Archive for the 'Venture Capital' Category

Doriot’s Principles-1. The New Factor

CMM June 25th, 2010

A week ago I authored a blog posting on the history of venture capital for Jonathan Patrick and 898 Enterprises. I promised to come back and explore in more detail the principles of modern VC, initially authored by Georges Doriot.

Doriot’s first principle is what I’ll call the “new factor.” Doriot believed that venture investments investments involve new technology, new marketing concepts, and/or new product applications. The driving force behind this policy is that venture investment needs something unique and novel that addresses an unmet need. The reason, of course, is a question of competition. If you’ve got the only solution, everyone with that problem has to come see and pay you for the remedy.

To understand the effect of having new technology, look at the effect of any modern industrial revolution. The gasoline powered engine disrupted so many traditional markets and economies from buggy whips to horse shoes. That’s the point of the “new factor,” you need something that disrupts in a life-altering way.  New product applications can recreate the life cycle of a technology. Do you think the original intention of the Internet was streaming video and digital music? There is probably no better example of new product applications that the internet and its seemingly unlimited number of applications.

The tricky part of this issue is not accepting the necessity of new technology or product applications. Those are relatively tangible ideas that we can wrap our minds around. The difficult part is understanding the role of a new marketing concept. A great case study for this discussion is hotmail.com. Hotmail, while an early email platform, was not the first of its kind. Its unique and competitive element, crated with the value-add of investor Tim Draper, was the creation of viral marketing through the email invitation system. Hotmail was one of the first platforms to do invitation only type services. Like most modern applications, invitation only is really not designed to choke off usability. Instead, its designed to force conversation about the product as people search for users in order to gain an invitation. It creates buzz and raises the profile, almost providing an air of exclusivity.

All entrepreneurial opportunities need some kind of “new factor” in order to capture and hold the market, but high-growth opportunities that seek venture investment need a life-shattering newness.

Next up, I’ll talk about the need of investors having a controlling interest in their investments.

Guest Blogging at 898 Enterprises; History of Venture Capital

CMM June 14th, 2010

My friend Jonathan Patrick of 898 Enterprises asked me to do a guest blog on the topic of venture capital. I’ve written a brief, albeit non-exhaustive, history of venture capital that includes Doriot and his 6 principles of venture capital investing. Check it out here.

Check it out.

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.

Tech Hot Spot: Streaming Video Content

CMM February 19th, 2010

A really exciting technology area that’s starting to gain some major market validation is streaming video content. According to research from the TDG Group,  half of Netlfix customers with high speed internet are streaming the content on a television. Personally, my wife and I utilize Netflix streaming on our Roku and Playstation 3 all the time. The movie selection is a little weak, but the streaming content really carries its weight with television shows. We’ve watched entire series on Roku (as I type, we’re on episode 7 of season 4 Lost). We’ve talked about canceling cable, if it wasn’t for sporting events and HBO’s series (specifically Bored to Death, Empire Boardwalk , The Pacific, since Entourage has almost become unwatchable and HBO ended The Sopranos, Rome, Deadwood, John from Cincinnati every other show I loved). Now that HBO is introducing a streaming platform with HBOGO.com, we’re rethinking our cable subscription. Of course, HBOGO.com has to move to a subscription fee that doesn’t require a television contract, but surely they aren’t so dense as to goof that up.

I’m not sure where technology goes next with streaming content, but I think we have a convergence of traditional content and internet streaming in the not too distant future. Some how, entrepreneurs have to manage the dynamic environments of electronic devices (run for the hills, it’s the iPad) and streaming content. To top it off, we’ve got to build out the infrastructure to have the bandwidth to accomodate all of it. I’d expect a media mogul to attempt something like that, but the current generation is still trigger shy after Time Warner got slapped around with the AOL deal. Mind you, that parent owns HBO… so maybe we’re seeing some down road benefit of that catastrophe. Oh, and Google is also on the job (remember Google TiSP from 2007… yeah, it was a joke, but apparently they were thinking about connectivity to residential households).

If Netflix really wanted to put some pressure on the big media business, they should do a couple of things (in my not-so-humble opinion):

  • Provide a rotating streaming big ticket picture on a weekly basis
  • Provide the opportunity to stream weather and local media
  • Provide streaming of live sporting events
  • Build a library of musical performances

If we can keep technology and entrepreneurship on the tracks, we’ve got some real value-add developments coming. It takes a few years (late 90′s and early ’00′s) of stupid wasteful foolish risky ventures to help focus in on the viable opportunities. The show ponies are dieing off and the stallions are left behind. They may not get the attention of show ponies, but that’s because they’re stallions… they do –gasp– work. Our entrepreneurial communities aren’t dead, they’re focused on survival and committed to their concept. But enough of that, or I’ll start talking about the blasphemous and offensive fact that increasing government expenditure decreases small business growth and innovation.

Prep Thoughts for Southeast Venture Conference

CMM February 17th, 2010

Next week I’m taking a very brief (30 hours, to be exact) trip to Washington, DC for the Southeast Venture Conference. I’ve attended this meeting the last two years and was impressed both times by the speakers and the presenting companies. I really appreciate that my fund allows me to represent us at this opportunity (although, I’d also love to attend the annual NVCA meeting San Fransisco… but that’s not gonna happen).

I thought I’d write a few words about how I’ve prepared. I’ve looked over all the presenting companies and developed a short list of companies in our profile and/or that look attractive. I’ve reached out to most of those companies through emails or phone calls to make initial introductions. The way the conference is organized, their isn’t a real bullpen area where you can easily locate the companies. Plus, with so many potential investors in one place, it can be challenging to get the attention of folks. Even VCs get lost in the crowd when the crowd is other VCs. Same thing, if not more so, for entrepreneurs. I also plan to drop emails and calls to certain colleagues that tend to attend this event. It gives me an opportunity to catch-up with those folks, gaining valuable insight on how active they are and what areas they’re looking at.

After looking over the list of presenters, I noticed a few trends: lots of web-based platforms (i.e. accounts receivable, entertainment management, etc), lots of companies touting “cloud computing,” and a noticeably less “clean tech” companies. Make out of it what you will, but those are my observations. Also, here’s a good article on cloud computing that I stumbled across at Venture Beat.

Here’s some quick-and-dirty advice for presenting at one of these opportunities:

  • You only get 5 minutes, so focus on the material the audience cares about. Sorry engineers and technologists, that probably doesn’t include CAD sketches and technical analysis.
  • If you’re raising money, investors want to know– how will you make me money and how much money will you make me? Period. End of discussions. Please, no CAD sketches or technical analysis.
  • Do not read off the slides. In fact, use the slides for context and support, not as the foundation of the presentation. Your personality, passion, and speaking should be the foundation.
  • Investing is relationship driven, whether institutional or individual, so don’t forget to introduce and give context for your leadership team. But remember, you aren’t the product, so don’t act like it.
  • Want other advice than mine, then checkout this post from Guy Kawasaki… The guy is an authority on presentations. Don’t believe me, just watch the video below:

Next »