April 24, 2024

You’re the Boss Blog: A Start-Up Fund That Lets College Students Make the Decisions

The founders of Firefly got financing from the Dorm Room Fund.Courtesy of the Dorm Room Fund The founders of Firefly got financing from the Dorm Room Fund.

Start

The adventure of new ventures.

Most college dormitories are a mixture of unmade beds, fireproof carpeting, beer pong, ramen noodles and that poster of John Belushi in “Animal House.” Investors want to add two more ingredients: successful start-ups and budding venture capitalists.

“We’re trying to help students feel what it is to run a start-up, to take an idea that starts in a dorm room with a bunch of friends and move it out to the market, into the hands of real customers, and hopefully learn what it feels like to build something people really love,” said Phin Barnes, a partner at the venture firm First Round Capital, which is based in Philadelphia.

In September, First Round started the Dorm Room Fund, putting $500,000 in the hands of an 11-member investment team of college students from the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University. The board has already considered some 200 student-led ventures in the Philadelphia area and selected six for investments averaging $20,000 apiece. The recipients include Firefly, a developer of co-browsing customer support software, and Dagne Dover, a handbag and accessories brand. And starting this spring, First Round is taking the Dorm Room Fund nationwide.

“When we launched in Philadelphia, we asked students to reach out to us if they wanted Dorm Room Fund to come to their cities or schools,” said CeCe Cheng, the fund’s director. “The New York universities had an overwhelming response.”

Applications for a new student-led investment team in New York City closed on March 11. Slots were limited to candidates from Columbia University, Cornell Tech Campus, New York University and Princeton University, though students at any college in the region will be eligible for funding.

New York City’s Dorm Room Fund will follow the model established in Philadelphia, Mr. Barnes said. Student investors will seek out promising ventures among their peers and present the most exciting projects to the investment team. Though partners from First Round Capital will offer advice, students will lead the decision-making process. First Round does retain a veto right, Mr. Barnes said, but “we would not use it unless we were legally or ethically required to do so.”

The Dorm Room Fund also plans to create an outpost in the Bay Area, with two or three additional cities to follow later this year. If all goes according to plan, members of each investment group will eventually pick their own successors. But for now, it’s up to the folks at First Round to assemble the teams.

“One of the things that we look for in interviews is people who are really curious about start-ups and technology,” Mr. Barnes said. Advanced knowledge of finance is not required, but experience starting new ventures or developing other independent projects is an asset. Team members are expected to keep building their skills through coaching and experience. First Round also wants each investment team to represent a range of fields and include students from both graduate and undergraduate programs.

The “by students, for students” idea has seen a recent surge in popularity. A few months after First Round Capital started the Dorm Room Fund, the investment firm General Catalyst announced Rough Draft Ventures, a student-run investment fund in Boston making $5,000 to $25,000 investments in college entrepreneurs. And the Boston region already had something similar: The Experiment Fund — capitalized by Accel Partners, New Enterprise Associates and Polaris Venture Partners — which set up shop in Cambridge early last year and included a Harvard graduate student on its investment team.

Student-run funds have been popular for more than a decade, but most have been hosted by individual universities to finance a range of start-ups, rather than investing exclusively in student-led ventures. The University of Michigan’s $5.5 million Wolverine Venture Fund started in 1999 and calls itself the nation’s first student-run venture capital fund; the University of North Dakota’s Dakota Venture Group, founded in 2006, lays a similar claim. At Cornell University’s Johnson School of Management, M.B.A. students have been running BR Ventures – the letters stand for “Big Red” and refer to Cornell’s sports teams – since 2001, when alumni donated $1.2 million to endow the fund.

The current wave of student venture financing comes at a time when higher education skeptics are urging teenage dreamers to skip college altogether and head straight for Silicon Valley. Since 2011, their most prominent figurehead – Peter Thiel, the libertarian billionaire and co-founder of PayPal – has awarded $100,000 to 40 ambitious young entrepreneurs to do just that.

The Dorm Room Fund does not require recipients to drop out of school. “I think part of this whole mentality is people watch ‘The Social Network’ and they think, ‘I’ll drop out and raise a bunch of money, move to Silicon Valley and spend two years building a start-up. It’ll get really big, then I’ll exit and just sit around,’” said Dan Shipper, 21, a University of Pennsylvania junior who — along with co-founders Patrick Leahy and Justin Meltzer — started Firefly, the inaugural Dorm Room Fund company.

“That’s not how we think,” he added. “We’re going to be doing this for a really long time. This is how we want to spend our lives. We’ve always had a mentality of concentrating on revenue and getting paying customers first, then thinking about raising money later.”

The Dorm Room Fund’s $20,000 investment, he said, was the right size for Firefly – “not so much money that we get fat and lazy” – but enough to hire a summer intern, run more servers and do some marketing.

And staying in college has its perks. “I’m a philosophy major,” Mr. Shipper said, laughing. “I’m not in school because I’m going to get high-paying work in philosophy. But I find it valuable and it’s meaningful to my life.”

You can follow Jessica Bruder on Twitter.

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/a-start-up-fund-that-lets-college-students-make-the-decisions/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Common Sense: Salvation at Chrysler, in the Form of Fiat

A little more than two years ago, the White House’s auto industry task force concluded flatly that Chrysler was “not viable as a stand-alone company.”

That may have been an understatement. America’s third-largest automaker was too dependent on gas-guzzling trucks and S.U.V.’s, too concentrated in recession-wracked North America, too small to compete globally and too cash-starved to invest in new technologies. Quality was abysmal. Every model in the company’s Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands ranked in the bottom 25 percent in the J. D. Power Associates survey of customer satisfaction. From 2006-8, Chrysler lost $30 billion.

David Kelleher, 44, president of David Dodge Chrysler Jeep in Glen Mills, Pa., thought Chrysler — and his dealership — were “close to death.” After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania and forgoing law school to sell cars, Mr. Kelleher had worked his way through the ranks at a Chrysler Plymouth dealership in the Philadelphia area before buying his own franchise and opening David’s in 2005. Chrysler was already in steep decline under its German owner, Daimler-Benz, which in turn sold the company to the private equity concern Cerberus Capital Management in 2007.

“We were lucky to survive those barracudas,” Mr. Kelleher recalled. “They were systematically devaluing the company. They just wanted to squeeze money out of it.”

As for quality, he mentioned the midsize Sebring. “That was a flagship piece of junk. I buried it on the back lot. I sold maybe one a month, if that.” When Chrysler’s owners on Wall Street demanded higher sales numbers, Mr. Kelleher and his fellow dealers responded with steep discounts and lower credit standards. “We were just trying to get the numbers up and we built a bubble,” he said. When gas prices soared above $4 a gallon in 2008, he pleaded with Cerberus officials for models with better gas mileage, long a sore spot for Chrysler. “They looked at me like I was speaking French.”

After President Bush bailed out General Motors and Chrysler in his administration’s waning days, there was sentiment inside the Obama White House and among some in Congress to sell off Jeep and a few other valuable Chrysler assets, possibly to G.M., and cut the government’s losses by liquidating the rest. Dealers like Mr. Kelleher would be reduced to selling used cars and surviving on repairs to defunct models.

He recalled meeting at the Capitol with Arlen Specter, then the Republican senator from Pennsylvania. “David, why would I save this company?” he recalled Senator Specter asking. “It makes bad cars. It’s destined to fail.” Mr. Kelleher said he replied: “I’m going to be bankrupt in a matter of weeks. I can’t support my debt service selling used cars. Millions of jobs are going to be lost.” By the end of the meeting, Mr. Specter seemed to be reconsidering. “If I vote for this, my party is going to turn against me,” he said to Mr. Kelleher. “I hope you remember this.” (Mr. Specter said he didn’t remember the conversation, but “it sounds like one of many that I had with constituents where I voted on what was good public policy even though it was politically risky because the Republican Party didn’t like it.”) Mr. Specter was one of only two Republican senators to support the auto bailout. He subsequently switched parties and was defeated in the Democratic primary.

Not even Mr. Kelleher could be sure the proposed rescue plan — a government-backed partnership with Fiat of Italy in which Fiat would pay no money for a controlling stake and an option to buy more — would work. If a vaunted carmaker like Mercedes-Benz couldn’t save Chrysler, who could?

In what surely ranks as one of the most remarkable turnarounds in the annals of American business history, this week Chrysler reported adjusted net income of $181 million and a 30 percent rise in revenue, to $13.7 billion, even in a still-soft global car market. Its June sales jumped 30 percent from the previous year, its 15th consecutive month of increases. Its market share has grown to 10.6 percent, from under 6 percent. Chrysler repaid its outstanding government loans in May, six years ahead of schedule, and last week Fiat paid $500 million for the Treasury’s remaining 6 percent stake in the company. The American government has recouped $11.2 billion of its $12.5 billion investment in Chrysler, and would probably have made a profit had it held the debt to maturity. Meanwhile, Chrysler employs 56,000 people and has added 9,000 jobs since the bailout.

“This is an amazing success story,” the assistant secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Massad, told me this week. “We’ve fully exited Chrysler at a very small loss. When you look at the options we had, they were very stark: provide assistance or face the immediate liquidation of the company. That would have been disastrous in the context of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

How did Fiat do it after so many had failed? Mr. Kelleher said the first months were frightening. Fiat and Chrysler’s chief executive, Sergio Marchionne, “stopped the rebates, stopped the bad loans. We felt the change immediately.” Chrysler’s market share plunged. But Mr. Kelleher said he felt better after he met the new chief executive at Mr. Marchionne’s first dealer meeting in Orlando, Fla., in early 2010. A native of Abruzzo, Italy, whose family moved to Canada when he was 14, Mr. Marchionne speaks fluent English and Italian. “He has a presence. He looks like a kindly grandfather, but he has a grip that will take your hand off,” Mr. Kelleher said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4443407736f1973b55c313bc328b3330