Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Board Of Intellectual Capital’ Category

Article from Fenwick & West. For additional information about this report please contact Barry Kramer at 650-335-7278; bkramer@fenwick.com or Michael Patrick at 650-335-7273; mpatrick@fenwick.com at Fenwick & West.

Background —We analyzed the terms of venture financings for 117 companies headquartered in Silicon Valley that reported raising money in the second quarter of 2011.
Overview of Fenwick & West Results

Up rounds exceeded down rounds in 2Q11 61% to 25%, with 14% of rounds flat.  Although this was a slight decline from 1Q11, when up rounds exceeded down rounds 67% to 16%, with 17% of rounds flat, it was still a very healthy performance.  This was the eighth quarter in a row in which up rounds exceeded down rounds.

The Fenwick & West Venture Capital Barometer showed an average price increase of 71% in 2Q11, up from the 52% increase registered in 1Q11.  This was the best barometer result since 2007, and was also the eighth quarter in a row in which the Barometer was positive.

Interpretive Comment regarding the Barometer.  When interpreting the Barometer results please bear in mind that the results reflect the average price increase of companies raising money this quarter compared to their prior round of financing, which was in general 12‑18 months prior.  Given that venture capitalists (and their investors) generally look for at least a 20% IRR to justify the risk that they are taking, and that by definition we are not taking into account those companies that were unable to raise a new financing (and that likely resulted in a loss to investors), a Barometer increase in the 30-40% range should be considered normal.  Our average Barometer reading since 1Q04, when we began calculating the Barometer, through 2Q11, has been 40%.  We would expect such amount to be slightly higher than “normal”, as the earlier years reflect the recovery from the dotcom bubble bust

The results by industry are set forth below.  In general, software and internet/digital media industries had the best valuation-related results by a substantial amount in 2Q11, followed by the hardware and cleantech industries, while the life science industry continued to lag.

The second quarter of 2011 was generally a strong quarter for the venture capital industry, with the most notable result being an improved IPO market.  The amount invested by venture capitalists in 2Q11 was also solid.  Fundraising by venture capitalists showed a significant decline from the very strong 1Q11 results, but was still reasonable in dollar terms.  Merger and acquisition activity was somewhat lower, perhaps as participants sought to understand the effect of the stronger IPO market.

However there are some clouds on the horizon, as the Silicon Valley Venture Capital Confidence Index declined for only the second time in 11 quarters, Nasdaq has had a very poor 3Q11 to date, there are reports of a number of IPOs being recently postponed and the world financial environment is undergoing substantial turbulence.

Detailed results from third-party publications are as follows:

Venture Capital Investment. Venture capitalists (including corporation affiliated venture groups) invested $8.0 billion in 776 deals in the U.S. in 2Q11, a 20% increase in dollars over the $6.4 billion invested in 661 deals reported for 1Q11 in April 2011, according to Dow Jones VentureSource (“VentureSource”).  VentureSource also reported that $2.9 billion of such amount, or 36%, was invested in Silicon Valley-based companies.

Similarly, the PwC/NVCA MoneyTree™ Report based on data from Thomson Reuters (the “MoneyTree Report”) reported that venture capitalists invested $7.5 billion in 966 deals in 2Q11, a 27% increase in dollars over the $5.9 billion invested in 736 deals reported in April 2011 for 1Q11.  The MoneyTree Report noted that investments in internet companies was at its highest quarterly level since 2001.

Merger and Acquisition Activity. Acquisitions of U.S. venture-backed companies in 2Q11 totaled $9.5 billion in 95 deals, a slight decrease from the $9.8 billion in 104 deals reported in April 2011 for 1Q11, according to VentureSource.  Of the 2Q11 deals, 8 were private/private transactions, perhaps indicating a growing acquisition ability and interest of later stage private companies.

Thomson Reuters and the National Venture Capital Association (“Thompson/NVCA”) also reported a decrease in M&A transactions, from 109 in 1Q11 (as reported in April 2011) to 79 in 2Q11.  Of the 79 reported transactions in 2Q11, 56 were in the IT industry, but the largest was in the pharmaceutical industry where Daiichi Sankyo bought Berkeley-based Plexxikon for $805 million.

Initial Public Offerings. VentureSource reported that 14 venture-backed companies went public in 2Q11, raising $1.7 billion, a noticeable increase from the 11 IPOs raising $700 million reported in 1Q11.

Thompson/NVCA reported that 22 venture-backed companies went public in the U.S. in 2Q11, raising $5.5 billion, a substantial increase over the 14 IPOs raising $1.4 billion reported in 1Q11.  Of the 22 IPOs, 14 were based in the U.S. and 5 in China, and 14 were in the IT industry with 11 of those being internet focused.  The largest of the IPOs was Russian-based Yandex raising $1.3 billion.

At the end of 2Q11 46 U.S. venture-backed companies were in registration to go public, similar to the 45 in registration at the end of 1Q11.

Venture Capital Fundraising. Thompson/NVCA reported that 37 venture funds raised $2.7 billion in 2Q11, a significant decline from the $7.6 billion raised by 42 funds in 1Q11.  However, 1Q11 was the highest first quarter for fundraising since 2001, and 2Q11 was 28% higher (in dollars) than 2Q10.  Also the first half of 2011 saw 67% more funds raised than the first half of 2Q10, but a 15% decrease in the number of venture funds closing fundings.

VentureSource provided consistent results, reporting that U.S. venture funds raised $8.1 billion in the first half of 2011, a 20% increase in dollars over the first half of 2010.  VentureSource noted that only 7 funds raised 77% of the $8.1 billion.

Venture Capital Returns. According to the Cambridge Associates U.S. Venture Capital Index® U.S. venture capital funds achieved an 18.5% return for the 12-month period ending 1Q11, slightly higher than the Nasdaq return of 16% (not including any dividends) during that period.  Note that this information is reported with a one-quarter delay.

Sentiment. The Silicon Valley Venture Capital Confidence Index produced by Professor Mark Cannice at the University of San Francisco reported that the confidence level of Silicon Valley venture capitalists was 3.66 on a 5 point scale, a decrease from the 3.91 result reported for 1Q11.  Venture capitalists expressed concerns due to macroeconomic trends, high venture valuations, uneven capital availability and life science regulatory constraints.

Nasdaq. Nasdaq increased 1% in 2Q11, but has decreased 9% in 3Q11 through August 15, 2011.

For additional information about this report please contact Barry Kramer at 650-335-7278; bkramer@fenwick.com or Michael Patrick at 650-335-7273; mpatrick@fenwick.com at Fenwick & West.

Read Full Post »

By Tony Fish, AMF Ventures and member of Gerbsman Partners Board Of Intellectual Partners.

The changing face of mobile

Image001

Surprised at the latest Google deal to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5Bn, you should not be; Eric Schmidt was very clear back at MWC in FEB 2007 “Mobile Mobile Mobile” and since then Google has focussed both time and effort to deliver andriod (which was itself acquired).  When Schmidt stepped down in saying “ adult supervision no longer required” this left open the matured Larry Page to step up from being great at maths and a world leading entrepreneur, to take on the mantel of “world leading strategist and deal doer.”

This deal will be the discussion point for the next 3 months and already there are a lot of views circulating about what it means but there is no doubt that depending on your stance you can argue for change. However at Mobile 2 on 1st Sept in SFO – we get the first bite, why not join in

The Deal

Google purchased Motorola’s mobile business for $12.5 billion. In doing so, Google brought patents, hardware design, manufacturing and a seat at the patent table. However the context is… Oracle suing, Apple winning, eco-system struggling, Samsung annoyed and Microsoft attacking

Worthy of Note

Google has bought in cash and not shares.  This commitment will reduce their cash balance to $22bn from the mid thirties, but it is cash.  Given the issues that cash purchases delivered to telecoms in 2000/2001 this is an important fact as many ran into immediate issues and sold off key assets.  However, I expect the reason that this is cash is that Google are not expecting to hold the operational assets for long.  An equity purchase could have caused them problems from shareholders when they flip it assuming it completes in Q1 2012

Why now?

Porter 5 forces model is helpful here as it highlights the dynamic nature of the mobile market that Google faces.  Their power is low, their service fragmented and  they are being attacked.

Implications

This deal will be the discussion point for the next 3 months and already there are a lot of views circulating about what it means but there is no doubt that depending on your stance you can argue for change. However at Mobile 2 on 1st Sept in SFO – we get the first bite, why not join in.

Starting from the view of the world formed by ….

  • Operators – Deal does not change anything as we are the controllers of mobile – we keep all manufacturers below 30% market share and make sure it is a competitive supply market.  However, we are still worried about becoming bit pipe….
  • Oracle/ Sun/ Java – Defence needed as android has been beset with legal challenges from all sides, including a multibillion dollar lawsuit filed by Oracle, but Motorola patents are about wireless tech and unlikely to help.
  • Apple – By purchasing a manufacturer, Google has admitted it needs more than just a free operating system and loads of partners to compete with Apple: they need to duplicate Apple’s successes by totally controlling both the hardware and software of their devices.
  • OEM ‘s –  “Google has gone from partner to competitor.”
  • Media/ Content owners – According to Infonetics, Motorola Mobility was the leader in set-top box revenues last year, and was also tops in hybrid IP/QAM set-top boxes — that is, the boxes used by operators like Verizon that combine broadcast TV and over-the-top applications. By leveraging Motorola’s position with carriers, Google can better solidify its bid to expand Google TV and Android into the living room.”
  • Developers – At least there is one less system to deal with.

Scenarios and outcomes

  • The production shop – In this scenario Google keeps Motorola as is and starts to manufacture it owns handsets.  In reality this could provide short term stability to the fragmented andriod market place and show case devices and move into other screen based markets, but in the long run looks like a new Apple and being open is probably not a true option. Probability in long run 10% as this would not elevate Page to world class strategist who is just following Jobs view of the world.
  • The negotiator tactic –This is the company official line that the acquisition brings 17,000 patents (but are they relevant) to Google and enables them to robustly defend their mobile position and also expand.  It is a $12.5bn investment to get a seat at the table.  Strategically there is a lot of truth in this as mobile will dominate long term strategy and value. Probability in long run 25% as patents only last for a period….

Power to disrupt

Imagine Google takes the patents, yes they are useful to defend/ negotiate but also to empower others if free and open. This would reduce the power of others in the market and change the dynamics

Imagine Google keeps the patents and sells on production to Samsung to create a global partner across all screens

Imagine Google Wallet becomes the model – forget small transaction fees – lets go for user data in every model

Probability in long run 65% and Larry Page is now the best strategist in the world and did it without adult supervision.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

Google may not have had much of a choice when it came to buying Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. If it didn’t, someone else would have and that would have put the company in an even bigger patent hole.

Our sources say that Motorola was in acquisition talks with several parties, including Microsoft for quite some time. Microsoft was interested in acquiring Motorola’s patent portfolio that would have allowed it to torpedo Android even further. The possibility of that deal brought Google to the negotiation table, resulting in the blockbuster sale.

Motorola found a Google deal more digestible because Microsoft had no interest in running a hardware business and was essentially interested in Motorola’s vast collection of patents. Google moved aggressively, and at $40 a share, Google is now paying a 60 percent premium to Motorola’s recent stock price. The deal it struck gives it access to Motorola’s strong portfolio of 17,000 current patents and 7,500 patent applications across wireless standards and non-essential patents on wireless service delivery.

The high-level talks between Google and Motorola started about five weeks ago. Google CEO Larry Page and Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha were talking directly, and only a handful of executives were brought into discussions. Our sources suggest that Android co-founder Andy Rubin was brought into the talks only very recently.

My view is that while Google might have won the battle, in the long run it has put the Android ecosystem at risk. Mobile industry insiders view this as a ray of hope for Windows Mobile Phone 7 to sign-up the disillusioned handset makers who at this point must be reworking their mobile OS strategies.

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

“Apple sliced through the competition to briefly become the most valuable company in the world Tuesday, as its market capitalization surged past No. 1 Exxon before settling slightly lower.

The Cupertino company closed the day with its stock up 5.9 percent to $374.01 per share, valuing it at $346.7 billion. Exxon, the Texas oil giant, ended the day with a value of $348.3 billion.

It capped an astonishing turnaround for a company that founder Steve Jobs has said was weeks from bankruptcy when he returned as CEO in 1997 and focused the company on a handful of key products.

Apple’s stock price has gone up nearly 35 percent in the past year, reflecting heightened confidence among investors in its line of computers and mobile devices. In its most recent quarter, the company posted a record $28.57 billion in revenue as sales of the iPhone, iPad and notebook computers soared.

The company’s growth is particularly strong in the Chinese market, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook told analysts last month. International sales accounted for 62 percent of Apple’s revenue in the last quarter.

The company is expected to continue growing in the near term, analysts predict. A new iPhone is expected in the fall, and analysts say Apple might also introduce a lower-cost model that would help the company reach a lucrative new market.

Sales of the iPad continue to soar. Apple sold 9.25 million of the tablet computers in the last quarter, a 183 percent increase over the same period in 2010.

“On the iPad side, they’re so far ahead of the market that none of the Android or other tablet competitors have really made much of a dent in their market share,” said Charles Golvin, an analyst with Forrester Research. “‘Tablet is still essentially synonymous with ‘iPad.’ ”

It was less than two years ago that Apple joined the list of the 10 most-valuable U.S. companies. Since then, it has made a rapid ascent, surpassing Microsoft last year to become the world’s most valuable technology company.

Less than a month ago, Exxon was worth more than $50 billion more than Apple. Exxon’s market value declined as investors became pessimistic about prospects for economic growth, which drives demand for oil.”

Read more.

Read Full Post »

The Landmark Aviation story

By Hans Ullmark, Founder and CEO at Collaborate and a member of Gerbsman Partners Board Of Intellectual Capital.

How much is a brand worth – just the brand itself – in actual dollars. This rather unusual story provides an answer.

A few years ago three aviation services companies came together under new ownership to form a new company, Landmark Aviation, with sales of around $750M. All three founding companies had long histories in the aviation industry, with their own distinct corporate cultures and business processes.

Landmark Aviation’s new management team was faced with lots of practical challenges, and two big questions, namely, “How do we turn these diverse companies into a single organization with a common purpose and business focus?” and “How do we create a single, sustainable brand?”

Fortunately, they had the foresight and wherewithal to address these questions in a deliberate way, both internally and externally. They knew that a strong brand would not only help get business off to a flying start (pun intended), but that it would also help the company command a higher acquisition price, in the likely event that it were to be sold sometime in the future.

In order to create a brand strong enough to transcend the three founding brand names, along with their combined 150 years of heritage in the industry, the marketing team employed an approach we call “brand-led change.” It’s designed to help accelerate the growth of brand asset value for companies going through disruptive transitions such as mergers, acquisitions and new leadership, and it consists of the following steps.

Step 1: Know the brand’s strengths, and the competition’s relative weaknesses.

The first step was to conduct qualitative research, both internally and externally, to provide management with actionable insights, rather than the typical overload of abstract data that traditional research companies tend to offer. The results gave management the tools to define both a customer-driven service offering, and a unique brand positioning.

Step 2: Provide a compelling vision.

Internally, people wanted to know what the common purpose of the new, “merged” company would be. The vision was expressed as: “We are dedicated to enhancing the ownership and operating experience for every customer.”

Step 3: Start internally, then go externally.

Before any marketing and sales activities were put in motion, management launched an internal program called “Living the Vision.” It introduced the new company and the new brand to Landmark Aviation’s 2,400 employees in 35 locations across North America. As a result, the new organization entered this fiercely competitive field (a handful of well-established service providers fighting for market share) with highly motivated employees, clear on their goal of becoming the country’s leading aviation services company.

Step 4: Retain existing customers.

Along with creating the new brand came the necessity of demonstrating to existing customers that the new entity was stronger than it had been before, and was relentlessly focused on bringing more value than its competitors.

After the launch of the new brand, Landmark helped minimize confusion by clearly communicating that the services offered were just what the customers had asked for. Many of the airport operations, the so-called FBO terminals, were re-designed and upgraded. The resulting feeling — of a fresh, new company backed by extensive experience — resonated with customers, who overwhelmingly stayed with Landmark.

Step 5: Win new customers.

Confident of retaining existing customers, Landmark set out to win new ones, reaching out to nearly all their constituents via a broad-based marketing effort that included a strong web presence, print advertising, direct marketing, an impressive trade show calendar, local events, sales tools, an active PR agenda and branding at over 30 airports around the country. The rather traditional and conservative aviation services industry was unprepared for how quickly and convincingly the new company had gotten its act together. In taking the industry by surprise, Landmark took market share with it.

Step 6: Measure your progress…and then wait for the offers.

After 18 months, a tracking study revealed that Landmark had climbed to a No. 2 ranking in “most preferred provider” status in all of the different segments and service categories in corporate aviation. The owners soon started receiving offers to sell the company.

The offers were not made solely for the entire company, but for parts of it as well. In particular, offers came in for the FBO part of the Landmark operation, both with and without the Landmark brand name. The difference between the offers was that the one that included the Landmark brand name was approximately $70M higher.

The day the sale closed, the new owner walked away with both the operation and the brand name, and we realized the value of just the Landmark Aviation brand was around $70M.

Given that the costs for building the brand over nearly a two-year period were around $8M, this meant that the investment in building the brand had yielded a return of 875%. Few, if any, investments in the lifespan of a corporation ever generate such remarkable returns in such a short time.

Of course, every company, and every brand, is different. But the process of building a brand doesn’t change that much: know the competition better than you know yourself; start internally and work your way out, because your own people are among your greatest resources; retain your existing customers, and then go after new ones with everything you’ve got; measure your progress (and maybe, in some cases, field the offers); and finally, put all the resources you can behind creating a differentiating brand idea – an idea that helps visualize the brand.

And who wouldn’t like 875% return on marketing.

Collaborate
Collaboratesf.com

If you’d like to know more about the external team that helped Landmark Aviation build its brand and its business, call Hans Ullmark at Collaborate (415) 710 2139.

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 68 technology, life science and medical device companies and their Intellectual Property and has restructured/terminated over $795 million of real estate executory contracts and equipment lease/sub-debt obligations. Since inception in 1980, 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 San Francisco, Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Alexandria, VA, Europe and Israel.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »