By Georges van Hoegaerden

A fantastic television ad by Ally Bank, in my view best describes how Limited Partners (LPs) as the investors committed to Venture have been fooled.

In the event you have not seen the video, it shows a slick man in a business suit sitting cosily around a kids table with two little girls.

The suit then asks one girl if she would want a pony. When she replies yes, he hands her a toy pony. He then moves on to the second girl and asks her if she wants a pony, and then calls in a real pony. Clearly the first girl is upset that she did not get a real pony and complains, upon which the man replies, "well, you didn't ask."

What pony did you ask for, by virtue of your actions?

That is exactly what has happened to LPs in Venture who did not ask the specific questions that could have led to their success in Venture. In many cases those LPs failed to generate impressive returns in Venture because they did not know they had to ask specific questions and should have taken control of the situation in order to get the results that the sector is able to generate.

Many LPs, glowing at the early return profiles of Bill Draper, Vinod Khosla and other early illuminaries, simply said "yes" to General Partners (GPs) who asked LPs if they wanted Venture returns, without even asking how much (see the many PPM's that do not even have clear return targets).

And of course now, many LPs are utterly disappointed and mistrust the GPs (and worse the sector), similar to how the little girl in the video now mistrusts the man.

Ask the right questions

To help make clear to LPs what questions to ask I have added a new section to the wildly popular presentation 2010: The State of Venture Capital, the Prelude (posted on Slideshare) describing how an LP thought his commitment would be applied, and how it was in reality. See for yourself:



We pride ourselves on a solid and no-nonsense understanding of the Venture ecosystem, top-to-bottom, which is crucial in leading to a permanent fix in Venture and to improve its performance. So, we back up our rational on the right side of the previous slide with the observations of how the Venture business really operates today. And here is how the rubber meets the road:



The bottom line is simple. It is okay to deploy your money as an LP through GPs as the arbiter, but just like many Hollywood stars have found out, if you are not signing your own checks, know what they are being spent on and how - don't be surprised your money will be taken for a ride. It is the nature of letting go of financial control (and really, you should not be surprised).

Today's Venture pipes are still being pumped full with subprime deals, which means the ten-year outlook for Venture will not look much different from its miserable ten-year past. So, the time to act is now if you expect a different outcome in ten years.

Take control

The Venture business needs to be reigned in, with controls put in place so it can no longer be taken for a ride.

The sector has a bright future ahead, with massive market-pull from the majority of people in this world who still crave technology solutions to improve their lives. The only way we, as the most innovative nation in the world can screw it up is to deploy a piece-meal financial system that misses its intended target.

That has to stop, right now.

Dear LP, a permanent fix to Venture, by way of a new economic system you can deploy, is waiting for you. Act now or forever hold your peace.

Tags: Limited Partners, VC, Venture, Funds, PPM

By Georges van Hoegaerden

*** Update: recognized by Slideshare as one of the top presentations of the day, with more than 1,000 views in 2 days ***

More than 150 money managers (including some VCs) have received a controlled prerelease of the previously announced 2010: The State of Venture Capital. We now make the Prelude to the complete presentation and fix of Venture Capital available for public viewing - right here:

The underlying arguments to support the slides may not be clear unless conveyed personally, and I would be happy to set up a conference with more stake holders in the venture business that have the interest and capacity to change it.

Feel free to make comments, ask questions by using the online form, e-mail us or contacting us by telephone.

The top-down fix to Venture Capital is reserved to Venture Company customers, embodies a new market system and provides fundamental differentiation to Limited Partners and Fund-of-funds managers and a permanent solution to the malaise in venture.

The world of monetizable innovation has changed, and we need to change with it. Venture should be and can again be, with a restructuring, the best performing asset class (sector) to money managers.

Tags: VC, Funds, Venture

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I am talking to a lot of Limited Partners and Fund-of-funds managers these days and the reputation of venture as a viable asset class (sector) is really bad (even though the opportunity dictates it shouldn't be).

Few people at the top of the investment food-chain seem to have a good sense of what it going on down below (with General Partners at VC firms), and even fewer believe a further commitment to venture makes sense. Our government adds to that mistrust by not even acknowledging venture as a viable instrument to resurrect innovation.

No True Alpha

But can we blame them? The returns (of the portfolio of investments, some money managers represent by a formula that yields "alpha") in the venture business have been deplorable from many angles:

1. From a Limited Partner (or Fund-of-funds) perspective; with less than 10% IRR over the last 10 years and less than 3% of $2 Trillion invested yielding public value.
2. From an economic perspective; more than $1.9 Trillion of (mostly) public money has been wasted in the last 10 years on so-called innovations by venture that never generated any public value.
3. From an entrepreneurial perspective; the definition of innovation has severely eroded by the subprime nature of the investment thesis that makes it unattractive for meaningful innovation and real entrepreneurs to be discovered.
4. From a consumer perspective; we have created no more than a handful meaningful innovations with an army of 800 Venture Capital firms chomping at the bit. We have eroded the trust of the people we aim to serve and those we rely on to spawn a high-flying public offering.

No True North

No True Alpha is the result of a defective compass of the Venture Capitalists (VCs) - arbitrating the money-flows - that is no longer pointing towards True North, but rather Magnetic North. In this context Magnetic North defined as a gamble with someone else's money, a very lofty salary and no downside for the next 10 years. Should we really be surprised that without transparency and accountability Magnetic North is much easier to achieve than True North?

Other temptations of Magnetic North are misleading VCs even further:

1. Target acquisitions: many startups are funded and built with improper expectations. While exciting in nature for many, the past bull-market flurry of acquisitions misleads VCs to believe that they can target one. Yet most acquisitions of early stage technology companies are completely erratic (I can tell you many buy-side tales), because they are primarily based on internal corporate struggles rather than somewhat predictable, external market indicators.
2. Exit at underperformance: we are soiling the acquisition pool. Acquisitions, in the majority of cases do not work out for the acquirer and are very often overpriced, overhyped and under-deliver (I can talk about many experiences here too). Usually not by design, but simply because they lack macro-economic value to begin with. And while money is money, every acquisition that does not deliver deflates the valuation of the next innovation that deserves better and therefor negatively impacts portfolio returns.
3. Stay away from IPOs, the window has closed. I always smile at that popular phrase by VCs and reply: if I want fresh air I will open a window. The public mistrust we have created by pushing subprime innovations through the IPO funnel for the last 20 years, has quickly developed an innate scrutiny to invest only in what the public understands and what matters to their life. Macro-economic impact of innovation is the only value that can pass these days and VCs have restricted their thesis to the extent that they just do not know how to find and fund those. Our focus should be on building real companies, not technology gimmickry.
4. Inappropriate deployment of risk: their lack of relevant market experience forces VCs to focus on the only thing tangible to them, the technology implementation. And that while the creation of technology is the least of the risks in a technology venture. What matters, again, is the application of technology to a viable marketplace. And so the risk is in identifying and fully addressing the needs of the marketplace, with whatever modern technology does the trick.

There are many other magnetic distractions that keep VCs from reaching or ever pursuing True North, some of which I have covered in other places in my blog, but that laundry list would go beyond the patience of my readers.

From isolate to insulate

The point I am making here is that no-one should be surprised that venture is not performing. The LPs were there to allocate the money, the entrepreneurs were there to dream up innovation, and the public is still yearning for technology innovation to substantially improve their lives.

The problem in Venture is the derivative, the Venture Capitalist who without economic viability has no political leg to stand on to stay in business. We have isolated the problem: the "referee" is in trouble, not the players nor the game. Now we just need to insulate the problem, and the controls are solely in the hands of discerning LPs and Fund-of-funds that need venture to perform.

A simple fix

The solution to a healthy Venture climate is simple (in the same way e=mc2 is simple, its discovery took me and Einstein a while); change the construct of venture investing so it mimics the meritocracy of innovation that can produce uniquely disruptive value.

The impetus of that new model can be found here, the actual fix by contacting us here.

Tags: Limited Partners, VC, FoF, Risk

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I always love being in New York and last tuesday I attended the AAAIM 2010 Investment Themes event in New York (a fairly closely held affair, thank you Brenda Chai) with a keynote from John Liu, newly appointed New York City comptroller (closely guarded by his security detail) and other luminaries from the New York investment world, including Kelly Williams from Credit Suisse Customized Fund Investment Group, Marcos Rodriguez from Palladium Equity Partners, Jimmy Yan from New York City Employees' Retirement System and Peter Marber from HSBC.

All speakers (and attendees) manage multibillion (double and triple digit) dollar funds and what struck me was how little these top managers know about venture, except to frown or stay away from the sector given its miserable performance and reputation for the last 10 years (we describe in my blog often).

There is clearly more work needed and opportunity to be gained to resurrect the face of venture and to establish new faith and trust. That trust of-course can only come from being honest and critical about past venture performance and offering a clear rational and remedy to resurrect it. Exactly what our focus has been for the last few years.

Now, I am not a journalist and I am not going to go into the many personal conversations I have had with regard to venture investing, yet I do want my readers (specifically those interested in venture) to understand how some of the financial pressures will impact venture directly, indirectly or potentially, as could be surmised from the speeches of the public speakers.

And, the more every venture marketplace participant knows about its dependencies (especially from the Limited Partners at the top of the venture food-chain), the more we can each respond to and secure a better future for a sector that, in my view and with my venture model, deserves much more commitment than 10-15% of overall LP commitments.

The State of the City

Both New York City and New York State have raked up sizable budget deficits. New York Sate has a $7B deficit and New York City as the nations 4th largest government with a budget of $60B has incurred a $4B deficit. If comptroller John Liu has his way the deficit will not be hidden under the rug by borrowing money, but lowered by cutting expenses and/or raising taxes to erase the deficit of about 1/5th of the flexible $25B part of the total budget. The City is looking for creative ways to achieve those savings objectives.

A question from the audience raised about increasing taxation on $25B of newly issued Wallstreet bonuses was quickly and politically sidestepped by forecasting its prospective value to only yield $0.5B, assuming those bonuses were all distributed in liquid form. In addition the comptroller stated he prefers to find more long-term solutions to erase the deficit, essentially leaving the contentious issue of dealing with Wallstreet up to the President.

Limited Partners

John Liu is also custodian/board member of 4 of the New York pension funds (including NYCERS with $35B under management), comprising of $100B in assets. No mention of fund performance (we know from other sources more or less what is going on) but he expressed specific interest in widening the network and making it easier for small new asset managers, with unique industry experience and merit to participate in the deployment of diversified assets.

As you can imagine, after having written for years about the lack of verifiable investor merit at the bottom of the food-chain, I was enthused to hear the comptroller usher rudimentary free-market principles as its new goals in deploying monetary assets. The proof of-course is in the pudding and I hope to meet with his people soon to exchange my macro-economic views on how financial systems aught to work.

Globalization

Another highlight of the evening was a great overview on emerging markets by Peter Marber who runs emerging market investments for HSBC. Peter stressed the need for a renewed focus on emerging markets, supported by some interesting statistics and the use of "The Mac Theory" (I've heard before), not a macintosh this time but a MacDonalds Big Mac. He simplified the value of a currency by comparing the price of a Big Mac in a country with the price of a Big Mac in the US. The difference yields a fairly accurate view of the expense of doing business in the juxtaposed country.

According to Peter, emerging markets cover 6 Billion people who cover 77% of the global landmass. He sees new opportunities in what he calls shifting democracies, with Japan's economy growing at a 4% rate versus a growth rate of 2.5% for the US. Emerging market debt has grown by 171% and global equity growing by 82%, while US equity has declined 24%. BTW: Just yesterday it was reported China's GDP grew a stunning 10.7% in the 4th quarter of 2009.

Peter comes across as savvy asset manager with his feet still firmly planted in the ground, a practicality we can never have too much of. Peter's global viewpoints are well put and he expects that venture will remain (for now) a US dominated opportunity as long as the products we build have (immediate) global market impact. I concur, as long as we free innovation from the choke hold of our current venture system.

New York, your lights continue to inspire me.

Tags: Macro-economics, Limited Partners, NewYork, Investment, Private Equity

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Many Limited Partners are contemplating getting out of the venture sector altogether and end their commitments to Venture Capitalists (VCs), no surprise given the sector's miserable performance of less than 10% IRR the last ten years and no more than 3% of moneys invested producing real public value.

Flight is a natural, but inappropriate response

The technology sector has a long way to go in supplying 5/6th of the world with meaningful technology applications. And with more (global) entrepreneurs at the ready to tap into that wide open greenfield the pain in the venture business is not with supply and demand, but with the arbiter in the venture business - the venture capitalist.

I often use a simple analogy to make this clear: just because the performance of eHarmony (a leading dating site) is down, does not mean we necessarily have fewer potential marriages. It just means the marketplace (see our new Venture Primer) where those connections are being made is inefficient. Smart participants will seek to explore new marketplaces where the arbitrage fits their requirements and so should Limited Partners.

Expect absolute, not relative Venture performance

Many VCs who smell the impending cannibalization of their cushy, no downside position throw anything at Limited Partners to make them recommit for another ten years at the expense of public money.

VCs continue to use any tactic in the book to persuade Limited Partners that none of the malaise in venture was their fault. Aided by the conglomerate resources of their lobbying organization, the NVCA (the National Venture Capital Association) they drum up every statistic and external market factor known to man to hold on to their position in this ailing sector.

The mere existence of a lobbying organization (with international branches and replicas) alludes to the deployment of artificial market forces and should be a wakeup call to those depending on it.

But great performance in the venture business should not be measured relative to other VC funds (using meaningless self-serving top quartile accolades), or worse be measured against public market indices, but should be measured against the opportunity to monetize the penetration of technology in its global greenfield.

To use another analogy:

The best athlete is not one that wins the race, but the one that becomes the fastest man on earth.

The best of the worst

Now, I know the job of Limited Partners is to deploy assets (surplus cash) and get the best possible yield for a given time period on that commitment and lockup, without a loss and better, a significant yield. To the Limited Partner it is a game of responsible diversification to a spread of asset classes in which not the individual performance matters, but the yield of all assets under management.

Venture, as one of the avenues with an average allocation of between 10 and 15% of total assets under management has been for many Limited Partners just the "icing on the cake", a nice to have but not a necessity. Until the other asset classes started imploding. Hence the reason why many Limited Partners first were reluctant to criticize VC and now suddenly debate to leave the sector altogether.

Some VCs have gone out on a limb and publicly cheered that on, forgetting that - using our previous analogy - a select few may have won the last ten year's race but that their absolute performance still does not make for a great spectator sport. Especially not since their reason for winning is comparable to a winning streak in Vegas, sheer luck and unsustainable.

Technology Venture should outpace any other asset class

In any economy, Technology Venture should outpace any other sector or asset class for Limited Partners with a ten year horizon, simply because of the following reasons:

1. Technology is a low cost production business (not a derivative) that capitalizes on the unwavering intellectual brainpower of global entrepreneurs to tap into existing macro-economic needs.
2. Technology taps into a massive greenfield consisting of 5/6th of the world population, and is only at the beginning of its exploration.
3. The internet provides a zero cost distribution channel that feeds relevant new technology directly and instantly to massive market pull.
4. The fluidity of technology implementations allows disruptive technology to quickly respond and become resistant to economic aberrations.
5. Technology relies on nothing but itself to create and maintain instantaneous value, the only volatility in venture is venture itself.

A new way in

What is broken in venture is the VC as the arbiter, who claims to have the ability to spot disruptive innovation but has not delivered, some say for the last twenty years. The commitments from Limited Partners are still flowing and so are the unwavering ideas from entrepreneurs. All that is needed is a different arbitrage that has proven to spawn highly monetizable innovation against the (absolute) spectrum of a massive technology greenfield.

The existing crop of VCs may not get there, as cannibalization of a complacent position will be painful. But I am sure that if we replace every VC today with an experienced former startup entrepreneur (with successful company growth under his belt) we will quickly produce results far better than the last ten years. The past is the past, so let's not dwell - but get rid of it.

I can't think of any asset class with a better risk profile that within a ten year vintage has the propensity to deliver stellar results. But only with a few new rules of the game and referees that have the wherewithal and experience to make it happen. The instruments of change in its tremendous rewards are in the hands of Limited Partners who remain committed to technology venture.

So, we should treat Venture for what it is: the fastest athlete in the world. And recruit trainers who can get it there.

Tags: Limited Partners, VC, Macro-economics, Experience, Eco-systems, Economy

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I think about the future of Venture Capital a lot (day and night, can you tell?) and how we can continue to drive and fund innovation. And I have said many times that "the quality of the deal intake is only as good as the quality of the investor", which specifically in venture means that an investor needs to have the experience and foresight of an entrepreneur to support others.

Raise the (public) value of innovation

Clearly with truckloads of money from Limited Partners over the last ten years, more highly skilled global entrepreneurs than ever, and 5/6th of the world population still void of essential technology applications, VC has done a deplorable job in the matchmaking process between the assets of the Limited Partner (money) and the assets of entrepreneurs (ideas), which should have tapped into that massive greenfield more aggressively.

Less than 10% IRR for more than 10 years, or to use another worrisome statistic: less than 3% of dollars invested in VC over the last ten years leads to the production of any public value by way of IPO (Initial Public Offering), as 10 years of VC investing at $200B/year (give or take) x 10 generated $66B in IPOs (per Dan Primack, PEHub). No wonder the Limited Partners who fund VCs scratch their heads at what just happened to their money.

It's all about the Benjamins (and the quality of people behind the money)

I referred to Albert Einstein before (way back in 2006) and an amuzing article from Dave B Lerner turning Sherlock Holmes into a VC reminded me how the principles of Einstein should be held against the selection process for General Partners (GPs) at a VC fund.

Quotes from the Genius

So, with Einstein's Wikipedia encyclopedia at hand let's roll out some of his famous quotes and see how the current state of venture stacks up:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world".

So why do GPs demand to see a product demo before they can decide to invest, is it because they have no imagination? Perhaps we should encircle a world of innovation that is bigger than Silicon Valley?

"For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research".

Why a SuperBowl ring is so much more valuable than an Ivy League ring, in any job in the venture business.

"A new idea comes suddenly and in a rather intuitive way. But intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience".

Why relevant entrepreneurial experience is such an important attribute to a VC investor, intuition not analysis drives the selection of rewarding investment decisions.

"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed".

Silicon Valley has commoditized the investment thesis (or what we refer to as the-same-difference investment thesis), no surprise that it cannot detect disruptive innovation even if it would show up at their doorstep.

"Falling in love is not at all the most stupid thing that people do — but gravitation cannot be held responsible for it".

GP should not be afraid to feel passionate about their companies and make independent investment decisions (that may not find other syndicates), but the gravity of investment commoditization can not be held responsible if they do not.

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience".

Customers need simpler technology solutions, not more complex. As investors that means we should not invest in technology, but the application of technology to meet customer needs. But not so simple that it has no macro-economic and public relevance (IPO).

"Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth".

A higher moral standard in the venture business would ensure that we deploy free-market principles to the support for innovation. We are far removed from deploying transparency to the venture business that would expose the true merit of investors with the true merit of entrepreneurs. Only then will the truth reveal itself.

"A happy man is too satisfied with the present to dwell too much on the future".

GPs locked up into 10-year fund vintages are fat and happy, too happy to dwell to much on the malaise in venture.

"The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart".

Great convictions from the heart lead to great investments and financial returns in venture. The investor who is content with the current investment program will soon meet his maker.

"I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever".

We are citizens of our world, so perhaps we should start investing that way. We need to get away from Sand Hill Road more often and tap into global resources, not just to fund entrepreneurs but also to experience and understand what drives global marketplaces.

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Their excessive authority will be broken".

Just because we have constructed the relationships between Limited Partners and VCs in a certain organized fashion does not mean we should accept them. Especially not when performance proves the vast majority of those relationships do not work out to satisfaction.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly".

Entrepreneurs should expect to receive violent opposition from mediocre VCs (who focus on technology builds), but entrepreneurs should remain courageous and honest. Courageous in their entrepreneurial ideas and honest about their ability to build them.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing".

Many people take for granted what has been imprinted in their brains from childhood, but you would be surprised to learn how many of those things are actually false. Not by design, but by interpretation. Drill deep in what you have been told as the truth and you will find new opportunities for innovation.

"Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size".

A Long Tail without a Torso is meaningless.

"What is thought to be a "system" is after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about parts".

Markets do not exist, as I have stated many times before. Only marketplaces do, in which the choices of individual participants with unique ideas are married.

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions".

The social environment on Sand Hill Road that has perpetuated the mediocrity in venture is preventing GPs from expressing opinions about how it should change. In fact, none of the Limited Partners I spoke to have received a viable plan from VC as to how to combat the venture malaise we are in.

"My political ideal is democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized".

When you do not belong to the (subprime) "venture club" or play their game, you are not let in and respected. So why should we repay that homage back with idolization?

"The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the State but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling".

Meritocracies are created by transparency, and we have none in venture. No surprise it is dull in thought and dull in feeling.

"My passion for social justice has often brought me into conflict with people, as did my aversion to any obligation and dependence I do not regard as absolutely necessary".

Free-markets are created by meritocracies that rely on transparency. The social justice of a meritocracy is hard to grasp for those who hide behind walled gardens to protect their own insecurities.

"Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment — an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections".

I mistrust many venture investors for good reason (their lack of merit), but have learned that the casual connection is the dysfunctional financial system that allows VCs to take it for a ride.

"Everyone is aware of the difficult and menacing situation in which human society -- shrunk into one community with a common fate — now finds itself, but only a few act accordingly".

Waiting, talking and reporting about the malaise in venture is one thing, offering solutions to it is another.

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil".

That is of course because the only form of capitalism we practice today is far from a meritocracy. Capitalism spawned by meritocracy is a wonderful thing and builds opportunity for all people with merit (within the Long Tail and the Torso).

No need to be Einstein to become a VC

Einstein himself did not think he was special and neither should a VC. All you need to become one is solid early stage experience and a vivid imagination of how the world should work.

Yet to make venture work, Limited Partners need to start by deploying money to GPs who themselves have proven how those crucial attributes helped them cross the chasm, before those GPs are allowed to tell other entrepreneurs how to do the same.

My investment and drive is for democracy, meritocracy and capitalism to work hand-in-hand to produce the powerful innovation that enhances the lives of people around the world. Until that happens, I leave you with a last quote from the Genius himself: "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself".

Happy New Year!

Tags: Marketplace, Meritocracy, Einstein, Capitalism, Long Tail, Democracy

By Georges van Hoegaerden

As an investor, and especially a venture capital investor you need to have the ability to predict the future within an acceptable degree of accuracy. And that is exactly a skill many venture capitalists (VCs) so miss out on and generate such mediocre returns. The value of their innovation is simply not meaningful enough.

Venture Capital differs fundamentally from (other forms of) Private Equity in that it requires an extraordinary level of foresight and prescience. After all, one needs to believe in something that does not already exist and little proof exist it ever will - or is there?

It is impossible to predict what technology will prevail

VCs today are still too focused on technology, even though many proclaim to understand markets (more on that later). The reality is that rarely any business without a technology demo gets funded these days. Yet popular technology flavors change frequently (every three years or so) and betting on technology is a foolish game. We should know by now.

Driven by the urge to produce results within ten year vintages and complicated by the (we claim, self induced) lack of IPOs and M&A, the majority of VCs have retracted to a short term investment focus, massive diversification and fragmentation of investment dollars. Quite the opposite of what should have happened to the venture business.

But how do you tell someone to step into the circus ring to tame a tiger, without having had the confidence and prior experience to do so. It is just not going to happen. Change in the venture business needs to come from the top.

Limited Partners who do not refresh their VC commitments and requirements now, are bound to lose big-time on venture pipelines stuffed with sub-prime investments with no place to go.

It is easy to predict what macro-economics will prevail

Warren Buffett said it right in a recent interview with Charlie Rose in that the future long term is a lot easier to predict than the short term. Or the way I tell my wife; I don't know where I'll be during the day, but you can count on me coming home for dinner.

In business, long term value does not discount the need for short term planning, but short term without long term (or macro) is a loosing gambit. Here are some examples of the lack of macro-economics and its failures :

- The venture ecosystem

The venture capital ecosystem consists of ten(!) layers of diversification before the dollars from a Limited Partner lands into the bank account of the company of an entrepreneur. No matter what your views on the venture business, but anyone who has attended business school should know that this kind of over-diversification leads to a morass of accountability and in-transparency of results. Without fundamental change to the way venture works today, venture is poised to become more mediocre than its today. Venture is macro-economically broken. The reason why we provide a solution for Limited Partners here.

- The VC intake model

Most venture capitalists sit impatiently through an entrepreneur pitch, checking their blackberry's until the product demo. Not only does this communicate the VC has no empathy for the macro-economics, it also communicates that technology risk is the only risk they think they can assess. Per previous analogy, those VCs are the wives who call their husbands twenty times per day, just to know where you are. They demonstrate a lack of understanding and lack of faith in macro-economics and an improper assessment of investment risk.

- Entrepreneur pitches

Perhaps dumbed down by the only pitch process that leads to getting money from (sub-prime) VCs, many entrepreneurs pitch technology without understanding the macro-economic forces at work that prevent a pure technology play (albeit perhaps better) from having access to paying customers. When a large incumbent owns the access to the majority of customers through perception, a proprietary business model or otherwise, technology innovation without a fundamental disruption of the business model is worth very little. Entrepreneurs need to think business and include macro-economics.

- Marketing experts

Markets do not exist. Yep, I said it (and yes, I have worked in "marketing" too). Market definitions are stale and artificially extrapolate people that once exhibited a common purchasing decision into individuals that from then on behave the same way going forward. They don't.

We all know instinctively that every individual is different (even when that individual represents a company), that none of us like to be put in a box and that our reason for purchasing is unique and more than simply price/performance ratios. In addition we participate in multiple competitive and complimentary marketplaces in whatever order we deem appropriate. And any attempt to put marketplace participants in a fixed market bracket is therefor hopelessly self-serving.

Markets do not exist, but marketplaces do. The impetus to participate is extremely complex, complex to quantify yet not complex to qualify. A simple need for improved relevance and better value - based on individual needs and objectives. Marketplaces are no longer one-to-many, but have become many-to-many, with social networks emphasizing and echoing those individual requirements. The long tail of supply is met with a long tail of demand.

So, macro-economically the basis of marketing is flawed. Product success is not driven by marketing, but rather by how true the product is to its promise. And that means marketers who make product decisions based on market numbers are wrong and so are the investment decisions derived from market analyses.

Be ready for the swing test

Macro-economics really matter as it defines whether you have a chance of making it big, but not without careful micro-economic fulfillment. As an entrepreneur "dating" the right investor you need to be prepared for the swing test that goes roughly as follows:

Explain the vision, explain the product experience, explain the business model, explain the technology, explain the scalability, explain the product requirements, etc. etc. going back and forth between macro and micro until the swing comes to a halt with no questions left unanswered. Now, investor and entrepreneur have a common understanding of the risks involved for the road ahead.

A new investment focus

As experienced technologists we know we have many technology options to support a macro-economic need, and technology development is the least of our risks. The real question is whether the application of technology makes acute macro-economic sense. And surprisingly enough and again in agreement with Buffett, macro-economically we are not much different from a hundred years ago.

We like to play music, iTunes anyone? We like to stay connected, Facebook anyone? We enjoy free-trade, eBay anyone? Many other macro-economic desires remain unfulfilled with technology. Opportunity abound.

Fulfilling support for that macro-economic need is what Venture Capital should be all about. And it will again when we as Limited Partners tell the referees (the VCs) that the rules for investing have changed. That our expectations for VC are to chase macro-economic impact, rather than to allow the mindless technology herding to continue.

Endless opportunity for great returns

Supporting existing macro-economics with a more meaningful technology experience that meets the needs of 5/6th of the worlds population, that still does not use a meaningful internet application, makes for a fantastic and highly scalable investment thesis. One that we should allocate more-not-less money to as Limited Partners.

But we need to change our tune, now, before it all comes crashing down on us.

Tags: VC, Innovation, Marketing, Marketplace, Business Model, Investment

By Georges van Hoegaerden

*** Update: The Prelude to 2010: The State of Venture Capital is now available for public viewing on this site here ***

I am close to finishing up a brand new presentation on The State of Venture Capital going into 2010. This presentation contains the new compass for Limited Partners interested to (continue to) invest in Venture Capital. It is written in a language Limited Partners can understand.

This presentation is ready for deployment on January 3rd, 2010 and geared to Limited Partners and equally useful to Venture Capitalists who want to stay in business. Much of the underlying arguments can be found throughout my blog, yet this presentation - for the first time - stitches many of those arguments together in a succinct action plan that withstands economic aberrations.

For those interested, please fill in the form on the contact page and select 2010: State of Venture Capital. Enter valid contact information and an e-mail address so you can be contacted for further instructions on how to receive the presentation.

What this presentation is not:

• This is not another numbers deck: clearly not everything that can be counted, can be counted on...
• This is not yet another self-written report card from venture capital lobbyists
• This is not a blind prayer for hope of a better future

What this presentation contains:

• This is an honest reflection of the effectiveness of Venture Capital from the point of view of a successful entrepreneur; first hand observations
• This is a top-down analysis of the Venture ecosystem for Limited Partners
• This is a plan of how to re-architect and re-commit to Venture Capital

Happy Holidays!

Tags: Limited Partners, VC

By Georges van Hoegaerden

And socialism without merit is a lie too, a hollow lie. So do not even try to juxtapose capitalism and socialism here, not the point. Neither is the "rich" man's black-or-white argument that the mere thought of criticizing capitalism defaults into sudden socialism.

Putting our economies in a box is the last thing we should be doing, it separates us further in an increasingly global marketplace that requires the opposite. The real issue here is how to revive our economy, knowing we have powerful capitalistic assets and an unending innovative drive in our back pocket.

We need to be ready to challenge the status quo, let go (yet not discard) of the past and endure the rigor of change if we want to prevent the bottom from falling out from under our economy or face worse in ten years from now. Hope is not a strategy, change is. So, hang in there with me to redefine economic change.

The Lies We Tell Ourselves

We cannot change our economy for the better if we keep lying. And as a former leader of this country has proven, reiterating lies do not make them come true. The biggest lie is that we claim that we are more free than any other country in the world. As a polyglot immigrant I can refute that argument flat out, that is if we use the same definition of "free".

Freedom is the foundation of free-markets that ensures that every willing-and-able participant can become an integral building block of our economy. While there will never be total freedom, the lies we tell ourselves prevent even rudimentary freedom from taking hold.

Our Freedom Is a Lie

Freedom is not your compliance to your boss's expectation to dress-up to go to work every day, nor your inability to challenge his leadership for fear of losing your job, health insurance, pension contribution and other financial perks.

Freedom is also not a financial system eleven times the size of production that turns running a company into a Las Vegas gamble, demanding a focus on investors that precedes and overshadows the needs of customers. Freedom is also not an aging stock exchange (copied around the world) that promotes the financial agenda of short sellers and forces companies to adopt a short term agenda, rather than to build long term sustainability (or however the company prefers to be measured).

Freedom is not the inability to really say or write what you want, for fear of retribution from a bulging legal system that makes it so easy to file bogus claims, such as defamation of character. Freedom is also not our cunning ability to segregate the rich from the poor, the native americans (in today's indian reservations) from the rest, or blacks from whites (I should know, I am part of an interracial family).

I can go on for a while, but I think you are getting my point. We are lying.

The Freedom To Abuse Freedom

Just because all 400 million of us live in the same country, does not mean we enjoy the same freedom. Many of us are disenfranchised by freedom; the freedom to abuse freedom and to create whatever walled gardens are needed to keep others out. And that is the freedom I am so against.

Our Government's Delicate Role

We cannot really blame Apple that it signed an exclusive arrangement for the iPhone on AT&T's network to yield focus and produce higher margins, but it is the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) fault, asleep at the wheel that allowed device-to-network locking before the iPhone was even conceived (device locking was contrary to what the GSM standard was designed to do; I was free to use and roam my european GSM phone on any european network more than 20 years ago).

We cannot blame public companies to drive a short term strategy, as the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has implicitly dictated that a string of positive quarterly earnings reports are the predominant way to measure company performance and respectively its CEO. And we should not be surprised that a temporal decline in revenues is then quickly followed by staff reductions to make those quarterly numbers still look good on paper. Are quarterly earnings really an accurate reflection of company performance for a company that has been in business for twenty years or more?

We also cannot really blame Venture Capitalists (VCs) for taking advantage of the blind faith (and now delayed response) from Limited Partners if the SEC continues to treat participants and investments in private companies as under-the-table transactions, hiding important transparency from marketplace participants.

Cure the Disease, Not the Symptoms

But the delicate role of our government is not to regulate the symptoms but to prevent the disease. It is impossible for government to keep tabs on the impurities of symptoms in all marketplaces, but rather it should aggressively work towards enforcing the definition of free-market principles to each domain that poses what it deems a direct or indirect systemic risk to our economy (I can think of about ten depending on granularity, possibly all boiling down to a single driver: our financial systems).

I do not want our government to tell banks how to describe their interest rates to customers, but I do want our government to require banks to file and freeze (for a certain period) their lending terms in a central database, so its customers can query a single website to get the rates from the bank that meet their needs.

The role of government is to establish the marketplace principles, not to establish what is merit. The marketplace participants will sort the latter out quickly.

Relevant Transparency Builds Merit

Transparency is becoming a buzz-word and similar to the buzz-word "experience" means nothing without the preceding adjective relevant. What is relevant is that all participants have immediate access to the transparency of marketplace transactions (between supply and demand) in order for that marketplace to be driven by merit. And that means that the performance of marketplace participants is measured solely by the nature of their unique offering in the marketplace, not a complex myriad of stifling walled gardens and derivatives.

The beauty of relevant transparency is that all marketplace participants become watchdogs. That the signals of impropriety are detected instantaneously by many rather than by a few who choose to pay attention. That must be the reason why the Romans preferred a flock of geese over a single dog to protect their property.

Economic Growth is Defined by the Merit of Marketplace Transactions

No longer will merit be built by the posturing and decibel marketing of the supply side of a marketplace, that without transparency can make virtually any claims it wants. Merit will also not be built by the endless expression of desires from the demand side. What creates economic growth is the merit of the completed transactions between unrestricted supply and unrestricted demand.

So, to come full circle on our financial systems; our stock exchange needs to evolve into a free-market. Where the supply of stock will reflect the strategy by-and-of the company (not by the bourse), and the purchasing of stock is based on investors buying into that strategy. Venture Capital needs to change from a closed market to a free-market in which the transparency allows Limited Partners and entrepreneurs to find VCs who have the merit to pick, build and monetize truly groundbreaking innovation.

Free Ourselves and The Rest Will Follow

Relevant transparency builds free-market principles that leads to merit, in every economic circumstance.

Relevant transparency of our education system will improve the much needed individual merit of teachers and the individual opportunities for children. Relevant transparency of our financial system will improve the merit of investors and the innovative companies they spawn.

Relevant transparency of our economy will improve the opportunity for all people with merit. And all people do have merit. Many people, stifled by the constriction of artificial marketplaces have simply not discovered it yet. Opening up our marketplaces to become more free will allow each participant to discover and hone their own merit and produce better customer value.

The world will be a much better place when every person can participate and validate their own intrinsic merit in a thriving marketplace. So, let's stop lying and demonstrate to the world what real freedom looks like.

Tags: Meritocracy, Entrepreneurs, Free-market, Marketplace, Transparency, Innovation, Government, Wall-Street, Apple, IPhone, Limited Partners, VC, AT&T, Securities

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I saw an article a few days ago from an enthusiastic young General Partner (GP) declaring that "Venture is Back" and it reminded me how frighteningly naive some people in the venture business are.

A naiveté that gives entrepreneurs (and Limited Partners) false hope. And we do not need more false promises in the venture business.

Believe me, I want nothing more than to leave this horrible decennium of venture behind and start a new one afresh, but I cannot get excited about the mere sound of a spinning engine that gets the car rocking back and forth. Frankly, the car is still stuck in the sand with spring breakers drinking the kool-aid and cheering it on.

Spinning the wrong wheels

I too see the statistics on the venture pace going up and down and depending on whose reporting of an in-transparent venture business you believe, you can pick your pill of the day.

But how fast Venture Capitalists spin their wheels is irrelevant to the performance of the venture business. And even how many deals are done and how many exits are produced is irrelevant. Short of any transparency in the venture business those metrics are poor derivatives to report on its ups and downs.

What matters is fund returns

But what really matters to Limited Partners is how much money goes into the VC fund and how much comes out at vintage (after the 7-10 year life-cycle of the fund). Only a fund return that outscores any other asset class a Limited Partner (LP) invests in, can count on receiving continued commitments that add to the growth of the venture sector. And the venture sector is far from growing.

Why venture remains broken

There are much more fundamental reasons as to why in the years between 9/11 and the economic crisis of 2009 venture funds have not shown dramatically better performance while the wind was blowing in the sails of VC who had their LP commitments lined up (see how we counter the hope-and-pray philosophy).

Here is my top 3:

- Flawed deployment of risk

The majority of VCs today rely solely on what I call "technology grazing" as the method to extract greater business value. While that not only reduces potential upside it also deploys a flawed risk profile to the creation of early stage companies.

Venture Capital has died and resurfaced as micro-PE (Private Equity) that deploys an inappropriate risk model to innovations that are supposed to set the world on fire. To the many VC funds larger than $100M, chasing companies that have access to less than $1B in monolithic revenue opportunity and less than a $300M exit opportunity is simply a waste of time.

But the GPs have done so in droves anyway, because God forbid if they would have to give money back to LPs unable to find truly disruptive innovation and forego some of their management fees.

- Too many cooks who can't cook

The vast majority of VCs in the venture business today have never themselves crossed the chasm that would allow them to find the outliers and arbitrate innovation accurately. While GPs in Private Equity may get away with rudimentary skills to accelerate growth, the venture sector relies on specialist GP skills to turn early ideas into highly relevant innovations.

And even then, outliers are usually detected by outliers themselves, not by people who merely followed an educational trajectory cum laude. From a dissection of their bios on their websites you will find the evidence that most General Partners have no merit in judging how and when an early stage company should make the transition from an early adopter to a mass market and with what kind of an investment.

Experienced entrepreneurs are like discerning food lovers, they have a choice and stay away from bad restaurants.

- Endless diversification without accountability

Excessive multi-level diversification does not work and leads to more fog than clarity of purpose. Everyone and everything becomes a derivative, with no line-of-sight to accountability.

First the LPs diversify their risk by deploying a mere 10-15% to alternative assets (which includes venture, relying on other assets to produce the majority of LP returns), then they diversify to commitments in a multitude of venture firms, who then diversify into multiple funds, that then diversify to multiple GPs, who then diversify in multiple startups, who then diversify investments in multiple rounds, and then syndicate with multiple VC peers.

Hence my reference to a venture soup. And the asset holders, LPs and entrepreneurs are not liking the way it tastes.

The real fix

The underperformance in venture is similar to the car driving in the sand with the wrong tires and without locking differentials. The size of the engine (VC fund) does not matter, nor does it matter how fast you sped away on other roads. Only the way you apply the power to the current surface does. And so what matters is to what risk the moneys of a VC fund are applied.

So, unless the VC funds are setup and mandated to chase different risk, I do not expect to see any positive sustainable change in venture performance.

Yes, macro-economic confidence will increase investment pace and even improve the pace of mergers and acquisitions, but as long as we keep filling the pipe with sub-prime investments, we will not see more than sub-prime returns. We simply keep producing insufficient innovative disruption to significantly outpace other prime LP asset classes.

Over the next couple of months our government should instill free-market principles to the financial industry that through transparency can expose the real merit of investors in the venture business. But before that each individual LP can make immediate changes to their VC commitments now, to stave off the lingering curse of subprime VC.

The good news is that the future of the venture business is solely in the hands of the LPs, who by virtue of more discretionary VC selection are able to enthuse the outliers of innovation who, because they have more options, are currently patiently lying in wait.

Tags: Limited Partners, VC, Transparency, Disruption, Assets, Diversification