Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Venture Capital’ Category

VC, Angel Solar focus shifts as funding hits 5-year low by Cromwell Schubarth – Silicon Valley Business Journal

Posted in Solar, Startups, Venture Capital, tagged , , , on April 9, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Apr 9, 2013, 11:03am PDT

VC, angel solar focus shifts as funding hits 5-year low

Solar funding by venture and angel investors hit a five-year low in the first quarter of this year.

Senior Technology Reporter- Silicon Valley Business Journal

Investments in the solar industry hit a five-year low in the first quarter, according to a new report, as venture funding focus shifts towards startups that do solar financing and installation.

CB Insights said there were just 18 investments in the first three months of the year that gave out $269 million. That contrasts dramatically with the nearly $3 billion in funding in almost 50 deals that came in the second quarter of 2011, just before the infamous shutdown of Fremont-based Solyndra.

Monday’s $37 million funding of Clean Power Finance is the type of activity that is more common these days. The San Francisco-based company’s revenue rose 325 percent in 2012, mostly from transaction fees earned through its online financing marketplace.

That’s because American consumers are still buying and installing solar power in growing numbers. The materials aren’t likely to be domestic, although the financing and installers are.

In another solar financing development this week, California officials told Oakland-based Mosaic that it can crowdfund $100 million worth of solar projects. The company lets state residents invest as little as $25 in projects and get paid back with interest from the revenue those projects generate.

CB Insights reports that despite the overall slowdown in solar deals, there are still early stage deals coming into the pipeline. It said that almost 45 percent of solar investments in the last year have been seed/angel and Series A fundings.

Click here to subscribe to TechFlash Silicon Valley, the daily email newsletter about startups, venture and angel investors.

Cromwell Schubarth is the Senior Technology Reporter at the Business Journal. His phone number is 408.299.1823.

Related links:

San Francisco, Venture capital, Startups, Solar energy

Industries:

Technology

Read Full Post »

Your Business CAN Avoid The Series A Crunch – Here’s How by John Greathouse, Contributor Street Smart Startup Advice

Posted in Angel Investing, Entrepreneurship, Investments, John Greathouse, Series A Investing, Startups, Venture Capital, tagged , , , on April 3, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Your Business CAN Avoid The Series A Crunch – Here’s How

Jim Andelman, my Partner at Rincon Venture Partners, aptly describes the genesis of the Series A crunch, stating that: “Over the next 12-to-18 months, a lot of good companies that have been Seed financed are going to have a tough time raising a Series A from a new outside lead. This is due to a fundamental disconnect between the increased activity of high-volume seed investors (that fill out lots of Seed rounds) and the relatively small number of Series A investors, who only make 1 or 2 investments, per partner, per year.”

Turtle Eggs And Startups

I was in a board meeting recently at Connexity when Dave Gross, the company’s Co-Founder and CEO, made an insightful observation regarding the shortage of Series A funds. He joked that it is akin to turtles hatching on a beach and running in mass toward the ocean. Thousands of turtles are hatched, but only a fraction evades the grasp of predatory birds and reach the safety of the water.

Once in the water, another significant percentage of the baby turtles is quickly devoured by hungry sea creatures. The nasty and brutish  deaths of the unfortunate turtles are disquieting , but the process ensures that  the survivors are (on average) strong, healthy and able to capitalize on the ecosystem’s resources.

There is a similar Darwinian aspect to venture capital investing. Companies that exhibit the greatest prospects are those that attract the necessary capital to survive. Non-performing companies (unless they are artificially propped up by a Washington bureaucrat with tax dollars) are usually unable to garner adequate financing. Their demise, albeit painful in the short term, frees the employees (and in some cases the underlying technology) to pursue more productive opportunities.

There are no villains in the current Series A drama. The rapid growth of seed investments is the natural result of a number of industry trends, which continue to drive down the cost of launching and operating a web-based business. Some seed investors execute over one hundred investments per year, each in the $25k to $200k range. Paul Singh, a partner at the seed stage firm 500-Startups, effectively articulates the market forces driving this investment strategy in his Money Ball presentation.

The other primary factor contributing to the Series A shortfall is the concentration of venture capital funds in the hands of a shrinking number of large firms. This has been driven by venture partners’ desire for larger and larger fees (which are a function of the amount of capital they manage) and institutional investors’ allocation of funds to a handful of VC firms with long (but not necessarily stellar) legacies. This is the “no one ever got fired for buying IBM” approach to investing.

Due to their size, these legacy funds must invest relatively large amounts of capital in each of their deployments, which ill-equips them for participation in most Series A rounds. This flow of funds to large, mediocre VC firms has been widely discussed, usually under the heading, “Is Venture Capital Broken?”

According to Jim Andelman, “These market dynamics combine to leave good companies unfunded, even when they do not need ‘much’ more capital to achieve a good exit. If a venture does not have a reasonably high-perceived chance of a $250 million exit, most Series A investors are passing.  The crunch is especially acute outside of Silicon Valley, as the Bay Area VCs focus on their home market, and the relatively fewer Series A investors in other markets can thus afford to be especially picky.”

Avoiding The Series A Crunch

Many of the unlucky baby turtles are healthy and speedy but still fail to reach the relative safety of the ocean. Similarly, companies with a viable value prop and promising future are finding it challenging to raise  adequate capital. Fortunately, there is a key difference between startups and baby turtles: entrepreneurs can make their own luck.

To this end, some of the tactics entrepreneurs can execute to avoid becoming a victim of the Series A crunch, include:

Take more money at the Seed stage – Although the incremental dilution will be painful, it is prudent to accept 30% – 50% more capital in your Seed round than you would historically, as it will give you a longer runway in which to create value in advance of seeking Series A funds.

Court Seed Investors with a demonstrated history of participating in a post-Seed rounds – As noted in Extracting More Than Cash From Your Angel Investors, there are a variety of parameters you should use to identify and target potential seed investors. Given the current paucity of Series A funds, the depth of an investor’s pockets should be given special prioritization.

Be realistic about your Series A valuation – Although it may seem counterintuitive, the lack of equilibrium between Seed and Series A investors is causing valuation inflation. Per Mr. Andelman, “The Series A investors are now paying more for businesses they think will have outlier exits.” These high-profile deals, which are covered extensively in the tech press and pursued by numerous investors, contribute to unrealistic expectations among rank and file entrepreneurs regarding a reasonable Series A market-rate.

If your company is not perceived to have the potential of a huge exit, do not expect a major uptick from your Seed valuation. If you are forced to accept a lower value, consider reducing the dilutive impact by raising a mix of equity and debt, as described more fully below.

Consider venture debt – If your business has a predictable, reliable cash stream and you have a high degree of confidence that you can reach sustaining profitability, it might be prudent to supplement a smaller Series A raise with debt. With current interest rates in the low-single digits, the cost of such capital has never been cheaper. Expect such debt to include a modest equity kicker component, in the form of warrant coverage. In addition, be on alert for camouflaged fees.

Customer dollars – Sophisticated entrepreneurs understand that the ideal source of capital is from customers’ wallets. Not only does revenue validate a startup’s value proposition, it results in zero dilution. The sooner you generate customer revenue and internalize paying customers’ feedback, the shorter your path to self-sustainability.

If you follow these tips, you are not guaranteed to avoid the Series A crunch, but you will undoubtedly increase your odds of adequately funding your startup, through its Series A round and beyond.

Follow my startup-oriented Twitter feed here: @johngreathouse. I promise I will never tweet about double rainbows or that killer burrito I just ate. You can also check out my hands-on startup advice blog HERE.

Read Full Post »

Gerbsman Partners -Successful “Date Certain M&A” of Medical Device company, its Assets and Intellectual Property

Posted in "Date Certain M&A Process", Board Of Intellectual Capital, Date Certain M&A, Distressed Intellectual Property, Distressed IP, Gerbsman Partners, Inetellectual Property, Intellectual capital, Investments, Medical Device, Uncategorized, Venture Capital, tagged , , , , on March 13, 2013| Leave a Comment »

gp_nl_header

San Francisco, March, 2013
Successful “Date Certain M&A” of Medical Device company, its Assets and Intellectual Property
Steven R. Gerbsman, Principal of Gerbsman Partners, Kenneth Hardesty, Philip Taub and  John Andreadis members of Gerbsman Partners Board of Intellectual Capital, announced today their success in maximizing stakeholder value for a venture capital backed medical device company. This company was in the medical device skincare space.

Gerbsman Partners provided Crisis Management and Investment Banking leadership, facilitated the sale of the business unit’s assets and its associated Intellectual Property. Due to market conditions, the board of directors made the strategic decision to maximize the value of the business unit and Intellectual Property. Gerbsman Partners provided leadership to the company with:

1.  Crisis Management and medical device domain expertise in developing the strategic action plans for maximizing value of the business unit, Intellectual Property and assets;
2.  Proven domain expertise in maximizing the value of the business unit and Intellectual Property through a Gerbsman Partners targeted and proprietary “Date Certain M&A Process”;
3.  The ability to “Manage the Process” among potential Acquirers, Lawyers, Creditors Management and Advisors;
4.  The proven ability to “Drive” toward successful closure for all parties at interest.
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 76 Technology, Life Science, Medical Device and Solar companies and their Intellectual Property and has restructured/terminated over $810 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, McLean, VA, Orange County, Europe and Israel.

Steven R. Gerbsman
Principal
Gerbsman Partners
Phone: 415.456.0628
Fax: 415.459.2278
Cell: 415.505.4991
steve@gerbsmanpartners.com
thegerbs@pacbell.net
http://www.gerbsmanpartners.com

BLOG of Intellectual Capital
http://blog.gerbsmanpartners.com
Skype: thegerbs

Read Full Post »

The Mistakes Investors Make Before They Write the Check by Matt Dusig from peHUB

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Investments, peHUB, Strategy, Venture Capital on March 3, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Avatar of Matt Dusig

The Mistakes Investors Make Before They Write the Check

Posted on: February 22, 2013
inShare12

The start-up market is flooded with entrepreneurs claiming to be the next Facebook or Instagram. However, in reality, three out of four start-ups will fail. Investors need to know whether or not they are wisely hedging their bets—and how to do so.

“As investors, we are forced to make decisions on incomplete sets of information,” says Bo Peabody, co-founder and Managing General Partner of Village Ventures. “Macros trends, internal hunches, market forecasts and individual consumer opinions are some of the pieces that make up the partial picture.”

Investors should have a complete understanding of their markets before pulling out their checkbooks to invest in start-ups or back entrepreneurs. Here are five mistakes investors too often make before making the deal:

Out of Touch with Consumer Demand: As an investor, you should always ask yourself: does the product or service actually solve a key pain point for the target customers? If they build it, will anyone come? A quick survey of target consumers can help to verify if there is actually a need for the product or service offered by the company. This also identifies other unforeseen pain points that could be detrimental to a start-up.

Limited Understanding of the Competitive Landscape: Who do consumers think of when asked about a given industry or type of service? What companies or products do they rely on? If the product or service looks to ‘solve a problem’ for consumers, how are they solving that problem today? Often times, gathering deeper insights of target customers can help identify the real competitors to a given business – not just who the start-up perceives.

Failing to Validate the Marketing/Sales Plan: In today’s market, products and services are consumed through different vehicles such as online, mobile, and in-store. Start-ups often fail to accurately predict how consumers want to shop for or purchase a product or service. For example, many consumers are only willing to purchase certain types of items AFTER they have actually seen it in person, such as big screen TVs and shoes. Knowing how consumers prefer to shop for or purchase certain products is a good indication if the business owners have properly thought through their marketing and sales strategy.

Not Measuring Brand Loyalty: Some business plans rely on the idea of ‘stealing’ customers away from existing brands or products. Customer loyalty can be a stronger force than many entrepreneurs realize, but it’s a force that can be readily measured with proper consumer research. Look for proof that there is a strong understanding and plan of action by start-ups of how they can actually win over loyal customers.

Failing to Validate Their Own Research: If business owners or entrepreneurs are presenting research (their own or someone else’s) as a part of their prospectus, investors should take the time to validate or invalidate that research. In particular, extreme claims should always be double-checked. For example, if a start-up claims that 95% of new mothers want their new bio-degradable diapers, it’s worth double-checking this data to support the claim.

“Real-time consumer data delivers a more complete picture on which to base investment decisions,” says Peabody. “We are able to instantly validate some of our hypotheses.”

Matt Dusig is co-founder and CEO of uSamp, a driver of online market research and survey respondents used to obtain important consumer and business insights. Opinions expressed here are entirely his own.

Read Full Post »

Silicon Valley Venture Capital Survey Fourth Quarter 2012 -Fenwick & West

Posted in Barry Kramer, Capital Formation, Capitalism, Fenwick & West, Michael Patrick, Uncategorized, Venture Capital on February 22, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Article from Fenwick and West Venture Capital Survey, by:

Barry Kramer
Michael Patrick

Background
We analyzed the terms of venture financings for 116 companies headquartered in Silicon Valley that reported raising
money in the fourth quarter of 2012.
Overview of Fenwick & West Results

  • Up rounds exceeded down rounds in 4Q12, 71% to 8%, with 21% of rounds flat.  This was an
  • improvement over 3Q12, when 61% of rounds were up, 17% were down and 22% flat, and was evidence
  • that those companies that are getting funded are receiving strong valuations.
  • The Fenwick & West Venture Capital Barometer™ showed an average price increase of 85% in 4Q12, a
  • slight increase from 78% in 3Q12.  Series B rounds continued to be the strongest rounds.
  • The median price increase of financings in 4Q12 was 41%, an increase over 23% in 3Q12.  There were four financings (three software, one hardware) that were up over 400% in 4Q12.
  • The results by industry are set forth below.  In general software, and to a lesser extent internet/ digital media, continued to be the strongest industries, with hardware solid and life science showing significant improvement, and cleantech lagging significantly.
  • The percentage of Series A rounds declined significantly, to 12% of all deals.
  • Further evidence of the strong valuation environment for those companies that are successful at raising
  • money is that the use of senior and multiple liquidation preferences have both declined significantly over the past year.

Overview of Other Industry Data

In 2012, we generally saw a weaker venture environment than 2011, especially during the last half of the year.
Venture investing and acquisitions of venture backed companies both declined compared to 2011, and while
IPOs and fundraising were both up, this was primarily a result of a strong first half of the year.  Some other
trends were:

  • Venture fundraising continues to trail venture investing, although the gap closed fairly significantly in
  • 2012.
  • The amount of money raised by venture funds continues to be concentrated in a relatively small number
  • of large funds.
  • Enterprise facing IT businesses appear to have attracted increased interest in 2012, while consumer
  • facing IT businesses (e.g., internet/digital media) appear to be a bit less attractive.
  • Cleantech and to a lesser extent life science continue to be weak, although they appear to be attracting
  • more corporate interest.trends in terms of venture financings in silicon valley—fourth quarter 2012 2
  • Accelerators and seed financings continue to be strong, but Series A (post seed) financings were often
    difficult to obtain.

Although venture capitalists believe that liquidity events will improve in 2013, they believe that
obtaining venture financing will be more difficult than in 2012, and that venture fundraising will
continue to be concentrated in fewer funds.

With Nasdaq up 16% in 2012 and continuing to increase in 2013, providing public companies more valuable
“currency” to make acquisitions, and with many corporations holding substantial cash reserves and public
company investors appearing to be more amenable to taking risk, there is good reason to believe that liquidity
options for venture backed companies will improve in 2013.

Venture Capital Investment.

Dow Jones VentureSource (“VentureSource”) reported that venture capitalists (including corporation
affiliated venture groups) invested $6.6 billion in 733 deals in the U.S. in 4Q12, a 4.6% decrease in dollars
and a 10.6% decrease in deals from the $6.9 billion invested in 820 deals in 3Q12 (as reported in October
2012).  For all of 2012 venture capitalists invested $29.7 billion in 3363 deals, a 9% decrease in dollars but
a 5% increase in deals compared to 2011, when venture capitalists invested $32.6 billion in 3209 deals (as
reported in January 2012).  In 4Q12 51% of U.S. venture investment went to companies based in California.
The PWC/NVCA MoneyTree™ Report based on data from Thomson Reuters (the “MoneyTree Report”)
reported similar results.  Venture investment in 4Q12 decreased 2% in dollars from 3Q12, with investment
of $6.4 billion in 968 deals compared to investment of $6.5 billion in 890 deals in 3Q12 (as reported in
October 2012).  For all of 2012 venture capitalists invested $26.5 billion in 3698 deals, a 7% decrease in
dollars from 2011, when $28.4 billion was invested in 3673 deals (as reported in January 2012).

The MoneyTree Report also reported that the strongest industry segment was software, where investment
increased by 10% in 2012 over 2011.  Life science was weak, with biotech investing down 15% and medical
device investing down 13%, and with life science first time financings at their lowest level since 1995.
Cleantech was down 28% and even internet investing was down 5% when compared to 2011, although
2012 was the second best year for internet investing since 2001.
Despite the weakness in life science generally, digital health investing is strong, with Rock Health reporting
a 45% increase from 2011 to 2012.

IPO Activity.

Dow Jones reported that 8 U.S. venture-backed companies went public in 4Q12 and raised $1.2 billion, a
decrease from the 10 IPOs in 3Q12, but an increase from the $0.8 billion raised in the 3Q12 IPOs.  In all of
2012, 50 U.S. venture-backed companies went public, a 10% increase from the 45 IPOs in 2011, thanks to a
strong first half of 2012.  The 2012 IPOs raised a total of $11.2 billion, the most since 2000, primarily due to
the $6.6 billion Facebook IPO, compared to $5.4 billion raised in 2011 IPOs.

Thomson/NVCA reported similar results for 4Q12 and 2012.  Five of the eight 4Q12 IPOs were in the IT
sector, and seven of the eight were based in the U.S., with the eighth from China.trends in terms of venture financings in silicon valley—fourth quarter 2012 3

Merger & Acquisition Activity.

Dow Jones reported that acquisitions (including buyouts) of U.S. venture-backed companies in 4Q12 totaled
$9.3 billion in 113 transactions, a 28% decline in dollars but a 14% increase in deals from the $13 billion
paid in 99 transactions in 3Q12 (as reported in October 2012).  For all of 2012 there were 433 acquisitions
for $40.3 billion, a 9% decrease in transactions and a 16% decrease in dollars from the 477 acquisitions for
$47.8 billion in 2011 (as reported in January 2012).

Thomson Reuters and the NVCA (“Thomson/NVCA”) reported 95 venture-backed acquisitions in 4Q12, a
1% decrease from the 96 reported in 3Q12, and 435 acquisitions in all of 2012, a 1% increase from the 429
reported in 2011 (as reported in January 2011).

Venture Capital Fundraising.

Dow Jones reported that 154 U.S. venture capital funds raised $20.3 billion in 2012, a 14% increase in funds
and a 25% increase in dollars from the 135 funds that raised $16.2 billion in 2011 (as reported in January
2012).  Eleven funds accounted for $11.3 billion of the $20.3 billion raised.  (Russ Garland, Venture Wire,
January 7, 2013)

Thomson/NVCA reported that 42 U.S. venture funds raised $3.3 billion in 4Q12, a 20% decrease in funds
and a 34% decrease in dollars from the 53 funds that raised $5.0 billion in 3Q12 (as reported in October
2012).  For all of 2012, 182 funds raised $20.6 billion, an 8% increase in funds and a 13% increase in
dollars from the 169 funds that raised $18.2 billion in 2011 (as reported in January 2012).
The number of members of the NVCA has declined from 470 in 2008 to 401 currently, a likely indication of
the shrinking number of venture firms.  (Russ Garland, VentureWire, January 28, 2013)

Corporate Investing.

As investments and fundraising by venture capitalists has had difficulties, corporate venture investing has
fared better.  According to the MoneyTree Report, the percentage of financings that included a corporate
investor increased to 15.2% in 2012, the third straight year of increase and the highest percentage since
the 2008 recession.

Notably, corporate investors tended to focus more on the industries that are currently least favored by
venture capitalists, participating in 20.5% of cleantech financings and 19.5% of biotech financings.
And corporate investors did not limit themselves to traditional venture investments.  For example, GE
(Healthymagination), Nike and Samsung have each announced the creation of, or other significant
involvement in, a start up accelerator, Rock Health has reported that Merck is a leading funder of digital
health startups and GlaxoSmithKline and Monsanto have each taken actions to increase their focus on
venture capital.

Angels and Accelerators.

There continues to be concern that the angel/accelerator environment has become frothy.  CB Insights
reported 1749 seed financing rounds in 2012, compared with just 472 in 2009, while Series A rounds grew
much more slowly, from 418 in 2009 to 692 in 2012, indicating that there will likely be a lot of seed funded trends in terms of venture financings in silicon valley—fourth quarter 2012 4 companies that won’t obtain Series A investment.  While this is not necessarily bad, as there is value to
making small bets on a lot of high risk opportunities, at some point the odds get too high.
Notably, Y Combinator announced in 4Q12 that the amount of money loaned to each of its companies
would be reduced from $150,000 to $80,000, and that the size of its class would also be reduced.  And
Polaris Venture Partners has indicated that it is significantly scaling back its “Dogpatch Labs” incubator.
However we do not see a trend yet here, as accelerators like TechStars and 500 Startups are not reducing
their size.  (Lizette Chapman, VentureWire, December 20, 2012).

Venture Capital Returns.

Cambridge Associates reported that the value of its venture capital index increased by 0.64% in 3Q12
(4Q12 information has not been publicly released) compared to a 6.17% increase for Nasdaq.  The venture
capital index substantially lagged Nasdaq for the 12-month period ended September 30, 2012, 7.69% to
29%, and for the ten-year period 6.07% to 10.27%.  The Cambridge Associates venture index is net of fees,
expenses and carried interest.  These type of results are, of course, a significant part of the reason why
venture fundraising has been difficult.

Venture Capital Sentiment.

The Silicon Valley Venture Capitalists Confidence Index® by Professor Mark Cannice at the University of
San Francisco reported that the confidence level of Silicon Valley venture capitalists was 3.63 on a 5 point
scale in 4Q12, a slight increase from the 3.53 reported for 3Q12.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »