Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Board Of Intellectual Capital’ Category

Article from GigaOm.

The Department of Energy’s program that gives grants to early-stage energy projects — called ARPA-E — has allocated another $43 million for 19 battery projects, including grants for futuristic batteries made of new chemical mixes, using brand new architectures and utilizing nanotechnology. The ARPA-E program has been aggressively funding next-generation battery technologies over the years, and though these are small grants, the amount of innovation happening is substantial.

The funds go to projects that are very early stage, and are supposed to help bring disruptive R&D closer to commercialization. While Japanese and Korean conglomerates dominate the industry of producing small format lithium ion batteries for laptops and cell phones, these next-gen batteries are mostly targeted for electric cars and the power grid. Some of these projects also aren’t strictly traditional batteries, and a couple are flow batteries, which are large tanks of chemicals that flow into a containerized system and provide energy storage for the power grid (see Primus Power’s flow battery pictured).

Notable winners of the funds include big companies like Ford, GE, and Eaton, small startups like Khosla Ventures-backed Pellion, and projects out of the labs of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, and Washington University in St. Louis.

Here’s some of the winners (for the full list of 19 go here):

  • Ford: $3.13 million for a very precise battery testing device that can improve forecasting of battery-life.
  • GE Global Research: $3.13 million for sensors thin-film sensors that can detect and monitor temperature and surface pressure for each cell within a battery pack.
  • Eaton: $2.50 million for a system that optimizes the power and operation of hybrid electric vehicles.
  • Pellion Technologies: $2.50 million for the startup’s long range battery for electric vehicles.
  • Sila Nanotechnologies: $1.73 million for the startup’s lithium ion electric car battery that it says has double the capacity of current lithium ion batteries.
  • Xilectric: $1.73 million to “reinvent Thomas Edison’s battery chemistries for today’s electric vehicles.”
  • Energy Storage Systems: $1.73 million for a flow battery for the grid, with an electrolyte made of low cost iron, and using a next-gen cell design.
  • Battelle Memorial Institute: $600K for a sensor to monitor the internal environment of a lithium-ion battery in real-time.

Read more here.

 

Read Full Post »

Article from CNBC.

The value of assets managed by the private equity industry globally continued to rise last year, hitting a record $3 trillion despite financial market turmoil and sluggish economic conditions.

The results will provide a boost to the private equity industry which has been struggling with difficult conditions for raising new funds, a slump in deal making activity and heightened public scrutiny following the US presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate who ran Bain Capital before turning to politics.

Despite the increased criticism, the private equity industry has continued to attract assets from investors such as pension funds seeking investment returns to meet their obligations.

In November, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas said that it would hand $6 billion to private equity group’s KKR and Apollo Global to manage. The cash is to be invested in buyouts, as well as other funds run by the asset managers, such as those investing in corporate debt.

Earlier this year Blackstone proved that it was still possible to raise mega-funds, as it completed a $16 billion fundraising that began in January 2011 to launch the sixth largest fund on record, according to Prequin.

Research by Prequin published Monday showed the industry’s assets under management rose by 9.4 percent, down slightly from last year’s 11.9 percent but the second highest year of growth since 2007.

“The sustained growth of industry assets highlights the fact that private equity continues to be attractive to institutional investors that are willing to forgo liquidity in return for outperformance,” said Bronwyn Williams of Prequin. “ Despite the uncertainty and volatility that has prevailed in recent years, faith remains that private equity fund managers can still deliver these returns.”

Private equity returns annualised over 10 years to 2011 outpaced the S&P 500 and MSCI Europe indices.

The rate of growth of assets remains, however, well below the 33.6 percent and 37.6 percent rates registered when the private equity market was still booming in 2007 and 2006, respectively.

Other industry observers are less bullish, believing the increasing asset values simply show the time lag before private equity funds come to the end of their lives. Moreover many funds are being forced to hold on to assets longer than they would normally before selling them.

The number of private equity funds still active shrank for the first time in 2011, according to private equity fund advisers Triago, who added in a report in March that the number of casualties in the private equity fund world are likely to rise dramatically from 2015 as poorly performing portfolios of investments from the height of the credit bubble come to the end of their lives.

The Prequin findings also highlighted a widening gulf between the best and worst performing funds. “The key issue for investors remains identifying, researching and selecting the best potential fund managers for their portfolios,” said Ms Williams.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

By Jim McHugh.

Where Start-ups Get Stuck – and How to Avoid Going There

Between us, my long-time friend (and fellow blogger) Andy Palmer and I have started a lot of companies. We also advise many other companies and look at even more pitches from start-ups.  A shared observation is that while a few start-ups shine (or at least glimmer) and go on to some success, other start-ups seem stuck before they start.  Why?

Here are our observations on where start-up founders get stuck and our advice on how to prevent Stuck situations, presented Q&A style. This post also appears on Andy’s blog, The Fundable.

Q.  Andy, where are the most common places you see founders getting stuck, and why?

Andy Palmer, Start-Up Specialist
I see a lot of founders get stuck at the very earliest stages – by being distracted by fundraising.  I’ve said before – over and over again – founders should focus on developing their business first and not worry about fundraising nearly as much as they would probably like.  It’s natural to be nervous when you don’t have any money in the bank.  But it’s a healthy discipline to figure out how you are going to create value for customers who will pay you instead of spending time thinking about how to extract money from venture capitalists or seed investors.  As an angel investor, I’m always looking for people who are mission-driven and focused on their customers, as Jim says below, instead of worrying about what potential investors might think.

 Q.  So how can entrepreneurs avoid getting distracted by fundraising?

Just focus on your business and your customers.  Wake up every morning thinking about how you are going to create value for your customers. Go to sleep at night considering which of your customers you helped that day and how.  Be maniacally focused on your customers’ needs.  It sounds simple – and it is – but executing this when you are starting from scratch – with no product, no credibility, and no people –  is really hard. It requires all your energy and your concentration.

Q.  Any other tips on how to avoid getting stuck?

Be driven by your mission. The money will follow.

Q.  Jim, where are the most common places you see founders getting stuck – and why?

In my experience, the two most common causes of becoming stuck are 1) an incomplete or muddled business model (see Stuck in the Fog) and 2) directly related to that, not clearly understanding the specific needs of their customers (see Stuck in a Rut).
What do I mean by an incomplete business model?  A well-defined business model (i.e., the “guts of the business”) states how the company is organized, what products and services it sells to whom, and how the company “goes to market.” In addition, the whole company clearly understands the associated operational policies, processes and needs (both for the supplier and the customer).

Start-up and early-stage teams become obsessed (as they should) with the product/prototype, the team, and the market potential. However, they sometimes fall short in three important areas:

  • They are naive about all aspects of the business model.
  • They don’t understand – or they have chosen to ignore – the specific linkages of their product to their customer’s product.
  • They have not solved or put in place key components of the business model and assume it will be easy to “finish those later.”

The business model can be pretty straightforward if it is a simple B2C or B2B connection – that is, “we make it, you consume it.” The linkages become more difficult to sort out if the start-up’s product becomes embedded in their customer’s product offerings – for example, as a component.
One striking example I have seen of an incomplete business model was a food ingredient technology company that had considerable success raising seed money from a group of angels. This company had traction:

  • the technically elegant prototype demonstrated product effectiveness and potential significant benefits to consumers
  • the company had received approval from a key regulatory agency
  • the product was going to revolutionize one segment of the food industry
  • there were positive (but limited) real-world test applications
  • the expected market was huge

Then the company’s traction stalled; they became stuck. How could that happen?

This revolutionary product was not sold directly to end-user consumers. It was an ingredient that became part of other companies’ product formulations. The industrial and consumer target customers who evaluated the start-up’s product realized they would have to change their end-use product specs, add equipment and processes to their production line, and change their quality control testing procedures. They would also have to change their existing descriptive product information and packaging.

For some customers that would mean altering (for the better?) very successful, stable products that were established with consumers. Were the customers prepared to take the market and product risk (with a start-up) and incur the costs and aggravation associated with adopting this new technology?

Having a great product was a prerequisite for the big food ingredient companies, but it quickly became apparent to the start-up that many other factors influenced the prospective customers’ decision making process.

Q.  So, what’s your advice for avoiding getting Stuck before you Start?

To be sure, the business model for early-stage companies evolves over time. It gets fine-tuned, even changed.  But fine-tuning is a lot different from having a naive view of the customers’ needs out of the gate. It’s a cliché, but how many times does “knowing the customer’s needs” have to be said to founders?

Q.  Any general tips about how to avoid getting stuck?

Yes, it really helps to have the right people on the team who understand and have experience in the industry they are selling into.
Have you seen early stage companies that were stuck? What caused them to be stuck, and what did they do about it?

Read Full Post »

by Don Middleberg, Member Gerbsman Partners Board of Intellectual Capital

“I’ve missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I’ve lost 300 games. Twenty-six times I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed…I’ve failed over and over again. And that is why I succeed.”
-Michael Jordan

The most important thing I’ve learned in business is that you can’t stand still. You must try things. Not all will succeed, but on balance, if you’re smart and thoughtful, things should work out over the long term. In the spirit of calculated risk-taking, in the first six months of this year Middleberg Communications was involved in three significant developments:

1. The move into social media through Laundry Service. While a lot of folks talk about having social media capabilities, there is a huge difference between working Facebook and LinkedIn pages and having an in-house video production studio complete with brilliant film editors, creatives and social media managers who understand and work all platforms. I love social media because it works. It removes one of the major stumbling blocks that has always existed for public relations – proven, quantifiable metrics. So when founder and President Jason Stein and I decided to get together, it was a natural fit. We formally joined forces February 1, and in the nearly six months together we have built LS into a near-$1 million firm.

Social media is now a major point of difference for us. Few PR firms have the chops to do both great media relations as well as incorporate a significant social media skill set.

2. The acquisition of G.S.Schwartz & Co. Jerry Schwartz and I have been friendly competitors for years. Our deal was completed on July 1, and was a natural move for both of us given that our respective firms work in many of the same vertical markets—consumer, tech, B2B, associations, financial and professional services. I now lead the combination of nearly 25 professionals, all in our offices at 317 Madison Avenue. I’m really pleased at how quickly and seamlessly the integration of culture and client responsibilities is going. We are quickly bonding and integrating client responsibilities. To Jerry’s credit, his team is enthusiastic, smart and each brings great skill sets to the table for the benefit of our clients.

3. I am pleased to announce that Rachel Honig and David Bray, Managing Directors of Middleberg Communications, have become principals of the firm. Rachel comes to the agency from the G.S. Schwartz acquisition. David has been with me since the first day I started the firm. Both are highly skilled communications executives, hardworking, and true professionals.

So now we are a solid mid-sized communications agency working in all mediums—print, broadcast, digital and social. We are doing some great, cutting-edge work for our clients. We are poised for growth. We are excited for the future.

Regards,

Don Middleberg

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

Venture capital investments picked up significantly this quarter, with a 37 percent increase in funding and 3 percent increase in deals over the previous quarter. The period also saw strong emphasis on mobile investments and seed funding, according to a report released by CB Insights. There was a total of $8.1 billion in financing for 812 companies, the highest totals since Q2 of 2001.

About 13 percent of the activity — or 102 deals — was in the mobile sector, marking an all-time high, with 30 percent of those companies involved in photo or video technology.

“Without being too self-congratulatory, the Instagram Effect we speculated about in Q1 2012 seems to have taken shape as the mobile sector saw 102 deals, an all-time high… For skeptics, it may also be indicative of a VC herd mentality. Time will tell.”

Below is a breakdown of investments by dollar amounts in the different subsets of mobile and telecom industry:

Some other highlights from the report include:

  • Seed investing also hit an all-time high, with 22 percent of all deals happening at the seed stage this quarter, as compared to 12 percent from the same quarter in 2011.
  • The most successful sectors with respect to number of deals were internet companies with 46 percent, healthcare at 17 percent, and mobile and telecommunications at 13 percent. With respect to dollars in funding, the top sectors were internet at 38 percent and healthcare and “other” each at 19 percent.
  • 50 percent of deals occurred at either seed funding or Series A rounds, although they made up only 19 percent of funding dollars.
  • California took the most number of deals per state at 45 percent of deals, up from 40 percent in Q1. New York remained in second place with 10 percent of deals, and Massachusetts in third place with 9 percent.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »