Archive for the 'Economy' Category

Carried Interest for Venture Capital Back on the Tax Chopping Block

CMM May 19th, 2010

With all my travel, I’ve been off the radar and away from my blog for the last few weeks. I’ve been meaning to dedicate some time to this issue, and now that its coming down to the wire in DC, I’ve forced myself to spend a few minutes on the topic. I’m writing about the discussion in DC to change the tax structure on venture capital carried interest from capital gains to ordinary income. I’m hopeful that logic and good economic sense will prevail in this discussion, but hey, who knows these days? If they change VC carried interest from capital gains to ordianry income, the unintended and downstream consequences will be dire.

Background

I previously wrote on this issue on December 10th. You can find that post here.

Also, here is a really solid post from Jason Mendelson, a VC (Foundry Group) in Builder, Colorado.

From the legislative perspective, a change to carried interest taxation from capital gains to ordinary income for all asset classes was included as a “pay for” in the Tax Extenders Act of 2009. This bill is designed to provide a short term tax break for big industry and passed the House of Representatives with a clause to increase taxes on carried itnerest for all asset classes. Fortunately, the senate version of the bill did not include carried interest as a revenue source. Unfortunately, the health care reform legislation that passed created a $30 billion shortfall and put carried interest as a pay-for provision back on the table since many of the identifiable sources of revenue have been fully tapped. Mind you, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009 was written to provide short term tax extensions for large corporations. Now, a long term tax penalty for those who foster small business growth and job creation is being presented as the solution. You can read more by visiting the public policy page for the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA).

More than 1,700 stakeholders from VC and start-up communities urge protecting VC carried interest. See press release from NVCA here.

More than 1,400 CEOs, company founders, and entrepreneurs support preserving capital gains tax status for VC carried interest. See press release from NVCA here.

How are VCs compensated? What is carried interest?

Let’s spend a couple paragraphs and provide a little perspective on compensation in the venture capital industry. Typically, senior staff (i.e. general partners, fund managers, etc) in a venture capital fund receive compensation in two ways. First, they receive an annual salary that compensates them at a base level. In my experience this is typically a healthy salary, but it may not be competitive with the salary many of these men and women would demand if they worked in other industries. Also, this compensation is taxed as ordinary income at 35%, just like the salary most anyone earns.

The larger motivator of performance for senior staff is the carried interest benefit (Investopedia article here) they receive on the returns of the fund. Most funds are structured in a way that all paid-in-capital is repaid to limited partners as a primary obligation, before the senior staff receive any payouts. After that principle amount is repaid, the remaining amount is split between the general partners and limited partners as “carried interest.” It’s important to note that their is no guarantee of this return, it typically occurs over a long period of time (8-12 years, by my estimate), but has unlimited potential upside based on the performance of the fund. This serves to keep the senior staff motivated to work for the long-term goals of fund performance. Currently, carried interest is taxed as capital gains at 15%. The rationale has been that this return is not guaranteed, is directly attributed to investment performance, and is earned over a long period of time.

To be clear, I am not “venture capital senior staff” but I’d like to be one day (in the not too distant future, hopefully). I’ve spent three years working in a venture fund, and while I’ve loved it, I’ve seen our senior staff work incredible hours into the late night and weekend, spend weeks at a time traveling, and do an excellent but difficult task of balancing their personal and professional lives. All of this is done for years without any guarantee that the long-term carried interest benefit will even materialize. I don’t want to provide some knee jerk commentary on how adjusting this tax rate effects my career plans, but this is certainly something I’ll be thinking about.

Why is this a big deal?

Aside from raising taxes an incredible 133% in a single action (would any industry do well with that kind of radical adjustment to its tax structure occurring overnight?) let’s look at the downstream effects of having a healthy venture capital economy. Venture capital backed companies represent more than 500,000 jobs in our country, and have added thousands of new positions each month through the recession. This is only a small piece of the pie, as it doesn’t even consider the publicly traded companies that originally received venture investment. Those companies–including HP, Microsoft, Apple, Xerox, etc–are estimated to represent 11% of America’s workforce. Take into consideration the thousands of smaller supporting companies that exist as a product of the industries these companies have created, and the over all economic impact is staggering. According to the Small Business Administration, over 60% of workers are employees of small businesses. What does all o this mean? According to a 2009 Global Insight study, venture-backed companies accounted for 12.1 million jobs and $2.9 trillion in revenue in the United States in 2008. America is envied across the globe for its economic engine because no other country has proven to be as innovative, and entrepreneurial. This gives America the flexibility, resilience, and strength that puts us in the driver’s seat for the world economy.

Some people take issue with the idea that multiple tax rates exist. For the sake of discussion and background, I’ll explain the theory of having a capital gains tax rate. The theory of capital gains is that we should encourage those activities that most spur stable long-term economic growth. Having a capital asset class that is dedicated to the creation and growth of companies is a critical part of accomplishing that goal. Allowing carried interest to be treated as capital gains allows rewards job and wealth creation, and it also allows more capital to be available for continued investing.

Ultimately, tweaking the economic model that drives venture capital investing is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Trading off short term tax relief for big business on the back of long term tax burden to economic agents of entrepreneurship and small business doesn’t make sense. Where does most job growth come from? Small business. If you strangle off the agents that support small business, you effectively take a critical piece out of the entrepreneurship and small business ecosystem.

Don’t stream, who knows what the effect might be? There has been discussion by some of our foreign competitors to adjust their tax structures to completely exempt VCs from start-up investing. Would you like to see our economic engine gone to Russia and China? There is already data showing an increase in VC investment activity overseas.

Misconceptions

Venture capitalists did not cause the economic recession we are currently experiencing, but we have certainly felt the effects of it. I’ll let smarter and braver heads than mine go about explaining who did.

Venture capitalist do not operate the same as billion dollar hedge and buyout fund managers. We invest in private opportunities, not the public markets. We typically manage smaller amounts of capital and are highly involved and engaged in our investments. Our investments are small businesses with incredible potential. While many of them fail to survive the turmoil of being a start-up, the ones that do historically create jobs and wealth that greatly outweigh the losses.

Venture capitalists do pay ordinary income taxes on their salaries, the same as most every working man and woman. The capital gain tax status is assigned only to those returns earned as a result of effective investments. As I said before, the time horizon for these returns is long-term and undefined. In addition, there is no guarantee of these returns.

Starting a Software Company Podcast/Panel from Codestock

CMM July 6th, 2009

Here’s the podcast from the panel I moderated/assembled for codestock. Thanks to the facilitators for putting this up.

http://feelthefunc.com/content/binary/3d147899-410d-4b4d-ac29-90817ec12f44/FTF-09-CodeStock_Starting_a_Software_Company_Panel.mp3

Picture of Knoxville area software entrepreneurs Curtis Jones with Voice’s Heard Media, Chris Van Beke with Voice’s Heard Media, and Patrick Hunt with Tingz. Big thanks to the three of them for doing this.

Analysis of Venture-Backed Liquidity Events Since 2003

CMM July 2nd, 2009

The data for this analysis came from NVCA, who has a relationship with Thomson Reuters. You can find the NVCA press release here.

Basically, Q2 of 2009 showed some signs of life out of the IPO market with five offerings, four from into tech and one from non-high tech. While we’ll celebrate those as the first real high technology IPOs since Q1 2008, we can’t over do it. We’re still a long way from the IPO payday; for example, in 2007 there were 86 IPOs for the year. The IPO market imploded in January of 2008, which in hindsight was probably an early sign of the financial fiasco we’re still struggling with to this day. I still feel like lots of politicians were trying to talk us into a little recessionary dip with pre-election angst and finger pointing, but in retrospect I don’t think I paid enough attention to the stalling IPO market. But I digress…

The venture industry needs liquidity events. Right now, many funds have all capital tied up in portfolio companies that can’t exit even though they’ve reach profitability, or the fund is tied up pumping capital into companies unable to raise additional outside equity. Either way, funds are limited on their ability to engage in real value-add, early stage investing. In addition, some funds are taking huge cram-downs and dilution as portfolio companies go through recapitalization and down equity rounds (i.e. raising money at lower valuations than before). Now, I’m not waving a “poor pitiful VC” flag. I’m just saying we need a healthy, vibrant, and liquid venture industry to keep entrepreneurship going.

The thing about entrepreneurship and early-stage investing is that it’s an expertise lost to the general public and most public officials. Frankly, you don’t really hear major media reporting on innovation, new business creation, IPO registrations, and patent filings. It’s all too complicated for the average Joe or Mary, so real high-growth entrepreneurship seems reserved to those fringe elements of society. Lots of people want to claim some title in this arena (angel invstor, entrepreneur, etc), but few of them really have the somatch and even less ahve the know-how. In addition to the complexity and unknown of this space, the target is always moving as a result of disruption and hyper competition. In my experience, working in this industry requires a high level of commitment to learning and a deep humility/sensitivity to how much you need to learn and relearn each and every day.

In conclusion, we’ve seen some sign of life in the IPO market, but we’ve still got a lot of capital clogged up in venture-backed companies. Exits are approximately 60% of their high over the past five years, with IPOs still anemic.

Here are some graphs showing venture0-backed liquidity events in the US (sorry for the poor pic quality):

Venture-Backed Exits by Ys

Venture-Backed Exits by Qs

Make Mine Freedom

CMM June 29th, 2009

Kind of fitting, given what we’re dealing with today. My favorite moment is when John Q Public says “mind if I read it before signing?” What was good, common sense government 60 years ago is still good and common sense government today. All this bailout and stimulus is just smoke and mirrors that gives the common citizen less options and less opportunity. It’s the reason we haven’t seen unemployment decrease and why we haven’t seen GDP grow. Think about it when you hear discussions of “cap and trade.” Think about it when you hear discussions of nationalized health care. Think about who represents the individual the next time you vote.

Boom, Doom, & Gloom Prognostication- High Chance of Hyperinflation

CMM June 23rd, 2009

In today’s world, it has become very difficult to sift through all the information available and separate it into valuable data and drivel. Personally, I think that 95% of what we see if the latter. Economics is no exception. This dismal science has long been criticized for its reliability. After all, economists like to make forecasts based on changing only select few conditions and assuming that all others remain constant. In the end, the chaos effect typically occurs and the best designed forecasts only survive through their first encounter with reality.

On CNBC, their is a brief boom, doom, & gloom commentary on the US having a high chance of hyperinflation in the next 5 to 10 years. The premise is that large fiscal deficits and easy monetary policy leads to a sort of tipping point where inflation begins to grow exponentially overnight. In layman’s terms, if the government continues printing money and continues debt spending, the demand for the dollar internationally will decrease and the value of the dollar domestically bottoms. Traditionally, the Fed has kept inflation under control by raising and lowering the federal rate. With the federal rate already at all time lows, that instrument has been disabled. There are still some interest rate adjustments that can be done, but none are as effective as lowering the federal rate.

At this point, the economy is perilously perched on this ledge. If inflation begins to mount signs of a return, the government has little strength to keep the economy on the ledge. Underestimating the future cost of education and health care (which is driven up by very immigration and welfare friendly policy), creates a very dangerous false sense of security on inflation growth. If President Obama expects to overhaul health care and increase it as a part of government expenditure and gross domestic product, it leaves this country even more inhibited. The more mandated government spending, the less discretionary money the government has to return to the people in the form of tax breaks/incentives and the less money the govenrment has for those responsibilities really preservibed in the social contract–national defense and security. There is no such thing as a strong defense without a strong offense.

In the end, I don’t have the necessary data or training  to really derive any conclusions on how to handle inflation, but I can say that things are getting so complex that few are going to have the foresight and intellgience to really anticipate the future. I fully expect that unemployment will rise in the short-term, stocks will find a leveling point, and the value of the dollar will continue to get pounded in currency exchange.

Next »