May 8, 2024

New Venture Focuses on Science of Deal, Not Art of the Deal

A friend calls a friend who knows a guy. A meeting is taken. Wine is drunk (at, say, Madera lounge in Menlo Park). A business plan? Sure, whatever. But how does it feel?

This is decidedly not how Google, that apotheosis of our data-driven economy, wants to approach the high-stakes business of investing in the next, well, Google. Unlike venture capitalists of old, the company’s rising V.C. arm focuses not on the art of the deal, but on the science of the deal. First, data is collected, collated, analyzed. Only then does the money start to flow.

Google Ventures and its take on investing represent a new formula for the venture capital business, and skeptics say it will never capture the chemistry — or, perhaps, the magic — of Silicon Valley. Would computer algorithms have bankrolled David Packard or Steve Jobs? Foreseen the folly of Pets.com?

The data provides one answer to those questions, at least for now: Since its founding in 2009, Google Ventures has stood out in an industry that, for all its star power, has been dealing its investors a bad hand. In recent years, an investor would have done better with a ho-hum mutual fund that tracks the stock market than with some splashy V.C. fund. Venture capital funds posted an annual average return of 6.9 percent from 2002 to 2012, trailing major stock indexes, according to Cambridge Associates.

Google Ventures, like all venture funds, does not publicly reveal returns. But its partners can count on one hand the number of its 170 investments that have failed, though it is too early to know how many will succeed, and it has missed investing in some superstar companies. Its successes include companies that have gone public, like HomeAway for vacation rentals and Silver Spring Networks for smart grid software, and start-ups sold to Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Twitter.

Whether Big Data — that label for technology and decision-making that is upending so many businesses — can truly transform the industry that helped spawn it remains to be seen. Few deny that crunching data is increasingly important. But some insist that those old intangibles, like instinct and luck, are still paramount.

“V.C.’s, just like all of our portfolio companies, need to be analytically intuitive in the modern era of data analytics,” said Matt McIlwain, managing director of Madrona Venture Group, which has invested in companies like Amazon.com and Redfin, the real estate site. “But the intuition part is ultimately the biggest factor. And even with all that, a little good luck goes a long way.”

Google Ventures was the first major firm to rely heavily on data. Since then, established funds like Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, Sequoia Capital and Y Combinator have followed suit, and new firms like the Ironstone Group and Palo Alto Venture Science have been created to test the strategy.

Many venture capitalists agree that something needs to change. In the tech industry, where engineers believe any problem can be solved with data, the solution seemed obvious.

“If you can’t measure and quantify it, how can you hope to start working on a solution?” said Bill Maris, managing partner of Google Ventures. “We have access to the world’s largest data sets you can imagine, our cloud computer infrastructure is the biggest ever. It would be foolish to just go out and make gut investments.”

Google Ventures has $1.5 billion under management — a pittance in the wider world of Google, which made $50 billion in revenue last year. It employs seven people who gather data, analyze it and present the results to the investors. Jerome H. Friedman, a prominent statistician at Stanford who writes papers with names like “Data Mining, Inference and Prediction,” consults for a few hours a week.

The firm feeds its algorithms data gleaned from academic literature, past experience and due diligence about start-ups and their founders. Even college dropouts who have never started a company have a quantifiable track record, Mr. Maris said.

Google declined to reveal its secret sauce — the algorithms it uses to parse the data. But it has learned a few lessons.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/technology/venture-capital-blends-more-data-crunching-into-choice-of-targets.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

You’re the Boss Blog: S.B.A. Signs Its First Venture Capital Fund to New Investment Program

The Agenda

How small-business issues are shaping politics and policy.

While many small businesses are waiting for the federal government to write rules for so-called equity crowdfunding, the Obama administration is moving forward with another effort to funnel investment capital to start-ups. Last week, the Small Business Administration announced that it had granted a venture capital fund from North Carolina the first license to participate in a new program to encourage investment. The program essentially makes government-guaranteed loans to venture capital funds, which in turn use the debt to make equity investments.

The new initiative, called the Early Stage Innovation Fund, is part of the Obama administration’s Startup America effort. The Innovation Fund makes $200 million in debt financing available in each of the next five years for early-stage venture funding. The hope is to direct investment to the sorts of companies that often fly below the radar of venture capitalists, which mostly buy into more mature companies that tend to be tech-related enterprises in California, New York, and Massachusetts.

In evaluating venture capital funds that apply for licenses, the S.B.A. will look favorably on those with investment strategies that eschew some of those prevailing trends, said Sean Greene, the official in charge of the program, and instead propose to invest in younger companies in a broader array of industries located around the country.

The Innovation Fund’s first participant, Hatteras Venture Partners, of Durham, N.C., will address at least one of those diversity goals. Hatteras Partners will invest in young life-sciences businesses in the Southeast, “where National Institutes of Health funding is very high, but venture capital flows are quite low,” said Clay Thorp, a partner in the fund. Mr. Thorp said the fund had raised $88 million from private investors and would borrow $37 million in government-backed debentures.

The arrangement is based on the S.B.A.’s long-running Small Business Investment Company program, which effectively guarantees loans to venture funds (or investment companies) that in turn make loans to small businesses. Because the government-sponsored money is a loan and not an investment, whatever profits might accrue from it go to the investment company’s investors, increasing their returns. If, for example, an investment company raises $50 million from investors and borrows $50 million, and then doubles its money, the investors get back $4 for every dollar they put in.

When The Agenda first reported on the Innovation Fund a year ago, Mr. Thorp expressed some concern about placing a predictable debt arrangement, with regular payments of a fixed amount, over the most speculative of speculative investments. But in a recent interview, he said that a rigorous analysis showed it would be difficult for his investors not to benefit from the leverage. “It will make a very bad fund awful, but even a mediocre fund will do O.K., and it will make a good fund great,” Mr. Thorp said.

Still, the question hanging over the program is whether it will attract enough interest from other venture capitalists and their investors to be fully subscribed. According to Mr. Greene of the Small Business Administration, 33 venture funds applied for the program in 2012, and the agency gave preliminary approval to just six. “In our view, we’re right down the middle of the fairway in where we expected to be,” he said. “We thought 33 applications was solid, we were very impressed with the quality of funds that applied.” Ultimately, he said, “our expectation would be to license four to six funds.”

Mark Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association, said that the new program addresses yet another, more recent market failure in the venture industry: funds are finding it harder to raise money from their limited partners. (For funds in the Small Business Investment Company program, the amount of time it has taken to raise private capital has increased from about a year to 18 months, Mr. Greene said.) “If you can have the government basically help in that process by standing side by side with those limited partners, you’re going to be able to have at the end of the day a larger fund, which is a net positive,” Mr. Heesen said. “You’ll not only be able to seed these companies but keep them on the growth pattern.”

Brett Palmer, president of the Small Business Investor Alliance, a trade group whose members are largely S.B.A.-licensed small business investment companies, said the big institutions that provide much of the venture financing are interested in the program. But, he added, “the jury’s still out on what the take-up on this program is going to be, from a limited partner or institutional investor perspective. We’ll really know in the next year.”

Mr. Palmer said that program rules limiting the amount of debt available to any one venture fund to $50 million would discourage the largest and best-known funds from taking part. Bob Clarkson, a lawyer in Palo Alto, Calif., who represents companies that win venture investment, as well as some venture funds, agreed. “At least for the top-tier venture funds, the time commitments to serve on the board [of a portfolio company] are pretty much the same if you put $1 million to work or $10 million to work,” he said.

“Out here, there wasn’t a whole lot of interest” in the program, he added. “None of the folks that I work with are that eager to go be the people to fill that gap” — the gap, that is, between an angel investment and a first round of full-fledged venture funding — “if it requires complying with government regulations, even if they don’t know what those government regulations might be.”

Of course, the Innovation Fund was not designed with those Silicon Valley funds in mind, at least if they plan to continue investing in the same sorts of companies in the same sorts of places. And Mr. Heesen, of the venture capital association, said that attitude might in any case change now that Hatteras has received its license. “Hatteras has gone through the process, and it’s a pretty arduous process,” he said. “Because Hatteras has done it, others will now put their toe in the water.”

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/s-b-a-signs-its-first-v-c-to-new-start-up-investment-program/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Wall Street Women Optimistic About Investment Opportunities

It’s been a difficult year for the alternative investment industry, as hedge funds, private equity firms and venture capital funds have been buffeted by worldwide market volatility.

But a glimmer of hope may lie in a new study that suggests that women executives in the industry are optimistic about the investment opportunities ahead.

While most of the 189 women executives in the survey said the coming 18 months would be challenging, nearly 65 percent said they expected to find attractive investment opportunities, according to the study by the professional services firm Rothstein Kass and the international women’s group 85 Broads. More than half of the women said they planned to start new funds during that period.

“They’re definitely still underrepresented in the industry, but a number of the high-level women we were surveying, who are really the decision makers, were confident in their own abilities to raise funds,” Kelly Easterling, a principal in the financial services practice at Rothstein Kass, said in an interview.

Men far outnumber women on Wall Street. Another recent study, by the City University of New York‘s Center for Urban Research, showed that women were just over 27 percent of Wall Street workers from 2005 to 2009, according to United States Census data.

Female executives in the alternative investment industry acknowledged this disparity. While most women expected that the creation of new funds would increase over the next 18 months, only 28 percent of the respondents to the Rothstein Kass survey predicted that women would be involved.

Women executives say they can face hurdles when it comes to raising capital. A third of the women in the study said women were hindered by the stereotype that they were more committed to their family or personal life than their career.

“Many funds launch with capital from friends and family, but I haven’t seen as many women fund managers go to their own networks or friends and family for initial funding,” Dorothy C. Weaver, chief executive of the wealth management firm Collins Capital, said in the study. “I’m not sure if they are not asking or if they are asking but not getting the funds.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b5f449fadcf47c815c4717fdb4703e57