January 25, 2010

Homeland Defense: is the market poised to attract more VC dollars?

          Our firm has been quite active in the homeland defense marketplace  over the years and in fact we have three portfolio companies developing important products and solutions which have direct relevance to today’s physical security challenges: Reveal Imaging (bomb detection), VidSys (video security infrastructure software), and T2 Biosystems (rapid, non-invasive pathogen detection platform).

           This investment thesis was born out of a post-9/11 belief that the US government was on a program to massively, in parallel, subsidize technologies which had homeland defense applicability through the awarding of thousands of development grants. The core of our thesis was that in addition to addressing important military threats, many of these technologies could be pointed at other commercial and/or industrial applications. For instance, T2 Biosystems (I am on the board of that company) has profoundly important medical applications in the rapid detection of important biomarkers. VidSys (where I am also on the board) has interesting traffic management and situation analysis capabilities, and in fact some of VidSys’s most significant customers are leading US corporations.

           There is a real phenomenon in the marketplace where many customers are looking to integrate the IT security infrastructure with the physical security management systems. In so doing Chief Security Officers are able to generate an integrated view of vulnerabilities across the entire enterprise. Historically these systems have been segregated and managed independently.

           This thesis is not without issues though. We are very mindful of the customer concentration concerns and that sales cycles are at times frustratingly long (that may not be unique to homeland defense related companies).

           Check out today’s Boston Globe which had a nice piece on this theme and provides more color on some of our portfolio companies.

           Do you agree with how attractive we believe this investment thesis to be?

January 5, 2010

2010 Venture Capital Oscar Predictions

Even though Oscar buzz is not yet in the air, it is pretty clear what film titles will rule in 2010. So sit back, grab your popcorn…the envelopes please.

Precious: The statuette goes to this film about the Greenback, which continues to be really hard to come by. The venture industry weathered a swift-yet-painful contraction in 2009, which shows little sign of letting up. In 2008, the U.S. venture capital industry raised nearly $30 billion; although the 2009 data are yet to be compiled, it appears that last year the industry will have raised less than $15 billion—which may be the new annual reality. For entrepreneurs, this contraction will continue to make capital precious and hard to access.

New England-based companies raised nearly $3 billion in 2008; my guess is that this number will look closer to $2 billion in 2009. The New England Venture Capital Association, which I currently chair, had 138 dues-paying members two years ago; right now, we have 108 members. Fortunately for New England, more than 20 percent of all venture capital is managed by firms based in Massachusetts.

It’s Complicated: The star of this film: the local business environment, which will continue to be tricky to navigate. While there is abundant innovation and a number of high-quality entrepreneurs in the market, it is hard to handicap which compelling and profitable investment themes will emerge. Last year investors thought 2009 was going to be the “year of cleantech,” but instead of (global) warming, that investment theme seemed to have cooled. I continue to see great opportunities in the convergence of the IT and life sciences sectors, which New England is uniquely positioned to exploit. There are also wonderful opportunities in cloud computing and with new advertising technologies, but all of this is complicated by the absolute dearth of liquidity.

2012: And the Academy is pleased to recognize this blockbuster, which unfortunately may portend that the real economic recovery is still a few years away. All of us are desperate for predictable, sustainable, and meaningful liquidity. Many of our portfolio companies are at a point of maturity, where in more normal times they would either go public or be sold at attractive M&A prices. Average holding periods have extended to more than eight years, which is unprecedented; normally VC’s expect this to be between four and six years. There will be around a dozen venture-backed IPOs in 2009; this would be closer to 100 in more normal years.

And honorable mentions go to….

In the Air: This flick recognizes that all of us will have to work much harder this upcoming year just to stay in place!

Blind Side: Although this title better describes how we all felt (blind-sided, to be more exact) in the fall of 2008, we should expect that there well may be additional economic shocks as we collectively crawl out of this turmoil.

January 3, 2010

Boston Business Journal editorial…

President, Congress Out of Step on Job Creation

By Michael Greeley and Paul Maeder

Making and delivering on campaign promises is a delicate dance, but President Obama took a step this week toward fulfilling one of his most important pre-election pledges.  We are referring to the President’s proposal to help small businesses by eliminating taxes on their capital gains.  While the details still have to be worked through, the spirit in which this measure was put forth is one of the most important tenets relating to ongoing U.S. leadership – as important as economic recovery, healthcare reform, or a clean-energy policy.

That’s because small companies – with their proven track records for innovation and job creation – must play central roles in each of those initiatives. They are the companies we’re counting on to develop new and more efficient medical treatments to reduce healthcare care costs, or develop new technologies to harness renewable energy sources and combat climate change. When healthy, their collective hiring power is at least equal to that of big corporations.  They also represent the necessary pipeline of future blue chip companies.

In this way, the President’s plan is bold and insightful. But apparently, many in the House of Representatives either disagree or didn’t get the memo.

This past week, the U.S. House passed a bill (HR 4213) that would permanently more than double the tax burden on the venture capitalists who provide funding and guidance to America’s most innovative and promising young companies – just when we need this investment the most. This provision, which was hastily included to pay for year-end tax extensions, works at cross purposes to the President’s strategy for stimulating job growth.

Unless you’re a finance major or C-SPAN junkie, the change in tax status may seem minor – even arcane.  Basically, the bill reclassifies the returns (or “carried interest”) that venture capitalists earn when they build successful companies from capital gains (which are taxed at a lower rate) to ordinary income (which is taxed at a higher rate).  Fiscal responsibility is important, but this is the wrong tank from which to siphon fuel.

Due to the extraordinarily high risks and long time horizons involved in building companies from scratch, venture capital remains one of the only sources of funding for America’s most ingenious entrepreneurs and innovative start-up companies. Even for venture capitalists, the risks are extreme – which is why Congress for decades has provided the incentive of taxing carried interest as capital gains.  In order to take the risk of building early stage companies, the reward needs to be commensurate.

With this carefully calibrated ratio of risk to reward, the venture capital industry has powered America’s economic growth for decades.  Today, companies with venture capital roots employ more than 12 million Americans and generate revenues equal to 21 percent of U.S. GDP.

The current tax structure has clearly worked for Massachusetts, motivating venture firms to partner with the best and the brightest entrepreneurs from Cambridge to Pittsfield to build companies over the long term.  Here in the Bay State, venture capitalists have invested more than $50 billion dollars into thousands of companies in the last four decades, employing well over half a million citizens.  We are second only to California in terms of venture capital investment and job creation.  The Massachusetts venture capital ecosystem has also contributed greatly to significant advances in life sciences, information technology and clean technology industries.

These are precisely the types of growth industries the President is counting on to foster economic recovery and ongoing U.S. competitiveness.  But by discouraging investment in the companies that comprise these sectors, Congress risks not only letting these opportunities die on the vine, but also draining the pipeline from which future stalwart companies spring. 

That’s why President Obama and Congress must huddle up with regard to job creation – so that the tactics work with the strategy, not against it.  Our region’s continued growth and our country’s economic recovery is dependent on venture capital activity to remain strong.  HR 4213 has put this investment in serious jeopardy over the long term.  It is up to Senators Kerry and Kirk to protect a system that has worked for decades and remove the carried interest provision from the House tax extender bill.

When voters handed the Democrats control of the White House and Congress, it was with the expectation that they’d move together to turn the economy around. The President is leading, but Congress must fall in step quickly or risk tripping up our fragile recovery.

November 13, 2009

Things I learned in Palm Springs this week…

I spent the past two days at the Ernst & Young’s Strategic Growth Forum in Palm Springs which brought together hundreds of CEO’s and investors – it has been a great event. What I like most about these types of meetings are all the factoids one gathers – granted they are buried among all the platitudes of self-proclaimed successes and words like “alignment, vision, synergy, innovation, blah blah blah.” You get the story. But between the lines I heard some really interesting things. Here are some of them:

• Magic Johnson of Magic Johnson Enterprises (and the Lakers) raised a $1 billion fund focused on urban real estate opportunities, a $550 million fund to back growth companies in the inner city, and next week will announce yet another fund – he also told some funny stories about Larry Bird

• It costs $1 million a day to run an offshore oil drilling rig

• Lee Scott, former Wal-Mart CEO, said that at 12:01am on the first day of each month Wal-Mart experiences the largest spike in sales as government benefits hit people’s accounts

• At Wal-Mart they sell mostly large bags of pasta in the first few days of each month; at the end of the month they sell mostly small bags of pasta when people realize they did not buy enough pasta that month

• The top six IT companies accounted for 33% of all M&A activity in 2008 (this year it will be closer to 50%) so if you are selling an IT company, there is a really good chance you already know who the buyer is

• Of the more than 7,000 private equity and VC-backed companies, only 500 have a real chance of being a public company so expect a lot of M&A over the next two years as investors look to get their money back

• Doug Leone of Sequoia thinks the “dream gene has been activated again”

• Carol Tome, CFO of Home Depot, claimed that home improvement expenditures have historically been about 4.5% of annual GDP but spiked earlier this decade to 6.8%; it is now languishing around 2.5%

• 4% of Home Depot’s customer base accounts for 30% of its revenues

• Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks and a great guy, took 10,000 employees recently to New Orleans and conducted 50,000 hours of community service

• Starbucks will spend $300 million to see that all of its employees have life insurance – and there are 200,000 employees

• Starbucks has the largest WiFi network in the USA

• The accountants strike again: FASB 141R will require medtech and biotech companies to “mark to market” milestones payments on a regular basis which will cause accounting havoc for these companies

• Cerberus thinks it will ultimately recover 40% of its bankrupt Chrysler investment – but only because of its ownership of Chrysler Financial

• The average private equity-backed company was only 2.2x leveraged (I doubt this last one, frankly)

 Oh, and Palm Springs is really beautiful.

October 16, 2009

Breakfast with Steve…

Today I had breakfast with Steve Ballmer. Very cool.  He is a great guy and was incredibly thoughtful – as you might expect – across a wide range of topics. He was in Boston for a series of important initiatives and was gracious to sit with a few of us for breakfast.

There were a couple of items from our discussion which I thought were particularly notable:

  • Steve was very excited about the future of scientific computing which he thought was particularly strong in New England
  • Natural language interfaces and entertainment/gaming are very big near-term initiatives for Microsoft
  • One of his overarching themes is the transformation from a “one screen, one server” paradigm to “three screens and the cloud”
  • Steve warned us not to overlook the enterprise space
  • He thought hospitals in Southeast Asia were particularly efficient given the prevalence of the “medical tourist” industry
  • Steve was excited about personal health devices as the approach to populate all of the medical data required to drive a connected health model

Microsoft has done great things recently for the innovation eco-system in Boston – I kid you not. The Microsoft New England Research and Development (NERD) center in Kendall Square has been a great contributor to the resurgence of vitality in the local market. If you have not seen the space, make a point of stopping by and hanging out.

The conversation over breakfast was so compelling I am not even sure what we ate.

October 2, 2009

Aussie Rules

Right now I am at 38,907 feet and 6,297 kilometers southwest of LAX flying in from Australia where I was one of the keynote speakers at the Australian VC Association annual meeting (AVCAL). They put on a great show. I was there to share a US perspective – ironically it was exactly one year ago when the Dow declined 777 points – the date the broader public was introduced to how significant the economic issues were. In fact most everyone Down Under casually referred to the “GFC” which took me a few days to figure out was the global financial crisis.

In addition to the VC conference, which was on the Gold Coast, I managed to travel to a few of the major economic centers in Australia to meet VC’s as well as limited partners. Australia has a great deal of LP capital available to invest given that a mandatory portion of every paycheck is contributed to massive pools to be managed for future benefits (upwards of 15%). A couple of my observations:

  • The LP community in Australia is very sophisticated, well-managed and very large
  • Notwithstanding the challenges of covering both the US and Europe, most of the LP’s I met were committed to investing in a number of VC jurisdictions on a direct basis
  • This is because the local VC market is reasonably small
  • So there was a lot of conversation about global VC allocation models (“when will the US VC marketplace be more compelling than the Chinese market?”)
  • Yet in spite of the size of the Australian market (approximately $300 to $500 million is invested annually) there is considerable evidence of exciting sources of innovation particularly in the life sciences, agricultural sciences, natural resources and cleantech sectors

Long term returns in the Australian VC market have been frankly mixed. According to the LP presenters at the event the one-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year data are -37%, -7%, -1% and -5%, respectively. My suspicion is that the market suffers from the perception of not being large enough to support billion outcomes. There was much discussion on how to solve this dilemma: do all successful Australian entrepreneurs ultimately need to relocate to larger markets? How relevant is the successful VC industry in Israel?

“Immunity Bracelets” – at least the local LP’s appear to have a great sense of humor – at an LP event I attended the presenters said that local GP’s would not get voted off the island because they had earned “Immunity Bracelets” which I thought was very funny. There clearly was a strong undertone of support for the local VC community amongst the LP’s I met.

My speech centered largely on the US venture marketplace and how it is weathering the GFC (it is now part of my lexicon) but I also spent some time highlighting initiatives in the US which have strengthened the entrepreneurial ecosystem. I stressed that there needed to be a business culture which embraces risk and applauds success stories while not shunning failure. 

One final observation: there has been a lot of discussion about the “de-coupling effect” during the GFC, that is will the developing world be unhooked from the developed world in this period of economic turmoil? Interestingly Australia has not had negative GDP growth in any quarter during the crisis. Earlier this year China increased its bank loan activity to 50% when measured against GDP; it had been at 20% over much of the past five years. This increase in liquidity rolled right through the Australian market and has largely insulted the country from the dreaded GFC.

I plan to spend much more time Down Under based on what I learned this week.

October 1, 2009

China is on Fire…

I was in Hong Kong late last week (I was on my way to Australia where I am currently). For those of you playing along at home I spent much of my childhood living in Hong Kong – it was great to be back again. In addition to seeing many childhood friends, I was able to meet a handful of Asian limited partners and was excited to hear how bullish they were about the local investment climate.

 Last week – with great fanfare – A123 Systems went public, one of the few successful venture-backed IPO’s in 2009 (my firm, Flybridge Capital Partners, has backed A123’s founder, Yet-Ming Chiang, in his new company, Entra Pharmaceuticals). The stock closed up 50% on the first trading day having raised $380 million; the company is now valued at $2 billion. A great story by any account – although given the capital requirements of the company, analysts suggest that the venture investors made only 4 – 5x their money given the company had raised $240 million of venture capital across 11 rounds prior to the IPO.

 Also last week Shanda Gaming, one of China’s leading online gaming companies, went public but this company raised over $1 billion in its IPO which was ten times over subscribed – leaving the company with a market cap of $3.4 billion. My guess is the early investors in Shanda have made huge multiples of their initial investments. Year-to-date US companies have raised $6.5 billion through public equity offerings (not all were VC-backed companies) while companies in China have raised $24.6 billion in the same period. That is a staggering difference.

 China’s stock market is now enormous – there are 1,600 companies with an aggregate $3 trillion in market capitalization. With great fanfare China recently has announced the new Growth Enterprises Market section of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange which has been created for smaller technology companies to go public. In fact the first ten companies to be listed are expected to raise nearly $980 million of public equity shortly.

 While I was in Hong Kong I made it a point to meet with a number of large limited partners who are very active in both the Asian and US venture markets. The juxtaposition of A123 and Shanda made for very interesting comparisons. I was doing cartwheels to see the US IPO market finally starting to embrace compelling new companies and yet here was a gaming company in China which had raised nearly 3x as much capital and is almost twice as valuable – as the limited partners I met on Friday reminded me.

Is it any wonder that some Asian investors are still cynical about US investment prospects, particularly VC? As much as I believe the US venture market is very compelling now, we can not ignore that our limited partners have many competitive investment opportunities from which to choose.

 Do you think I am seeing this incorrectly?

September 29, 2009

Mr. Greeley Goes to Washington…

Late last week I was in DC for the National Venture Capital Association board meeting. We reviewed a number of very important industry issues (possible regulation, policy initiatives around innovation, tax issues) – it was a very productive session. Later in the day a few of us from the NVCA board met with a number of Congressmen on Capitol Hill.

The initial meeting was with members of the “New Dems” coalition which is group of nearly 70 Congressmen who have come together to drive a moderate pro-growth agenda to strengthen the innovation economy. This was a highly engaged, well-informed group of legislators who are clearly focused on very important initiatives which will address many structural issues standing in the way of growth. It was music to my ears.

As just an ordinary citizen I often find the notion of productive government oxymoronic, and frankly, at times, laughable. But this meeting very much opened my eyes – that there is such a large block of legislators all pulling in the same direction to drive a number of initiatives to help small businesses was very gratifying. In fact a few of the key players in this group, particularly Rep. Scott Murphy, are either former successful business executives or VC’s who clearly understand the issues confronting small businesses.

We discussed at some length the specter of VC industry regulation which is contemplated in the financial services overhaul regulatory proposals now being debated in DC. Don’t get me started – the notion that somehow the VC industry creates “systemic risk” is laughable. Let me count the ways:

• Our investors (LP’s) are committed to our funds for 10+ years – that is they are locked up

• We invest in private stock, often creating new companies (FYI – I would guess that 75% of our investment dollars go to salaries)

• We do not use leverage

• We do not use derivatives

VC’s are not hedge fund managers. I worry that regulating the VC industry as if we were hedge funds or large investment firms will meaningfully impair a source of capital which is uniquely positioned to fund early stage companies – and that will be bad for all of us.

September 24, 2009

SBIR Debate Rages On…

Last week I gave a talk to the New England Innovation Alliance (NEIA), a passionate group of CEO’s and other senior executives from a number of small companies throughout New England. These companies represented important sectors in homeland defense, alternative energy, medical technologies and education. It was a very impressive group of executives – so imagine my disappointment to learn that very few of them needed VC’s.

You see the discussion was around non-dilutive funding and the important role of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants – and that for many of these small businesses, being able to access these grants is the lifeblood of their companies. There was much common ground in the discussion: preserving the SBIR programs are essential to ensuring continued funding for many innovative companies. But there also was much debate around how much of these grants VC-backed companies should be able to access.

There are somewhat conflicting bills meandering through the House and Senate right now – although observers believe that a compromise will be finally forthcoming this fall. Staggeringly this debate has been going on for over three years – which is both irresponsible of our regulators and has caused considerable uncertainty for hundreds of companies.

The debate is a complex one and revolves around who is eligible for the grants, the size of the grants, and how long these programs should last – all very important issues. At the core many executives feel VC-backed companies enjoy certain advantages which create an unlevel playing field, and therefore, VC-backed companies should be limited or precluded from receiving these grants. Naturally I struggled to see how an entrepreneur decides to fund his/her business should impact that persons ability to receive SBIR grants – but we were careful to keep the debate civil! I also was clear with the NEIA members that VC’s don’t spend meaningful time obsessing about how our portfolio companies should be securing these grants; it is far more productive to focus on hitting milestones which will allow the company to raise far more venture capital than SBIR grants.

We did agree that these grants were meant to be translational in nature – that is, to support small businesses and entrepreneurs to take the first step in getting technology out of the lab and into the marketplace. These grants were not designed for the large multi-national corporations to enjoy. The strength of the SBIR program frankly creates a pipeline of compelling investment opportunities for VC’s.

Stay tuned for the final legislation. Many companies will be impacted in profound ways.

September 19, 2009

What I Learned About the Massachusetts Venture Capital Scene Today…

This morning I read through some materials prepared by the National Venture Capital Association (which I am on the board of) which I thought were interesting:

• Massachusetts ranked second among all states with $3.0 billion invested in 2008; California was a clear number one at $14.1 billion while New York was comfortably third with $1.3 billion invested…no other New England state was in the top 12.

• Since 1970 VC’s have invested $50.4 billion in 2,764 companies in Massachusetts.

• One job was created for every $77,390 VC dollars invested.

• There are 651,239 jobs at Massachusetts companies which were once venture-backed; these companies generated $146 billion of revenues in 2008 – that is a lot.

• Since 2002 approximately 350 companies in this state raised venture capital each year.

• The top three industries in 2008 which attracted venture capital are: biotech (36% of total dollars invested); energy (17%);and, software (11%).

• 75% of all venture capital invested in Massachusetts companies came from out of state last year, but…

• Nearly 20% of all venture capital in this country is managed by firms based in Massachusetts.

 What do you think about these numbers? Do you think the local VC industry is healthy?