was successfully added to your cart.

Saving Silicon Valley

Some people do not understand why I do what I do and why I bother, and underestimate my determination to fix Venture Capital. Certainly there are much easier ways to make money than to pursue the obliteration of an investment cartel, in which seemingly everyone belongs to the club. And some people’s actions are distorted by my critical views of what goes on in Silicon Valley, and the increasing popularity of my views may slow down the chase for money that is dished out often so irresponsibly.


My story

Let me tell you who you are talking to when you ask me to give up. My story may also answer the irritable question “who is this guy” I overheard recently. I do want you to know who I am, and how I care about this country. My story is more than just a bunch of business titles slapped together. Ready?

I was born in The Netherlands, the youngest of three boys in a family with a lifelong teacher as a dad, and a gentler mother working to place elderly people in geriatric facilities built by the government.

With our parents coming home late from work us three boys literally fought it out everyday. To get to or from school first after a one hour bike ride every day (rain or shine, in Holland that means rain more often than shine), playing in tennis and basketball leagues (while co-founding a new club), finishing our dinners first every evening or quickly claiming the window seat in the back of the family car to escape the billowing second-hand smoke emanating from the front. Everything back then was a competition, and as the youngest I got the brunt of the attempted suppression. Silly stuff, but it honed my skills to compete and it formed the early realization that freedom requires a fight or two.

My Dad was an educated man without much empathy, as most men born his age were (see the TV series Mad Men TV on AMC). I got my interest in science from him, but not much else. At age seven I realized my life with him was going to be short-lived. I never wanted to become him or be around him, and my need to escape became the most likely road to freedom. I left the house at around eighteen, the first of the three boys and never looked back. After a shaky start I blossomed.

My Mom was quite the opposite. Friendly, outgoing and always ready to support her children in whatever way she could. I remember vividly the many conversations we had as she put me to bed and we covered the important topics of the day. My love and respect for women grew out of that experience. I attributed the Stockholm syndrome to my Mom’s sometimes “blind” devotion to my Dad’s antics, which for me acted as a daily reminder in the buildup that no price is too big for freedom. Leaving the house with literally nothing was the small price I paid.

The most positive influence in my life was the patriarch of the family, my grandfather Simon (my Mom’s Dad). A self-made man he became a majestic business figure as one of the co-founders of “van Melle”, the company that made the ever so popular Mentos candy (sold a couple of years ago to an Italian confectionary). He was also the generous man who gave us, what we as children then thought of as worthless pieces of paper, real shares in “van Melle” and “Royal Dutch Shell” for our milestone birthdays. Simon challenged authority, had clear opinions and voiced them when provoked. But he was humble at the same time, always asking the factory workers for permission to test the candy from one of “their” machines. He could laugh at himself, remained a rebel and kept everyone in the family in check with his presence. His example stimulated the endless possibilities in my head.

From playing with a borrowed HP-41C calculator to launching my own career in the technology business, I arrived in the United States of America on my own with some hard-earned chunk of change in my pocket. Invited by Oracle executives and signed off by Larry Ellison (Oracle’s CEO) who wondered why I was able to sell their (then) emerging products in Europe while no one else globally appeared capable of doing the same. The difference between my approach and theirs was my focus on the need to create a new business model for emerging technologies, to which the new managers I was asked to report to had no clue, let alone respect. I left Oracle thankful and with fond memories as soon as my green-card was approved and jumped into a booming Silicon Valley.

One of my first startups was run by a group of technology consultants with a horrible business plan, and I told them about my opinions in a way only I can. Instead of fleeing, they came back and asked for guidance. I incubated the management team, and together we turned the company from a services into a product company and raised a double-digit first round of funding post 9/11. The company was sold six years later (in 2006) for triple digits (millions that is).

As a repeated board member in early stage startup companies my encounters with Venture Capitalists made me start to question their catalytic value. I went on to build a few other successful companies and had a brief part-time stint as a Venture Capitalist for a small fund. As a part-time Venture Partner with an insider perspective of the wheelings and dealings on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, the epicenter of Venture Capital, an even clearer pattern of defunct innovation governance and execution started to emerge.

Unwavering in my passion and support for the preservation and growth of groundbreaking innovation, I realized that the freedom at the foundation of our economic principles had been abused. And, that if we wanted to stay at the forefront as an innovation super-power not the way we innovate needed adjustment, but the way we detected and governed it. And thus began my investigation into the financial system and economic model that held innovation hostage.


And so the fight for freedom continues

Perhaps my story will help you understand why the odds of building great performance in Venture that will save entrepreneurialism are in my favor. My background including fifteen years of first hand Venture experience in Silicon Valley begs me to unleash the financial choke-chain around the innovator’s neck.


Silicon Valley needs help from above

The startling revelation, as proven out by the empirical evidence I have delivered for quite some time now is that according to a renowned money manager 95% of Venture Capital (VC) firms are not making any consistent money for their investors (Limited Partners). And that means Silicon Valley is at the brink of a serious implosion. Imagine what would happen if only about 35 of 790 VC firms were to survive in ten years from now.

Alarm bells should be going off by now, but few appear to be paying attention. Why not, you say?

Well, much of the money pumped into VC firms comes from Institutional Investors (pension funds, endowments, insurance companies etc.) with bulk loads of cash reserves they want to put to work. They dedicate a predetermined amount (usually by board consent), between 10% and 15% of those reserves to alternative investments of which a portion is then allocated to Venture Capital. To make a long story short, a tiny portion of assets from Limited Partners (even the non-institutional ones) is devoted specifically to Venture and a loss or break-even of less than 5% of total assets does not evoke a lot of emotion. Hence optimization discussions with Limited Partners about Venture turn with the agility of a big freight ship.

The alarm bells are getting muffled even more. Institutional Investors have built majestic constructs supporting the deployment of their Venture Capital assets. Many invest in Venture Capital through fund-of-funds with a “specialization” in alternative assets, a fuzzy term for anything that is not mainstream. And thus the actual performance of Venture is hidden behind the performance of the grab-bag of other financial instruments that resides in those fund-of-funds.

And it gets worse, VC firms themselves have been allowed to diversify their risk by embedding alternative investment strategies within the firm, and in worst cases even within the same fund. In short, Institutional Investors have stacked derivative, upon derivative, upon derivative (with of course zero marketplace transparency) and appear surprised performance of Venture Capital has lost the fantastic upside that made them all want to get in some 20 years ago.

And the mess does not end there. The mushy multi-tier asset allocation constructs allowed many General Partners entry to the Venture Capital business who have no credentials of being there. Their lack of experience and foresight has turned into fear and with it the implementation of Venture Capital risk has turned predominantly subprime. As a result Venture Capital risk has produced over the last ten years no more than micro Private Equity returns (less than 10% IRR), squandered about $1.7 Trillion in funds and eroded public trust in companies that never had any social economic value to begin with.

That fear from inexperienced General Partners in VC firms further exhibits itself by the deployment of 10 levels of diversification of risk when a VC firm makes an investment into a startup. Extreme fragmentation of assets and risk protects VC downside (making good money off management fees for 12 years) more than it protects upside, and thus Limited Partners are poised to lose out again, regardless of the economic circumstances. Improper deployment of risk cannot be mitigated by economic recovery.

Venture needs a reinvention from the top. But who cares?


Who cares?

Everyone in or around Venture should. The worst thing that can happen to a sector is that investors stop caring, and many have. Many Limited Partners will not renew their commitments and simply get out, and allocate their 5% of Venture Capital elsewhere. A speaker at a recent conference claimed the demise in VC firms to be as large as 30% over the last 10 years, with as much as 50% of venture folks already affected. New Limited Partners to the sector I speak with simply see no reason for getting in, given its deplorable performance.

And Venture Capitalists don’t seem to care too much because ten years of a cushy management fee from a sizable fund with no way for the public to establish their merit gets them setup for life quite comfortably. Under the cloud of economic insecurity and with micro private equity returns in hand, it is still easier to raise another fund (and thus another ten years of fees) than to admit that not the economy is at fault, but their deployment of risk in it. Many idiot Limited Partners have fallen for their arguments again and Venture continues to spiral further down the slippery subprime slope it has been on for a while. To VC, survival of the fittest has turned into survival of the shrewdest. Or as a General Partner from Sequoia Capital allegedly stated: “We used to have a club, now we just club each other”.

But the real impact of all this ignorance has already affected entrepreneurialism. Defunct VC governance has led to a dumbed down investment thesis that will only attract entrepreneurs that submit to that thesis. Hence the quality of innovation that surfaces is limited by the quality of the thesis that is projected. Subprime entrepreneurs, willing to be enslaved by subprime VC governance continue to tear down the potential of social economic value groundbreaking innovation is supposed to ignite.

Today, glorified programmers and VCs are the inexperienced partners in a dance that only a small audience (not the public) wants to attend.


Opportunity cares

With 80% of the world’s population still not having access to meaningful technology applications, the opportunity to spawn new groundbreaking innovations remains enormous. Technology adoption keeps growing, even when Venture Capital declines in its ability to govern worthy innovation. So, the opportunity dictates that there is much more room for Venture Capital firms to grow, just not for ones that cannot establish a proper investment thesis of innovation.

Governance of innovation is improperly aligned with the opportunity of innovation, and thus any calculation of the size or number of VC firms based on its current workings is witchcraft, irrelevant and inaccurate (up or down) by default.

There is no valid reason why 100 VC firms with a single $100M fund cannot generate a six times return each, except for the improper deployment of risk. Certainly the gaping opportunity in technology dictates that there is also no reason why the total number of Venture firms in the U.S. could not reach 1,000.


The grim impact of doing nothing

The most powerful assets in the Venture ecosystem (see our Innovation Primer) are the many entrepreneurs with groundbreaking ideas we have bred in this country. Yet, those outliers of innovation have systemically been ignored by a dumb financial system that favors those willing to be enslaved by subprime risk. Groundbreaking entrepreneurs have already left the party and quickly become extinct. Lured by lucrative offers they chose to find solace with better custodians of innovation, larger yet agile companies that simply took better care. Many returned home to their country of origin with an Ivy League diploma in their pockets. Silicon Valley, for what it once represented, has begun to implode.

With more than 50% of moneys spent in certain areas of Silicon Valley dedicated to startups, a 90% erosion of that money (from cutting down the systemic underperformance of 95% of VC firms and retrenching of disappointed Limited Partners) leads to an estimated 45% decline in overall jobs. That in turn creates massive economic deflation to the region and exemplifies why governmental intervention without fundamental reform (the current band-aids will be circumvented quickly) of financial systems in Venture does nothing to prevent the slide it is on. Our local and federal governments should be all over this case, to prevent a further systemic slide that could turn California into a grave-yard for what has been, and our country from becoming the lost leader of innovation.

Our government has simply not connected the dots between systemic failure in Venture and systemic failures in the economy, just yet. The pain and destruction probably need to become more obvious first.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke did the usual politically correct thing by inviting members to his National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship with large statures in the old system, yet none in the new. The outcome of that exercise will be as expected, more of the same (yet no one will be able to politically accuse him). More importantly, Locke’s agenda is flawed. The problems in Venture are not with the method of innovation, but with those who govern it.


Venture is the poster child for financial reform

As a reader of my blog, you may not be surprised to learn that the problems in Venture have nothing to do with some deep-rooted and mysterious “Voodoo” of technology or innovation. We have an outdated financial system that does not need more regulations of its complexity, but a dramatic simplification and flattening of its marketplace behavior. The Venture business is the poster child for creating such a new financial system, as its current performance can nothing but improved on.

Innovation can only be saved by a financial system that is truly a free-market system, away from the existing cartel that offers no marketplace (transactional) transparency and is void of real competition that lies at the capitalistic fundamentals this country was founded on. Merit attached to money changes the bold lie capitalism is without.

So, my self-imposed journey to save America from itself continues, for I have seen its potential.

We can save the fantastic innovative capacity in this country and elsewhere when we apply the same intelligence of the way entrepreneurs build innovation to the way we fund it. Without a new free-market financial system in Venture be sure to strap in for a massive implosion in Venture that will take ten years for many to discover had been predicted by this annoying whistle-blower all along.

At least now you know who he is.


About Georges van Hoegaerden

After my ideas had raised $14M and returned over $100M to investors in Silicon Valley I could not help but detect a systemic flaw in the way we detect, build, fund and support systems of innovation. On an entrepreneurial quest to root-cause I evolved my focus from the economics of innovation to the innovation of economics, and ended up completely rewriting the playbook of economics that must guide us all. I named my invention Renewable Economics™.


  • Guest says:

    “Innovation can only be saved by a financial system that is truly a free-market system”. Amen, Georges.

    Beacon Investment Partners LLC (Delaware) marshals free-market financial resources as in “John Q. Public” and community participation; as in exchange-listed liquidity and transparency.

    • But a free-market does not automatically mean it should be open to the public. A free-market is an economic principle, not necessarily a free for all. Its rules are governed by supply and demand, and its merit is based on the exposure of transactional transparency.Private companies are non-public for a reason, primarily because the public is not a good judge of early innovative value and the risk it takes to jump the inevitable hurdles. The early stage of a company should be supported by a singular outlier vision, not popularity (otherwise by definition it would not be innovative).The current private model can be turned into a free-market system, with cannibalization of the existing cartel of course.Best,Georges

      • Amarirani says:

        Amazing, how ill-understood free-market principles are: supply, demand and expectations; land, labor and capital; goods (and ‘bads’!), services and options.

        • Indeed, it is astounding how many people confuse a free-for-all with free-market principles. But then again, that is exactly why our financial systems perform so poorly, because they simply lie about their free-market attributes.

          It is also a fantastic opportunity to apply a systemic fix. Best,Georges

      • Guest says:

        “Innovation can only be saved by a financial system that is truly a free-market system”. Amen, Georges.

  • Tom Foremski says:

    It seems that the liklihood of the VC industry being reinvented is very low, for all the reasons you mention. What would an ideal VC industry look like? What are the steps that could be taken? Who will do it? Criticising the industry is one thing, how we get from here to there is what interests me and I’d love to see your opinion on the series of steps that could be taken.

    • Hi Tom,

      I disagree that the likelihood is low, in fact it will happen whether the VCs like it or not. What VCs think about this change is irrelevant given their performance (they really have no political leg to stand on), and then either a new system will have been put in place or VC will be reduced to some 35 firms. LPs will stop feeding VC if it keeps deploying subprime venture money. And so the subprime VCs will kill themselves off really fast (as in a 10 year vintage). They should follow courses of how to invest prime from the 35 purported prime ones.

      The solution is a systemic fix currently positioned by me as a unique investment strategy for a fund-of-funds dedicated to Venture. That will deploy new VCs with a mandate and required skills to invest differently. Until I have that in place the single trigger solution is not worth popularizing, because popular opinion is irrelevant to the outcome for Limited Partners (as we’ve seen in the last ten years). I will work with those LPs who are ready to participate and commit because they believe in the future of innovation. But I choose my candidates carefully. But if you like to learn more I have put a ton of work in my online presentation 2010: The State of Venture Capital (available on this site) as well as in all blogs including “How to fix VC once and for all”. A truly interested and smart reader can certainly from that content get a good picture of what the gist of the solution will be.I thought of launching this publicly a while back, but couldn’t stomach the effort of getting around the one-legged reporters at the major pubs to get this to a really broad audience. If you have any ideas on how to do it right lets talk, and maybe I will divulge more.

      I appreciate your effort in polarizing the discussion and ensuring not just the empty lies of VCs are perpetuated and published but that the interest of the real assets in Venture, LPs with money and entrepreneurs with ideas are also represented.Best,Georges

      • Tom Foremski says:

        Thanks George. I’m happy to try and get the word out through my writing and linking. I

      • No says:


        I’ve built a behavioral model for technological ecosystem. The outcomes -that are obtained by sensitivity and robustness analysis- correlate with your observations on what is going on in the industry.

        Your fund of funds approach may work if the fund managers are capable to handle complexity, are familiar with managing nonlinear processes, are driven by idealistic values. My experience tells that it is not going to happen for the same reasons you blame VC. Fund of funds creates even better conditions for people with hidden agendas to trick the system for an extended period of time. Fund of funds may work in your case, but as soon as you try to replicate the model, it will fail.

        Can you please provide an insight on how to ensure the model will perform as advertised?


        • K,

          Unfortunately, unless you are an interested LP and disclose who you are I cannot (we’ve run into each other and I suggested then for you to identify yourself). Rest assured I don’t need a behavioral model to raise my dog or child, neither do I to manage the VC incentives in the fund. Life is simple, not complicated.



  • Christofer Coulter says:

    Well, letsee, crash, greatest loss of wealth in human history, VCs seem stuck in this Web 2.0 html-nothingness, trying to buzz-up and squeeze any juice out of pastel rounded-corners, in a vain attempt to take down the established oligarchic castles. Why should anyone, let alone investors, trust them? Going all free-market is well and good, and the best environment needed, but that assumes any value to begin with, VC is mostly pure fraud.But the solution to water concrete world-markets with technology, is a macro geopolitical formulation well-beyond mere capital, and quite poor-timing, when the US is thrusting headlong into Euro-styled statism, and a doubly hard row in a town full of naked Emperors, running on pure-high-octane tech-as-religion, narcissistic-personality-disorder fuel, using the media-blogger-cults as their echo-chamber sycophants.

    • Christofer,

      Thanks for your beautiful rendition of your opinions, you should become a writer….

      Technology, as I have always said, is just a distribution mechanism for normal trade. It can provide extreme efficiencies for market optimization, but is not a marketplace by itself (so don’t make the mistake of treating it as such). It can therefor be deployed to many sectors, some of which have very little penetration so far (read opportunity).

      Hence the solution to Venture is to have it operate in accordance with real market principles, force it to compete, be transparent (transactional) and establish merit. What we have today in Venture (and other financial systems) is capitalism without merit, which is the lie of the century – for which we are now punished. This type of capitalism can never get us out of the hole we are in and turned our financial system into the boondoggle eleven times the size of production it is today. And economically fragile for that reason.

      I am for a capitalistic society, yet one in which merit is attached to money. And that requires free-markets, not to be confused with a free-for-all, but the one that deploys the economic principles. Free-markets are not very well understood by many, and I may devote a blog on it sometime soon. In the meantime please read on to other articles of my blog and you should get the gist. You seem like a sharp guy. Ping me if my direction is not clear.



  • Christofer Coulter says:

    “fund-of-funds dedicated to Venture”

    So just one big hand-picked short-selling hedge-venture-fund will lead the way? Asensioizing venture?

    Irony be however, that private capital can operate in any fashion it so pleases, free-market or not, which unto itself is a free-market, even if not applied as an overall methodology.

    • No Christofer, our financial systems today are like traffic without rules. Again, free-markets are not a free-for-all but if setup well act like the rules of the road, setting baseline safety rules without determining whereto one could drive. Private capital (as opposed to Institutional) can choose to participate in this new construct or not, yet if it does its participation is equal to everybody else. It even has the freedom to setup its own marketplace mechanism, and I’d be happy to compete with a free-market against a monolithic market model in Venture any day. We know that one does not work, just look at the last 20 years.The only way for VCs to recover from their self-induced malaise is to deploy real Venture risk with the people who can measure that risk by virtue of their real world experience and foresight. And yes, just like a dog is the responsibility of its owner, so is the LP responsible for the appropriately deployed behavior of VCs and risk downstream. Now, you’ve gone too far on “Asensioizing”, I don’t even think that is word, neither does Google.Best,Georges

  • desmondpieri says:

    Georges, if you’re talking about saving Venture Capital, why did you title the post, “Saving Silicon Valley?” A good portion of VC activity is outside of the valley. Or are you saying that only VCs in the valley have these faults?

    • Desmond,

      Because most of Venture Capital is defined in Silicon Valley (and foolishly copied around the world). Meaning if we change the way the valley invests in Venture, we can expect the rest of the world to copy that too.



  • Liz Coker says:

    Thank you for pointing out so plainly that this emperor has no clothes. And also for sharing a bit more about yourself. My partner and I discuss this topic frequently and scratch our heads at what does and doesn’t get funded. We are outside of the Valley, but in an entrepreneurial hotbed. Not surprisingly, the number of local VC’s that are closing up shop is increasing.

  • Brian D says:

    From today’s NYTimes; A 10 year analysis of the VC industry.NOT GOOD for VChttp://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_15892001

Leave a Reply