watch a lecture from the best teaching professors in the world. Teaching assistants or adjunct professors will guide the students through the material. But they will learn, online, from the best teachers, unlike today, where at many schools, professors teach because they have to – and conduct research because they want to. By separating the cost of the social experience + the career planning and placement from the cost of teaching, we can fundamentally change the cost of education. This is an ideal setting for the 84% of students who attend schools that accept 50% or more of their applicants.

Fourth is transfer students. A little known secret is that 1 in 3 students transfer at some point during their college life. They graduate from a different college than they enrolled in right out of high school. This process is inefficient today and will benefit from innovations entrepreneurs will pursue. Innovations I foresee include taking the top 10% of community college students, honors candidates, putting them in an online program from a 4-year school, and preparing them to transfer to one of many 4-year schools after learning online for two years. Another idea: Creating a transfer marketplace for college students looking to upgrade the brand name on their diploma. After all, employers care about the school from which you graduated – not the one you initially went to out of high school. Top colleges would love more applicants, with a year or two of college under their belts, with a record of academic achievement from second tier schools. Helping to make that market is a big opportunity.

At New Atlantic Ventures, we are big believers in how the Internet will transform higher education. We have backed two companies in this space so far (Koofers and Wiggio,) are about to close an investment in a third company, and are looking for more!

Follow me on Twitter @jcbackus

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »