9 Comments

Summary:

After a period of “looking inward,” venture firms are ready to start putting money to work during the second half of this year, according to Terry McGuire. The co-founder and managing general partner at Polaris Venture Partners spoke on a conference call today detailing the state […]

After a period of “looking inward,” venture firms are ready to start putting money to work during the second half of this year, according to Terry McGuire. The co-founder and managing general partner at Polaris Venture Partners spoke on a conference call today detailing the state of the global venture capital industry — a state that isn’t rosy, even if the folks on the call tried hard to avoid saying that. The call, sponsored by the National Venture Capital Association and Deloitte, highlighted a survey of 725 venture capitalists around the world that determined that the economic downturn has made Asia a more attractive market for venture firms, and that larger venture firms are more likely to focus on late-stage investing and decrease their investments in new companies overall.

vcsux1

In a series of charts, Mark Heesen, president of the NVCA, showed how now is a terrible time for early-stage companies looking for venture capital. The presentation also made me wonder if greed and complacency have broken the industry by allowing too much capital to flow into it. Generally, the larger and more established the firm, the less interest it had in early stage investing, partially because larger firms have a large portfolio of existing companies to deal with, but also because it’s easier in tough times to make safer investments in more established companies. However, early stage investments are where the big returns are, so it’s hard to believe that firms that abandon that for any length of time will be able to weather the bigger changes buffeting the industry.

vcsux2

Plus, since it’s the larger firms that are proving to be less agile, it seems obvious that venture investing doesn’t scale well (a point made by Heesen in the call). So why did some VCs turn into such lumbering giants ill-suited to adapting to risk and economic change? Greed played a role as new money poured into funds run by these firms during, and even after, the dot-com boom. The more money under management, the more a venture capital firm earns in fees. The world of startup investing has also changed in the last few years, and several firms either missed it or just decided not to adapt to it.

Companies could be started for less and sold more quickly — but also for less money. As it became tougher to take companies public and deliver outsized returns, some VCs started thinking about how to deliver decent returns even if the IPO market never returned to previous highs. Some, such as First Round Capital and Union Square Ventures, raised smaller funds. Others couldn’t figure it out. When I talked to partners at Sevin Rosen back in 2006 about its future, they couldn’t see where to put large amounts of money and make great returns. So they decided to quit raising another fund — effectively shutting down a venerable player in the industry.

But many in the industry kept going along with huge funds and expectations that the venture investing would return to a level of normal that preceded the bubble. And they’re willing to ask the government to help make it happen. They latched onto clean technology as an industry that would require access to their large capital base and would deliver huge returns. It might, but the fact that 63 percent of VCs are planning to increase their investment in cleantech, while substantially decreasing investments in other sectors, makes me think of several thousand people on a sinking ship rushing to grab a place on 10 lifeboats. That kind of group-think isn’t going to get LPs excited about investing, and it certainly isn’t going to boost returns.

vcsux3

  1. Stacey, very good post.

    Share
  2. That was a very useful post, and for those of us that are in the trenches funding early stage businesses not as surprising. What is happening, I think, is that “company building skills” are starting to seperate again from the VC model. Over the last ten or so years it often appeared that the skills necessary to really help a start up came with a VC investment — but as the model of VC continues to mature into soemthing like fund management, models are developing to fill the void. Over time it seems to me that the distinction between Angel and VC is going to morph into “what can you do to help me win?” What I have learned through my own investment activity here in DC is that when you provide entrepreneurs with value and hard work, the early stage “funding void”, created by the VC industry’s march towards valuing funds under mangement more than company building, becomes less important. Entrepreneurs will find a way to start and grow great companies — that’s what they did before VC funding was determined in the late 90s to be a prerequisite for success and it’s what they will continue to do.

    Share
  3. It all look like governments around the Globe are going to get bigger, before they get leanner.

    I would like to know what the trend in US direct foreign investments in developing countries, as it still looks at a good opportunity.

    Share
  4. [...] size to depressed returns. It’s a data-rich, authoritative look at the issues I wrote about yesterday after the NVCA released a survey that shows how ill-adapted many venture firms are to the changed world of technology [...]

    Share
  5. @Jonathan

    Your comment “… and for those of us that are in the trenches funding early stage businesses …” reminded me of this post …

    Venture Capitalists and the Silver Bullet
    http://www.plumbersurplus.com/Blog/post/2009/05/Venture-Capitalists-and-the-Silver-Bullet.aspx

    Near the end, the author integrates venture capitalists’ unwillingness to get in the trenches to the absence of investments, which get’s back to Stacey’s comment that ” … they couldn’t see where to put large amounts of money and make great returns …”.

    Food for thought …

    Share
  6. jennifer hicks Thursday, June 11, 2009

    Excellent post Stacy — am tired of economy is to blame stories. Was at private investor round table in Prague 2 weeks ago and the room discussed just this point about early stage but also the issue of keeping the entrepreneurial spirit alive and how to foster early stage to get them to the bigger rounds — are we going to miss some good technology/innovation? or will this make early stage a bit more creative and resilient in terms of how they create sustainable business model.

    Share
  7. [...] which makes sense given the lousy exit environments, stagnant returns and the worries that the VC model is broken. Limited partners also have less money to allocate to venture capital as they see their own [...]

    Share
  8. [...] feeling the crunch of a crappy economy — and because the venture funds themselves often had little to show after years of lame exits. It’s kind of like a teenager who doesn’t want to bug his laid-off mom for an [...]

    Share
  9. [...] in venture fundraising, which fell 47 percent in 2009. Still, the second half of the year generated more robust dealflow, with more than $10.1 billion invested after July [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post