Sometimes I just sit back in my chair and yell at the ceiling. "What the blazes are we doing in this economic recovery?" We are making no progress and simply growing the government sector that produces nothing that represents lasting economic growth. The administration and Congress are deploying ideas that have not ever worked, both in this country as well as Europe and others.
I am no economist or expert in government, but a key part of the solution seems so apparent to me. We need to foster new business growth by taking the actions necessary to create new businesses through a revitalization of entrepreneurship in America. At the heart of American jobs and economic success is the small business. We need to be doing the things that create lasting viability of small businesses and enable them to prosper.
There's a good article on this in Inc. called Revitalizing the American Dream. Take a look at it each of the sixteen steps for revitalization and see if you agree. The ideas are quite doable but don't go far enough:
Entrepreneurship should be taught in our high schools, community colleges and universities. We need a new mindset that reflects that going into business for yourself is a fine undertaking, but we need to teach our young people how to do it for real. This would be a monumental undertaking by our school systems, requiring leadership that can make it happen.
Incubators are fine, but they have to be staffed by real business people that can tap into the entrepreneur's local community. We need to go beyond the limits of incubators and provide pervasive mentoring for entrepreneurs. We need to tap into the wealth of business knowledge that resides with senior business people. Thanks to medical science, we live well into our 70's, leaving many years for retired business people to coach and mentor entrepreneurs. We have a wealth of knowledge that can be put to work to mentor aspiring entrepreneurs. Take a look at EntreDot, an organization that is trying to foster mentorship.
Government needs to get out of the way, but also enable the way. A partial list of what is needed is as follows:
Provide tax credits for business investment.
Reduce the capital gains tax, if not eliminate it all together.
Reduce taxation on business. We are the second most highly taxed nation in the world, and people wonder why businesses leave the US. Watch the economy flourish at a 15% tax rate on businesses.
Reduce and eliminate non-productive regulation; including Sarbanes Oxley, OSHA, FDA, healthcare, banking and environmental to name a few that add tremendous cost to business operations.
Free up angel investor organizations and micro-angel funds from caps on their returns and fees. In addition to grants, this is where the seed money for businesses comes from.
Government backed education loans for small business programs, but phased out once the private sector can finance this.
In addition to grant programs provide equity investment in early stage companies
All tax reduction actions have to be coupled with government spending reductions. A task that should be quite easy by laying a copy of the Constitution next to the budget and start making cuts to all those things that government should not be involved in.
A tremendous economic boost would come from effective action to become energy independent by aggressively exploiting our own oil and gas capacity nationwide. Watch the price of energy drop if we did that; further accelerating company profits.
Basically, we have to let Americans do what they do best. Innovate. Our uniqueness lies in our freedom and an economy based on capitalism. Sure, we make lots of mistakes and the going is rough, but it sure beats any other alternative I have seen from any other country or society ever.
I just read an amazingly refreshing perspective by Greg Gretsch in PE HUB. It’s all about what it takes to be a successful VC. It is counter-intuitive, but makes a lot of sense.
With only ten years as a venture capitalist, with some very successful investments and lucrative exits, Gretsch is worried about becoming stale and out of date. Heck, most VC’s with his record of success would be riding high, living the good life, and pontificating to the venture community about his formula for success.
But no! Gretsch doesn’t think that the longer you’re a VC, the more skilled you become in picking winners. Instead, he theorizes that if you’re a VC for more than 10 years, you’re likely to grow worse at your job over time. And, he has some data that point out that this may very well be true. Even with spotty verification, Gretsch takes this seriously. Here’s why:
Gretsch’s simple advice is to “remain humble, keep your attitude in check, and stay hungry.” The hard part is to remember how that all feels. Here’s his formual, which might apply to many of us in lots of different lines of work:
I think Gretsch really believes this and will remain on top in the VC community for another decade.
In 2009, the venture capital industry experienced the biggest gap between investment and fund raising in the last six year. In a recent Wall Street Journal Venture Capital Dispatch blog, it was reported that investment was down nearly $10 billion, from $30 billion to $20 billion, while fund raising declined $17 billion, from $30 billion to $13 billion. This $6 billion plus difference is the amount more invested than was raised by VC’s.
The implication is that although venture firms still have a lot of money, it is still going to be increasingly hard to get funding because they are running low on available funds and it is still very difficult for them to raise further funds from their limited partners. Their limited partners are still suffering from the economic downturn and have not opened this investment class for funding.
Corporate and other private equity investment is also suffering, further reducing the number of options for equity financing.
Another source of funds could be successful IPO’s, which could breathe more money into the VC firms. We have recently read about an emergence of IPO filings, including Motricity, a former RTP darling. However, many analysts are quite skeptical that 2010 will bring much hope in this arena either.
2010 is not going to be much different than 2009; perhaps worse, with respect to your chances of getting new VC investment. It is still a game of the “best of the best” getting due consideration. It means that you need to have a very compelling business, with meaningful and growing customer traction, having the potential for large and rapid growth, to a level that will provide a handsome return.
Due diligence will be treacherous, filled with disappointment for many, but there is still gold in “them there hills.” You will have to mine it with a focused laser.
One of the leading angel investor organizations in the United States is the Tech Coast Angels in California. They have some great advice on how to put an investor presentation together on slideshare.
They simplify this process into seven concise steps that hit at the heart of what an investor presentation needs to be about:
There are many other sources of information on the internet, but here is one on how to put together a structured business plan presentation that is often used with investors here in the Research Triangle Park.
In closing, give an investor highlights summary explaining again why they should be interested, and then open up for their questions. You need to be ready to answer a wide range of questions about your business. Practice these because it is going to be your chance to show that you really understand your business and will be the clincher for gaining investor confidence.
Entrepreneurs need to be very well practiced in making these presentations and handling investor questions. Often you will only get one chance at this. If you do well, others will know. If you don’t, others will know. Go into these sessions loaded for bear having had a chance to practice on the firing range.
The new television show, Shark Tank, portrayed investors as vicious animals and was kind of over the top with respect to how they deal with entrepreneurs. Quite frankly, I was ashamed of the way investors were made out to be the bad guys.
Although the people who played the investor roles had many of the characteristics of real investors in an initial meeting with an entrepreneur, much of what we say was fiction and just plain overstated.
I have no idea why it is good entertainment to publically humiliate an entrepreneur in front of millions of people. If you want to really understand what this process is all about, take the time to meet a real investor. I guarantee you will not find the kind of arrogance and be humiliated and berated like you saw on the Shark Tank. Most will take the time to give you some pointers and guide you to what your next step should be.
So you have completed your business plan, determined how much money you need, practiced your presentation, and are now ready to approach angel investors to raise the capital needed to launch your business. But, you don’t know any. You have heard about the angel organizations in the area. You have read about the venture capital firms as well. Where do you start looking? Here are some tips to finding angel investors:
There is no silver bullet approach to this. Finding angel investors takes a lot of hard work and months to accomplish. You will need to attend a lot of events, meet a lot of people, shake a lot of hands and give your elevator pitch hundreds of times to find just a handful of people that are willing to invest in your company.
In its second quarter Venture Capital Survey of venture financed companies in Silicon Valley, Fenwick & West reported some brightening of venture deals.
The number of down rounds in the second quarter exceeded up rounds 46 percent to 32 percent. It looks like bad news, but this is an improvement over the first quarter which was 46 percent to 25 percent. The difference is that flat rounds decreased from 29 percent to 22 percent. Although this is the second time that down rounds have exceeded up rounds since 2003, it does signal that the bleeding has started to subside.
However prices continued to fall, with a 6 percent decline in the second quarter, which compares to 3 percent in the first quarter. This two represents the second time that there was a price decline since 2004.
Dow Jones VentureSource reported that the amount invested by VC’s in the U.S. in 2Q09 was approximately $5.3 billion in 595 deals, an increase from the $4.0 billion invested in 680 deals in 1Q09, but a significant decline from the $8.3 billion invested in 726 deals in 2Q08.
The health care industry received 42% of 2Q09 investment, and information technology attracted 37%, the first time on record that quarterly investment in health care exceeded investment in information technology.
Fundraising by U.S. venture capitalists was $1.7 billion in 2Q09, which was the lowest amount raised in a quarter since the first quarter of 2003.
There were 67 acquisitions of venture-backed companies in the U.S. in 2Q09, for a total of $2.6 billion, a decline from 70 transactions totaling $3.4 billion in 1Q09 and a significant decline from the 89 transactions totaling $6.5 billion in 2Q08. This was the lowest dollar volume of acquisition transactions since 1999. There were three IPOs of venture-backed companies in the U.S. in 2Q09.
Of course, one point of change doesn’t yet indicate a trend, but these numbers do signal a curbing of the decline of venture capital financing. Let’s look forward to the next quarter being even better.
The new television show, Shark Tank, is more than a little hyped up and not terribly realistic about the process of raising angel or venture capital. A lot more preparation goes into getting a company ready to present to investors than is portrayed in the show. The investors looked much more arrogant and cut throat than they really are, and most of the entrepreneurs were substantially unprepared to make the presentations at this level of investing.
However, there were a lot of lessons that should be learned by entrepreneurs. Some good things were done and some terrible mistakes were illustrated.
Once you peel away all the dramatic showmanship, this program has some valuable lessons for entrepreneurs. These mistakes are made every day, and can be avoided by good research, preparation and getting solid advice from experienced entrepreneurs.
Mark Andreessen and Ben Horowitz just announced a new $300 million venture capital fund that looks, smells and walks like an angel fund. Andreessen Horowitz is focusing on the best entrepreneurs, products and technologies in the industry. Read the details in BLOG.PMARCA.COM.
Their founding principles are extraordinary and may spell what could be a refreshing new model for venture capital firms:
Their fund is huge. Nevertheless, they are building their firm on the idea that it should be the kind of firm they would want to work with when they were young entrepreneurs starting new companies.
They will invest anywhere between $50 thousand to $50 million, depending on the company’s stage of maturity. This will include start-ups with seed round financing as well as later stage financing rounds for high-growth companies.
Andreessen and Horowitz will be the only general partners of the firm, and will personally make investment decisions aided by a small staff of other professionals.
They are looking for the best of the best in entrepreneurs who have a compelling vision about taking on a big market opportunity. They favor strong technologists who know what they want to build and know how to go about it. They also have the belief that the founder needs to be the CEO, and favor entrepreneurs who have that potential. They believe that the CEO skills can be developed.
They are all about the product and that companies are build around products. Investors need to intimately understand the company’s products. Surely, Andreessen and Horowitz are very capable of carrying out this principle.
It is exciting to see the emergence of this venture capital firm, run by two leading entrepreneurs and investors. Their ideas are refreshing and bold and may spell a new investment model for venture capital firms for the future.